"Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery (Mp3)
Will Dockery
>
> <snip>
>
> If 'active support' just means not treating such a person as a thief
> (theft here including plagiarism), then I'm sorry; until I'm convinced
> that someone is a thief, I'm not going to treat him or her as one. It
> doesn't take that much to convince me, but just having someone else,
> from a different 'alignment', say that is not sufficient for -
> especially when that "alignment" is declaring at the same time that
> I'm a thief and a plagiarist myself. (Which details I won't rehash
> here.)
How do you feel about photographs of poets used without permission
(stolen), pasted on likewise stolen porno images, then used on
websites hosted by the "creator" of these works for months, then
hosted by PJR himself for months, perhaps even now somewhere?
How do you feel about someone taking a complete poem, recording it,
then posting the Mp3 on his website, without any credit to the poet
who created it?
PJR applauded and defended both of these acts of copyright
infringement/theft.
Very /acrive support/.
Here's some of the details on the theft of my "Karma Bombs" poem, in
exchange with the thief Michael Cook, where he denies "stealing" and
posting one of my poems, "Karma Bombs":
http://www.lulu.com/content/32109
... he wrote that he only
"borrowed" it..:
----
From: Will Dockery
Subject: "Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery [Mp3]
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.pagan, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 14:36:49 PST
>From "Karma Bombs. by Will Dockery" read by Michael Cook:
http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info/images/Karma%20Bombs.mp3
Message 2 in thread
From: Michael Cook (mdcook...@ameritech.net)
Subject: Re: "Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery [Mp3]
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.pagan, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 15:24:03 PST
"Will Dockery" wrote in message
news:3fe777da$1...@news1.knology.net...
> From "Karma Bombs. by Will Dockery" read by Michael Cook:
> http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info/images/Karma%20Bombs.mp3
>
You hapless dullard!
One, you are stealing my bandwidth.
I'd rather you just took the recording
and post it to your own server.
(i only have 368 up)
Two, the voice is computer generated
mdc
Message 3 in thread
From: Will Dockery (irony...@knology.net)
Subject: Re: "Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery [Mp3]
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.pagan, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 15:37:31 PST
"Michael Cook" wrote
> > From "Karma Bombs. by Will Dockery" read by Michael Cook:
> > http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info/images/Karma%20Bombs.mp3
> >
> >
> You hapless dullard!
> One, you are stealing my bandwidth.
Hey! You "stole" my copyrighted poem! I prefer to think of it as a
"cover", and on my Lulu.com release, you get full credit.
> I'd rather you just took the recording
> and post it to your own server.
> (i only have 368 up)
This has been done, more-or-less. What music do *you* envision for
the
poem? We'll create our own, similar to the one already performed, but
I'm
curious about what you'd come up with:
http://www.lulu.com/content/32109
> Two, the voice is computer generated
> mdc
I knew that, of course, but I think it's kind of fun to go into the
Google archives with *another* "Collaboration with Michael Cook... by
the way,
when will you be putting the "Oz" photo-story back up, at least long
enough
for me to copy/paste it to a more permanent site?
Will
Message 4 in thread
From: Michael Cook (cook36...@ameritech.net)
Subject: Re: "Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery [Mp3]
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.pagan, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 16:00:54 PST
"Will Dockery" wrote in message
>
> Hey! You "stole" my copyrighted poem! I prefer to think of it as a
"cover",
> and on my Lulu.com release, you get full credit.
As the recording clearly demonstrates, a poem I did not steal,
only borrowed
----
This was years ago, clearly showing Michael Cook has a habit of
"borrowing" [translation: stealing] copyrighted poetry, images and
other works created by other hands, to call his own, elsewhere in the
archives there are countless moments of PJR applauding Cook for his
thefts, copyright infringements and plagiarisms, meanwhile making such
hypocritical statements as this one, when his agenda calls for it:
"Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame war in
which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with Tommy
because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects *all*
of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to be
ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
-Peter J. Ross on copyright theft/net abuse.
Of course PJR won't be able to respond to this since he's no doubt
pretendig to have me killfiled... heh.
--
"Wobble" by Dockery & Conley (recorded August 14 2007):http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVIF2-qWIUc
"Dream Tears" by Dockery & Mallard:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
Amadeus Jinn
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1188833859....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 2, 6:35 pm, George Dance wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> If 'active support' just means not treating such a person as a thief
>> (theft here including plagiarism), then I'm sorry; until I'm convinced
>> that someone is a thief, I'm not going to treat him or her as one. It
>> doesn't take that much to convince me, but just having someone else,
>> from a different 'alignment', say that is not sufficient for -
>> especially when that "alignment" is declaring at the same time that
>> I'm a thief and a plagiarist myself. (Which details I won't rehash
>> here.)
>
> How do you feel about photographs of poets used without permission
> (stolen), pasted on likewise stolen porno images, then used on
> websites hosted by the "creator" of these works for months, then
> hosted by PJR himself for months, perhaps even now somewhere?
I keep telling you that sexual harassment is a far easier cause of action,
and can easily win a judgment of 10's of thousands. What????
To falsely allege gayness and produce a pic the smears me (and chuck)
for years. This fuckers can't do that anymore. Not without sleazing around
the ISPs, but worse, they can't take credit and get their kook award.
>
> How do you feel about someone taking a complete poem, recording it,
> then posting the Mp3 on his website, without any credit to the poet
> who created it?
That is copyright infringement. Follows copyright laws.
If you registered within 3 months you might sue mikey,
but given the $0 nature of it, seems a losing case.
Sexual harassment is a slam-dunk, in comparison.
Courts like a single "cause of action".
But Will, you cain't sue mikey. mikey lives in a ghetto.
>
> PJR applauded and defended both of these acts of copyright
> infringement/theft.
Of course he did. Ruining poetry with his kooks.
>
> Very /acrive support/.
>
> Here's some of the details on the theft of my "Karma Bombs" poem, in
> exchange with the thief Michael Cook, where he denies "stealing" and
> posting one of my poems, "Karma Bombs":
>
> http://www.lulu.com/content/32109
>
> ... he wrote that he only
> "borrowed" it..:
Yeah, sure. mikey is a ghetto-moron.
You still couldn't sue him. He made no money.
He didn't attempt to sell it. Why not chill.
(BTW: I'm pissed at the harassment)
It was clearly worse than anything I've ever done
but the courts want money. mikey has none.
Just look at where he lives, Will.
You just cain't sue people in ghettos. Just cain't.
Even in "pro per" you would need to physically go
to mikey's area more than once. Discovery, pre-trial,
trial, etc. You couldn't afford the busfare, not to mention
the time off. Whatever you can't do with ISPs is
water under the bridge.
> ----
>
> This was years ago, clearly showing Michael Cook has a habit of
> "borrowing" [translation: stealing] copyrighted poetry, images and
> other works created by other hands, to call his own, elsewhere in the
> archives there are countless moments of PJR applauding Cook for his
> thefts, copyright infringements and plagiarisms, meanwhile making such
> hypocritical statements as this one, when his agenda calls for it:
>
> "Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame war in
> which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with Tommy
> because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects *all*
> of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to be
> ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
> -Peter J. Ross on copyright theft/net abuse.
peter has always been a talentless whiner. The brits must have their
head up their ass on copyrights -- vs. America (the beautiful).
>
> Of course PJR won't be able to respond to this since he's no doubt
> pretendig to have me killfiled... heh.
He's off trolling somewhere.
Will Dockery
> "Will Dockery" wrote
> > On Sep 2, 6:35 pm, George Dance wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> If 'active support' just means not treating such a person as a thief
> >> (theft here including plagiarism), then I'm sorry; until I'm convinced
> >> that someone is a thief, I'm not going to treat him or her as one. It
> >> doesn't take that much to convince me, but just having someone else,
> >> from a different 'alignment', say that is not sufficient for -
> >> especially when that "alignment" is declaring at the same time that
> >> I'm a thief and a plagiarist myself. (Which details I won't rehash
> >> here.)
>
> > How do you feel about photographs of poets used without permission
> > (stolen), pasted on likewise stolen porno images, then used on
> > websites hosted by the "creator" of these works for months, then
> > hosted by PJR himself for months, perhaps even now somewhere?
>
> I keep telling you that sexual harassment is a far easier cause of action,
> and can easily win a judgment of 10's of thousands. What????
> To falsely allege gayness and produce a pic the smears me (and chuck)
> for years. This fuckers can't do that anymore. Not without sleazing around
> the ISPs, but worse, they can't take credit and get their kook award.
>
> > How do you feel about someone taking a complete poem, recording it,
> > then posting the Mp3 on his website, without any credit to the poet
> > who created it?
>
> That is copyright infringement. Follows copyright laws.
> If you registered within 3 months you might sue mikey,
Either way, Cook eventually took it down.
> but given the $0 nature of it, seems a losing case.
> Sexual harassment is a slam-dunk, in comparison.
> Courts like a single "cause of action".
> But Will, you cain't sue mikey. mikey lives in a ghetto.
Lives?
Are we sure the thieving little scumbag is even alive?
> > PJR applauded and defended both of these acts of copyright
> > infringement/theft.
>
> Of course he did. Ruining poetry with his kooks.
And even hosted the images on one of his sites, right?
> > Very /active support/.
>
> > Here's some of the details on the theft of my "Karma Bombs" poem, in
> > exchange with the thief Michael Cook, where he denies "stealing" and
> > posting one of my poems, "Karma Bombs":
>
> >http://www.lulu.com/content/32109
>
> > ... he wrote that he only
> > "borrowed" it..:
>
> Yeah, sure. mikey is a ghetto-moron.
> You still couldn't sue him. He made no money.
> He didn't attempt to sell it. Why not chill.
> (BTW: I'm pissed at the harassment)
> It was clearly worse than anything I've ever done
> but the courts want money. mikey has none.
> Just look at where he lives, Will.
> You just cain't sue people in ghettos. Just cain't.
> Even in "pro per" you would need to physically go
> to mikey's area more than once. Discovery, pre-trial,
> trial, etc. You couldn't afford the busfare, not to mention
> the time off.
Not to mention the 1000s for a Detroit lawyer... Mike Cook seems long
gone, anyhow.
Amadeus Jinn
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1188838578.2...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Drat... :)
>
>> but given the $0 nature of it, seems a losing case.
>> Sexual harassment is a slam-dunk, in comparison.
>> Courts like a single "cause of action".
>> But Will, you cain't sue mikey. mikey lives in a ghetto.
>
> Lives?
>
> Are we sure the thieving little scumbag is even alive?
>
>> > PJR applauded and defended both of these acts of copyright
>> > infringement/theft.
>>
>> Of course he did. Ruining poetry with his kooks.
>
> And even hosted the images on one of his sites, right?
petitmorte, or something.
>
>> > Very /active support/.
>>
>> > Here's some of the details on the theft of my "Karma Bombs" poem, in
>> > exchange with the thief Michael Cook, where he denies "stealing" and
>> > posting one of my poems, "Karma Bombs":
>>
>> >http://www.lulu.com/content/32109
>>
>> > ... he wrote that he only
>> > "borrowed" it..:
>>
>> Yeah, sure. mikey is a ghetto-moron.
>> You still couldn't sue him. He made no money.
>> He didn't attempt to sell it. Why not chill.
>> (BTW: I'm pissed at the harassment)
>> It was clearly worse than anything I've ever done
>> but the courts want money. mikey has none.
>> Just look at where he lives, Will.
>> You just cain't sue people in ghettos. Just cain't.
>> Even in "pro per" you would need to physically go
>> to mikey's area more than once. Discovery, pre-trial,
>> trial, etc. You couldn't afford the busfare, not to mention
>> the time off.
>
> Not to mention the 1000s for a Detroit lawyer... Mike Cook seems long
> gone, anyhow.
Exactly. Think how much money someone would have to make.
Make sure to register early. Make sure the money is available
or garnishable (which has limitations).
With mikey you can't use legal measures until he harasses.
Heh...
Will Dockery
Of course he did, since we /all/ know Cook was at core a frightened,
threatened little no-talent man.
The most interesting thing about him and his thefts is the
encouragement and support he recieved from so many here for his thefts
and defamations, from PJR to Uncle Hammes to Karla.
Even those who ballyhoo the creator's rights and nitpick any percieved
copyright infringement (Rik Roots), supported Michael Cook's thefts
and plagiarisms by ignoring them... exposing his blatant hypocrisy.
> >> but given the $0 nature of it, seems a losing case.
> >> Sexual harassment is a slam-dunk, in comparison.
> >> Courts like a single "cause of action".
> >> But Will, you cain't sue mikey. mikey lives in a ghetto.
>
> > Lives?
>
> > Are we sure the thieving little scumbag is even alive?
>
> >> > PJR applauded and defended both of these acts of copyright
> >> > infringement/theft.
>
> >> Of course he did. Ruining poetry with his kooks.
>
> > And even hosted the images on one of his sites, right?
>
> petitmorte, or something.
And PJR /dared/ you to do anything about his stealing and thievery of
your photograph/intellectual property, iirc.
But as Karla explained, lying and stealing is "okay" when flaming and
trolling... her quotes on this are archived, and pretty recent.
> >> > Very /active support/.
>
> >> > Here's some of the details on the theft of my "Karma Bombs" poem, in
> >> > exchange with the thief Michael Cook, where he denies "stealing" and
> >> > posting one of my poems, "Karma Bombs":
>
> >> >http://www.lulu.com/content/32109
>
> >> > ... he wrote that he only
> >> > "borrowed" it..:
>
> >> Yeah, sure. mikey is a ghetto-moron.
> >> You still couldn't sue him. He made no money.
> >> He didn't attempt to sell it. Why not chill.
> >> (BTW: I'm pissed at the harassment)
> >> It was clearly worse than anything I've ever done
> >> but the courts want money. mikey has none.
> >> Just look at where he lives, Will.
> >> You just cain't sue people in ghettos. Just cain't.
> >> Even in "pro per" you would need to physically go
> >> to mikey's area more than once. Discovery, pre-trial,
> >> trial, etc. You couldn't afford the busfare, not to mention
> >> the time off.
>
> > Not to mention the 1000s for a Detroit lawyer... Mike Cook seems long
> > gone, anyhow.
>
> Exactly. Think how much money someone would have to make.
Yeah, hopefully if someone steals a song or a poem they have a name
like "Disney", "Sony" or "RCA"...
> Make sure to register early. Make sure the money is available
> or garnishable (which has limitations).
>
> With mikey you can't use legal measures until he harasses.
>
> Heh...
Cook would have to turn over his crack rock and maybe even his pipe.
There's a good chance someone whacked him in Real Life... remember
when he bragged he was making videos of the comings and goings of the
crackdealing pimp next door to him in the housing project?
Amadeus Jinn
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1188854514.5...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
You noticed.
>
> Even those who ballyhoo the creator's rights and nitpick any percieved
> copyright infringement (Rik Roots), supported Michael Cook's thefts
> and plagiarisms by ignoring them... exposing his blatant hypocrisy.
Their hatred got the best of them.
Perhaps not enough cheeze packets. :)
>
>> >> but given the $0 nature of it, seems a losing case.
>> >> Sexual harassment is a slam-dunk, in comparison.
>> >> Courts like a single "cause of action".
>> >> But Will, you cain't sue mikey. mikey lives in a ghetto.
>>
>> > Lives?
>>
>> > Are we sure the thieving little scumbag is even alive?
>>
>> >> > PJR applauded and defended both of these acts of copyright
>> >> > infringement/theft.
>>
>> >> Of course he did. Ruining poetry with his kooks.
>>
>> > And even hosted the images on one of his sites, right?
>>
>> petitmorte, or something.
>
> And PJR /dared/ you to do anything about his stealing and thievery of
> your photograph/intellectual property, iirc.
god Will, it would firstly be considered sexual harassment and
be dealt with in county courts. Copyrights are dealt with in federal court.
>
> But as Karla explained, lying and stealing is "okay" when flaming and
> trolling... her quotes on this are archived, and pretty recent.
mikey and peter were seemingly LARTed, but won't
tell the tale.
>
>> >> > Very /active support/.
>>
>> >> > Here's some of the details on the theft of my "Karma Bombs" poem, in
>> >> > exchange with the thief Michael Cook, where he denies "stealing" and
>> >> > posting one of my poems, "Karma Bombs":
>>
>> >> >http://www.lulu.com/content/32109
>>
>> >> > ... he wrote that he only
>> >> > "borrowed" it..:
>>
>> >> Yeah, sure. mikey is a ghetto-moron.
>> >> You still couldn't sue him. He made no money.
>> >> He didn't attempt to sell it. Why not chill.
>> >> (BTW: I'm pissed at the harassment)
>> >> It was clearly worse than anything I've ever done
>> >> but the courts want money. mikey has none.
>> >> Just look at where he lives, Will.
>> >> You just cain't sue people in ghettos. Just cain't.
>> >> Even in "pro per" you would need to physically go
>> >> to mikey's area more than once. Discovery, pre-trial,
>> >> trial, etc. You couldn't afford the busfare, not to mention
>> >> the time off.
>>
>> > Not to mention the 1000s for a Detroit lawyer... Mike Cook seems long
>> > gone, anyhow.
>>
>> Exactly. Think how much money someone would have to make.
>
> Yeah, hopefully if someone steals a song or a poem they have a name
> like "Disney", "Sony" or "RCA"...
Right.... :)
>
>> Make sure to register early. Make sure the money is available
>> or garnishable (which has limitations).
>>
>> With mikey you can't use legal measures until he harasses.
>>
>> Heh...
>
> Cook would have to turn over his crack rock and maybe even his pipe.
>
> There's a good chance someone whacked him in Real Life... remember
> when he bragged he was making videos of the comings and goings of the
> crackdealing pimp next door to him in the housing project?
Wasn't me... :)
Will Dockery
Hard to miss, since they also encouraged the little scumbag to steal
my video... sometimes it looks like they were encouraging him for the
laughs at how far over the top the little man would go.
Here's another illiterate threat from Michael Cook in which he
stupidly threatens to steal my copyrighted video, right here on public
Usenet:
----
From: Michael Cook (coo...@NOSPAMcomcast.net)
Subject: Re: Lord Byron's Swagger [Doc's credits]
View: Complete Thread (113 articles)
Date: 2005-03-11 23:35:50 PST
you have two choices
admit you lied and apologize, pay the bill
for the work YOU ordered for the video,
or the video is mine, that simple.
you opened your lying filthy mouth and now I'm going to collect
and do reply that you understand and not with the bullshit
you pass out to the rubes, you fucked up cock sucker.
you know what you did,
Now make good or the shit is mine for nonpayment
don't like it? sue me
And:
From: Michael Cook (coo...@NOSPAMcomcast.net)
Subject: Re: Lord Byron's Swagger [Doc's credits]
View: Complete Thread (87 articles)
Date: 2005-03-11 23:53:45 PST
> Michael Cook wrote:
>> "Will Dockery" wrote in message
>> news:1110612374....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> you have two choices
>> admit you lied and apologize, pay the bill
>> for the work YOU ordered for the video,
>> or the video is mine, that simple.
>>
>> you opened your lying filthy mouth and now I'm going to collect
>
Why you fucked in the head drug addict!
You requested I put credits on the VIDEO,
I did, then you had the fucking gall to drag your sick, whiney ass
around accusing me of NOT putting them on, and then of theft!
NOW, you have two choices either pay up or apologize
If not I'll have a copyright notice on it by tomorrow
and a DMCA complaint filed with every site that hosts MY
Video.
Now set the bottle aside, get you nose out of the crack
And think back, then look at the video (that is if you can play it)
Then gather all your remaining brain cells and try to recall the lies
you posted
Then..
Then apologize.
End of story, end of conversation.
mdc
----
Of course, the crusading defender of creators and copyright, Rik
Roots, claims to have missed all this... interesting, since he never
seems to miss a beat when it comes to pointing out crimes like this,
otherwise.
> > Even those who ballyhoo the creator's rights and nitpick any percieved
> > copyright infringement (Rik Roots), supported Michael Cook's thefts
> > and plagiarisms by ignoring them... exposing his blatant hypocrisy.
>
> Their hatred got the best of them.
Their Cook spolied the broth.
> Perhaps not enough cheeze packets. :)
>
> >> >> but given the $0 nature of it, seems a losing case.
> >> >> Sexual harassment is a slam-dunk, in comparison.
> >> >> Courts like a single "cause of action".
> >> >> But Will, you cain't sue mikey. mikey lives in a ghetto.
>
> >> > Lives?
>
> >> > Are we sure the thieving little scumbag is even alive?
>
> >> >> > PJR applauded and defended both of these acts of copyright
> >> >> > infringement/theft.
>
> >> >> Of course he did. Ruining poetry with his kooks.
>
> >> > And even hosted the images on one of his sites, right?
>
> >> petitmorte, or something.
>
> > And PJR /dared/ you to do anything about his stealing and thievery of
> > your photograph/intellectual property, iirc.
>
> god Will, it would firstly be considered sexual harassment and
> be dealt with in county courts. Copyrights are dealt with in federal court.
So Cook gets off because he's poverty stricken, on welfare, living in
a Detroit housing project.
What about PJR, who presents himself as a "man of wealth and taste"?
Something about him hiding safely in England apparently makes bringing
him up for being a sexually harrassing thief makes it too difficult to
choke a few bucks (pounds) off of him for his confessed (and bragged
about) crimes?
> > But as Karla explained, lying and stealing is "okay" when flaming and
> > trolling... her quotes on this are archived, and pretty recent.
>
> mikey and peter were seemingly LARTed, but won't
> tell the tale.
Heh... explains PJR's bitter whining over "stealing", I quess...
And if the lowly creator can prove he created the work was srolen from
him by one of these big guys (as the family of the creator of Superman
has with the later Superboy, he offered it to DC and they turned it
down, later bringing it out a couple years later without paying him),
then the jackpot comes, logically.
But you're right, though the copyright law states that a work is
insrantly copyrighted as soon as the creator puts the work "in fixed
form", it later goes on to state that /registration/ is important in
getting the maximum $$$ damages.
Without a /registered/ copyright it seems questionable if /any/ $$$
will be awarded.
And, yeah there is the time limit given for registration, as you
argued that Karla missed with "April".
But... the judge decided that Seigal was right and DC was wrong on
Superboy, and all JS had was that he had /created/ the character/
story, while DC had and has fully paid up copyright and trademark
registration... this is speculated why Clark kent is never called
"Superboy" in Smallville, and that the show is called Smallville
rather than "Superboy", and in the comix he's refered to now as Young
Superman.
Interesting stuff.
> >> Make sure to register early. Make sure the money is available
> >> or garnishable (which has limitations).
>
> >> With mikey you can't use legal measures until he harasses.
>
> >> Heh...
>
> > Cook would have to turn over his crack rock and maybe even his pipe.
>
> > There's a good chance someone whacked him in Real Life... remember
> > when he bragged he was making videos of the comings and goings of the
> > crackdealing pimp next door to him in the housing project?
>
> Wasn't me... :)
Why bother?
The man lives (lived) in a cracktown ghetto, Cook risks his life just
waking up in the morning.
Will Dockery
>
> So you think that a theft that lasts for hours rather than days isn't
> really a theft.
Seems to have been your line of thinking when your friend Michael Cook
was stealing on a regular basis, PJR... and his thefts lasted for
months in multiple cases.
"Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery, stolen by Michael Cook for hours, days,
months:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22karma+bombs%22+%22michael+cook%22&btnG=Search
--
"Wobble" by Dockery & Conley (recorded August 14 2007):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVIF2-qWIUc
"Dream Tears" by Dockery & Mallard:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
On Sep 3, 5:28 pm, "Amadeus Jinn" wrote:
> "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 2:33 pm, Rik Roots wrote:
> >> Little Tommy Tosser quothed:
>
> >> > Every literary work (and there is much that isn't, like Dale's
> >> > Usenet postings are not literary works, legally) published
> >> > in a tangible medium gives its author (or owner) copyright protection.
> >> > This protection is limited in time and many other ways.
> >> > "Fair use", phrases and ideas are never copyrightable, etc.
> >> > For copyrights to mean anything but whining you must sue.
> >> > You couldn't possibly, but you think absolute control
> >> > is what you have.
>
> >> 'Fair use' is a process, by the way. Any literary work that makes use of
> >> other material - in accordance with the principles of fair use - is
> >> protected by copyright. Of course your interpretation of 'fair use', and
> >> everybody else's understanding of the term, have never overlapped
>
> > "fair use" is pretty complicated, as a thread on the ongoing dispute
> > over who owns Superboy touches on in the DC comix newsgroup
> > interestingly shows:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.comics.dc.universe/browse_frm...
>
> You are talking about people that battle over money.
> My case has a /terribly hurt/ Usenet wannabe suing me.
I'm talking about a creator owning the property he created, and being
able to back it up with a registration in the Library Of Congress.
> > While most of it deals with copyright and trademark, here's one
> > section that shows even "fair use" on satire and parody can be
> > successfully challenged:
>
> >http://www.deathbycopyright.ca/index.php?/archives/19-The-Cat-NOT-in-...
>
> > Cat in the Hat Parody Infringes on Seuss
> > By Robin D. Gross
> > November 1997
> > In a recent Ninth Circuit case, Judge O'Scannlain reaffirmed a
> > circuit
> > court's ruling holding that a poetic account of the O.J. Simpson
> > double murder trial entitled, "The Cat NOT in the Hat! A parody by
> > Dr. Juice," infringed the copyright and trademark rights of the
> > earlier work, "The Cat in the Hat by Dr.Seuss" (a.k.a. Theodore
> > Geisel).
>
> That page said it was a settlement. No completion of a case.
> But you say not... Whatever...
> It was the hat, and not the words that killed it.
> Should have just killed the hat picture.
Mad Magazine got away with using the hat.
> > Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA involved a case about a
> > book written by the fictional "Dr. Juice". The book depicts O.J.
> > Simpson, wearing the Cat in the Hat's distinctive red and white
> > striped stove-pipe hat, holding a bloody glove, and narrating a
> > rhyming whimsical version of the Simpson murder trial with verses
> > such
> > as, "A man this famous/Never hires/Lawyers like/Jacoby Meyers/When
> > you're accused of a killing scheme/You need to build a real Dream
> > Team" and "One knife?/Two knife?/Red knife/Dead wife."
>
> > Dr. Seuss's widow, Audrey Geisel sued for a preliminary injunction to
> > prevent publication of the book, claiming she was eager to prevent a
> > commingling of the Seuss image with that of the accused killer. In
> > its
> > defense, Penguin claimed the book was merely a parody and therefore
> > protected from copyright infringement by the "fair use" doctrine. The
> > appellate court held, "we completely agree with the district court
> > that Penguin's fair use defense is 'pure shtick' and that their
> > post-hoc characterization of the work is completely unconvincing."
> > The court held that because the book ridiculed Simpson and the murder
> > case, rather than the original work or its author, it is not a true
> > parody eligible for the fair use defense. "The stanzas have no
> > critical bearing on the substance of style of The Cat in the Hat.
> > [The defendants] merely use the Cat's stove-pipe hat, the narrator
> > (Dr. Juice), and the title (The Cat NOT in the Hat!) to get attention
> > or maybe even to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh,"
> > O'Scannlain opined.
>
> > This decision is significant because it has clarified a coherent
> > standard in copyright law for determining whether a potentially
> > infringing work is a fair use parody. A parodist must ridicule the
> > original composition or author in order for fair use to apply.
> > Therefore, one hoping to use the parodist's fair use defense must
> > realize that the legal definition of a parody in copyright and
> > trademark law is narrower than the general understanding of the term
>
> > Bob Hughes
>
> >> > There must be money involved if you are going to sue.
> >> > Big money.
>
> > Not really "big" money, but there is money involved in obtaining full
> > copyright protection in the United States.
>
> Yes, big money. More money than you ever saw at once I bet.
So, I'm not rich = don't bother to sue me, right?
> The $45 registration fee is what it is.
Yeah, and though the copyright law state it is intended to protect the
creator's property and that copyright is created automatically on
creation of the work in "fixed form", without paying for the
registration the rewards of being stolen from are limited.
> If you don't register within 3 months of publication (in general)
> you are quite limited. Least that is what copyright.gov sez.
The law does state that... it seems possible that the judge might
decide otherwise if the theft is obvious... I look forward to seeing
the results.
> >> Oh, please do point us all in the direction of the clause in the
> >> legislation where it says "there must be money involved" as a
> >> prerequisite of legal action.
>
> > Well, for one thing, in /United States/ copyright law (may be
> > different in Brit law and other countries I haven't read up on)
> > clearly states that though a work is "copyrighted" upon creation in
> > "fixed form", to be able to sue and claim the full $$$ judgement
> > "there must be money involved" because the work must be /registered/
>
> I'm not talking about a paltry registration fee, dude.
I know, pal.
> But it is true that to sue for infringement you must register copyright.
>
> > which costs "money", 50 bucks or so... and the $$$ judgement may also
> > depend on the $$$ lost by the theft, such as the $$$ the thieg made on
> > it.
>
> Right... And it is well known that I've never made a cent.
> Actually not since 2000, when I made a lot of money.
> How much did karla lose??????
> In real sales. Real money.
>
> Will....
> The most she can possibly sue me for is $0.
> (either that or copyright.gov is wrong)
Looks like Karla might only be able to make you take the video down,
which you already have, right?
> I suppose it would be different if she registered sooner, but
> she didn't.
Copyright law does clearly state that there is a deadline to register,
but also says copyright is "automatic" on creation of the work in
"fixed form", and Karla's "April" /did/ come out long before your
video with the same words.
> > But bottom line, the copyright law clearly encourages the creator to
> > spend some money and register what they earlier state is /already/
> > copyrighted if the creator wants to profit from the fact that his work
> > was stolen, perhaps otherwise all that would happen is the thief would
> > be told to "cease and desist".
>
> I contend that with no money there isn't much of a case.
> Even though I contest that I never stole -- I ceased.
> In 1 other case when only 2 phrases were used -- I desisted.
> (With DMCA letters)
>
> You think the registration fee is /something/... heh... :)
According to the law, the fee is very important in a copyright
lawsuit... you seem to agree sometimes.
> Look at "Caroline"... In that case I clearly infringed somebody.
Doug Yule either doesn't know, care or may even like it... it is a
pretty good video for his soundtrack.
> >> > Whatever you can't do with ISPs is
> >> >> water under the bridge.
>
> >> >> > ----
>
> >> >> > This was years ago, clearly showing Michael Cook has a habit of
> >> >> > "borrowing" [translation: stealing] copyrighted poetry, images and
> >> >> > other works created by other hands, to call his own, elsewhere in the
> >> >> > archives there are countless moments of PJR applauding Cook for his
> >> >> > thefts, copyright infringements and plagiarisms, meanwhile making such
> >> >> > hypocritical statements as this one, when his agenda calls for it:
>
> >> >> > "Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame war in
> >> >> > which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with Tommy
> >> >> > because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects *all*
> >> >> > of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to be
> >> >> > ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
> >> >> > -Peter J. Ross on copyright theft/net abuse.
>
> >> >> peter has always been a talentless whiner. The brits must have their
> >> >> head up their ass on copyrights -- vs. America (the beautiful).
>
> >> >> > Of course PJR won't be able to respond to this since he's no doubt
> >> >> > pretendig to have me killfiled... heh.
>
> >> >> He's off trolling somewhere.
> --
> AJ http://Here.Nu
> http://Midis.Here.Nu
> http://Art.Here.Nu
Amadeus Jinn
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1188860289.4...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
If you think the mikey=God thing was any more than trolling
you might not have been /seeing/.
>
> Here's another illiterate threat from Michael Cook in which he
> stupidly threatens to steal my copyrighted video, right here on public
> Usenet:
>
> ----
> From: Michael Cook (coo...@NOSPAMcomcast.net)
> Subject: Re: Lord Byron's Swagger [Doc's credits]
> View: Complete Thread (113 articles)
> Date: 2005-03-11 23:35:50 PST
>
> you have two choices
> admit you lied and apologize, pay the bill
> for the work YOU ordered for the video,
> or the video is mine, that simple.
>
> you opened your lying filthy mouth and now I'm going to collect
> and do reply that you understand and not with the bullshit
> you pass out to the rubes, you fucked up cock sucker.
> you know what you did,
> Now make good or the shit is mine for nonpayment
> don't like it? sue me
mikey's feelin' 'is oats... :)
...but still, all that I've said about mikey appears true.
He isn't lienable, and if he has a salary it is no doubt
far to teensie to bother with.
He can do anything (especially to you, who can't sue
for all the cheese packets in Shadowville) that his ISPs
will allow. If they're served a DMCA letter, which you
might be able to complete, you can have his web site
turned off, pending you suing him.
>
> And:
>
> From: Michael Cook (coo...@NOSPAMcomcast.net)
> Subject: Re: Lord Byron's Swagger [Doc's credits]
> View: Complete Thread (87 articles)
> Date: 2005-03-11 23:53:45 PST
>
>> Michael Cook wrote:
>>> "Will Dockery" wrote in message
>>> news:1110612374....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> you have two choices
>>> admit you lied and apologize, pay the bill
>>> for the work YOU ordered for the video,
>>> or the video is mine, that simple.
>>>
>>> you opened your lying filthy mouth and now I'm going to collect
>>
> Why you fucked in the head drug addict!
> You requested I put credits on the VIDEO,
> I did, then you had the fucking gall to drag your sick, whiney ass
> around accusing me of NOT putting them on, and then of theft!
> NOW, you have two choices either pay up or apologize
> If not I'll have a copyright notice on it by tomorrow
> and a DMCA complaint filed with every site that hosts MY
> Video.
This is looney?
> Now set the bottle aside, get you nose out of the crack
> And think back, then look at the video (that is if you can play it)
> Then gather all your remaining brain cells and try to recall the lies
> you posted
> Then..
> Then apologize.
> End of story, end of conversation.
When giving instructions to the mikey's of the world you
must speak slowly.
> mdc
> ----
>
> Of course, the crusading defender of creators and copyright, Rik
> Roots, claims to have missed all this... interesting, since he never
> seems to miss a beat when it comes to pointing out crimes like this,
> otherwise.
rik is a brit. 'nuff sed.
>
>> > Even those who ballyhoo the creator's rights and nitpick any percieved
>> > copyright infringement (Rik Roots), supported Michael Cook's thefts
>> > and plagiarisms by ignoring them... exposing his blatant hypocrisy.
>>
>> Their hatred got the best of them.
>
> Their Cook spolied the broth.
There are lots of duplicitous vile people that post here.
The best can even post poetry.
>
>> Perhaps not enough cheeze packets. :)
>>
>> >> >> but given the $0 nature of it, seems a losing case.
>> >> >> Sexual harassment is a slam-dunk, in comparison.
>> >> >> Courts like a single "cause of action".
>> >> >> But Will, you cain't sue mikey. mikey lives in a ghetto.
>>
>> >> > Lives?
>>
>> >> > Are we sure the thieving little scumbag is even alive?
>>
>> >> >> > PJR applauded and defended both of these acts of copyright
>> >> >> > infringement/theft.
>>
>> >> >> Of course he did. Ruining poetry with his kooks.
>>
>> >> > And even hosted the images on one of his sites, right?
>>
>> >> petitmorte, or something.
>>
>> > And PJR /dared/ you to do anything about his stealing and thievery of
>> > your photograph/intellectual property, iirc.
>>
>> god Will, it would firstly be considered sexual harassment and
>> be dealt with in county courts. Copyrights are dealt with in federal court.
>
> So Cook gets off because he's poverty stricken, on welfare, living in
> a Detroit housing project.
Yes. It is the only reason I didn't pursue it.
>
> What about PJR, who presents himself as a "man of wealth and taste"?
>
> Something about him hiding safely in England apparently makes bringing
> him up for being a sexually harrassing thief makes it too difficult to
> choke a few bucks (pounds) off of him for his confessed (and bragged
> about) crimes?
If he hosts mikey type pictures it would seem criminal.
A call to his jurisdiction might work, maybe not.
Certainly he violates any TOS he is under.
>
>> > But as Karla explained, lying and stealing is "okay" when flaming and
>> > trolling... her quotes on this are archived, and pretty recent.
>>
>> mikey and peter were seemingly LARTed, but won't
>> tell the tale.
>
> Heh... explains PJR's bitter whining over "stealing", I quess...
peter has always lied and pissed around me.
That is what it says. Does it lie?
They call it the "perk" of registering, and it is a gigantic
perk... You can register multiple poems for one fee.
You could even post them to Usenet, then pack off
a bundle to /them/ for registration.
Remember that copyright law isn't copyrightable :)
(like all government produced documents)
>
> Without a /registered/ copyright it seems questionable if /any/ $$$
> will be awarded.
You see? Although with no money I doubt that she could get
anything like full statutory damages, assuming she won, and
I allege she hasn't a chance.
>
> And, yeah there is the time limit given for registration, as you
> argued that Karla missed with "April".
And the thing is, she must have been talking to lawyers.
Didn't they tell her??? Or does it take a long time to get?
How could she be so dumb?
>
> But... the judge decided that Seigal was right and DC was wrong on
> Superboy, and all JS had was that he had /created/ the character/
> story, while DC had and has fully paid up copyright and trademark
> registration... this is speculated why Clark kent is never called
> "Superboy" in Smallville, and that the show is called Smallville
> rather than "Superboy", and in the comix he's refered to now as Young
> Superman.
He isn't. And the names of many things aren't spoken.
Clearly the names can be trademarked. (not copyrighted)
I haven't followed it.
I periphally see that Stan Lee is running the new "Superhero"
show... haven't watched.
>
> Interesting stuff.
Courts are arbitrary and boring. I've been there.
>
>> >> Make sure to register early. Make sure the money is available
>> >> or garnishable (which has limitations).
>>
>> >> With mikey you can't use legal measures until he harasses.
>>
>> >> Heh...
>>
>> > Cook would have to turn over his crack rock and maybe even his pipe.
>>
>> > There's a good chance someone whacked him in Real Life... remember
>> > when he bragged he was making videos of the comings and goings of the
>> > crackdealing pimp next door to him in the housing project?
>>
>> Wasn't me... :)
>
> Why bother?
>
> The man lives (lived) in a cracktown ghetto, Cook risks his life just
> waking up in the morning.
O well... I honestly had a kick of a life. In retrospect, I had FUN when
I had the money. Airplanes, boats, scuba, travel. I did it when I /could/.
At this point I can barely get out of bed. My timing was excellent.
Just imagine doing steep turns 500 feet above one of the spires of
the Golden Gate. I used to do that at least a few times a week at one
point. Called /it/ a Bay Tour. Passengers paid for half. :)
Lucky that artificial hip surgery came along when it did or
I would have been one fucked boi.
>
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> How do you feel about photographs of poets used without permission
> (stolen), pasted on likewise stolen porno images, then used on
> websites hosted by the "creator" of these works for months, then
> hosted by PJR himself for months, perhaps even now somewhere?
>
OOOooo... Duck is jealous that Tommy got all the /publicity/!
And on the Duck's Very Own Personal Poultry Froup, too.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
I do not "negotiate" for half my baby back, Solomon.
http://scrawlmark.org
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Are we sure the thieving little scumbag is even alive?
>
If you're not, who poasted that?
Or have you finally taught your vomit to type?
You know, the way you taught it to grab karaoke mikes from girls.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Of course he did, since we /all/ know Cook was at core a frightened,
> threatened little no-talent man.
>
Still seeing "Mirror Twins" everywhere, little "man"?
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> The most interesting thing about him and his thefts is the
> encouragement and support he recieved from so many here for his thefts
> and defamations, from PJR to Uncle Hammes to Karla.
>
Whereas the only thing you get from Tommy and George is some
much-needed support for your little-bitty.
Come on, little "man," you otta be able to write /one/ limerick by
now, what with all the instuction you've had from several here, and
all the Manly Support you get from them as know what needs supportin':
"There was an old faggot named Will..."
Come on, little "man," it's only five lines, and the first one's free.
Sullivan the Poet
> On Sep 2, 7:35 pm, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>
>
> > So you think that a theft that lasts for hours rather than days isn't
> > really a theft.
>
> Seems to have been your line of thinking when your friend Michael Cook
> was stealing on a regular basis, PJR... and his thefts lasted for
> months in multiple cases.
>
> "Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery, stolen by Michael Cook for hours, days,
> months:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Will... just to poke my nose in with my two penneth: whilst I
sympathise with your cause and applaud your enthusiasm for
restitution, I suspect you are debating intellectual property ethics
with people who think ethics is a place near London and who have the
collective intellectual capacity of a claw hammer... I suggest the
only thing you are likely to raise from this current course my friend
is your blood pressure.
If and when they make a PROFIT from stealing your work - SUE!. Until
then I think you would be better served by satisfying yourself with
the fact they have to steal other people's work because they are
incapable of producing any quality work of their own... And that of
all the poets on the web they chose to steal YOURS!
Which does rather make a nonsense of some of their past criticisms
doesn't it?
Rik
> Even those who ballyhoo the creator's rights and nitpick any percieved
> copyright infringement (Rik Roots), supported Michael Cook's thefts
> and plagiarisms by ignoring them... exposing his blatant hypocrisy.
>
Oh, look. Will's trying to fuck with my integrity again.
Little Tommy Tosser threw away the last vestiges of his credibility as
he developed his many and varied schemes to plagiarise, copyright abuse
and profit from the work of others.
I have no legal or moral authority - or desire - to come galloping to
Little Tommy Tosser's defence when others decided to fuck him over using
the same arguments he himself had deployed in his many and varied
schemes to plagiarise, copyright abuse and profit from the work of
others. Little Tommy Tosser made his bed. Now he can sleep in it.
Now, I seem to recall that you, too, were party to the conversations
that led Susan (I think that was her name) lifting a set of poems posted
to rap/aapc and publishing them in a book on CafePress - without, let's
remember, asking the various authors for their permission to use their
work in that way. And charging enough to make a profit on any sales.
I mean, how fucking blatant does a copyright abuse have to be, Will? Yet
you and Little Tommy Tosser talked Susan into publishing the book, and
tried to defend her actions when the shit hit the fan. You made your bed
with that little episode, Will. Enjoy sleeping in it.
The people responsible for the photo know my views on it. I should hope
most people who read the poetry newsgroups have some understanding of my
distaste for plagiarism and copyright abuse. You only see "silence" as
an act of "blatant hypocricy" when it suits your purpose.
Fuck off, Will.
Rik, knee deep.
Amadeus Jinn
"Sullivan the Poet" <sulliva...@btconnect.com> wrote in message news:1188898092.7...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Really? Where have I been wrong?
It seems I'm right at every turn.
> I suggest the
> only thing you are likely to raise from this current course my friend
> is your blood pressure.
Yeah... So?
>
> If and when they make a PROFIT from stealing your work - SUE!. Until
> then I think you would be better served by satisfying yourself with
But how much profit, and do you want to go to detroit.
Anyone actually stealing and selling isn't going to tell you.
> the fact they have to steal other people's work because they are
> incapable of producing any quality work of their own... And that of
> all the poets on the web they chose to steal YOURS!
In some cases someone is attempting to "feature" someone else,
in other cases it is meant to be instructional (as with me and karla)
>
> Which does rather make a nonsense of some of their past criticisms
> doesn't it?
You haven't followed it.
Will Dockery
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > Even those who ballyhoo the creator's rights and nitpick any percieved
> > copyright infringement (Rik Roots), supported Michael Cook's thefts
> > and plagiarisms by ignoring them... exposing his blatant hypocrisy.
>
> Oh, look. Will's trying to fuck with my integrity again.
I don't see any to fuck with at this point, Rik.
At best, your self declared "integrity" is very selective... see
below.
> I have no legal or moral authority - or desire - to come galloping to
> Little Tommy Tosser's defence
And you snipped the main point of this thread, which is not about him
but Michael Cook's theft of /my/ poem.
How do you feel about someone taking a complete poem, recording it,
then posting the Mp3 on his website, without any credit to the poet
who created it?
That's what Michael Cook did with my poem "Karma Bombs".
Cook took my poem and put it on his website without my permission and
without credit to me... and you chose then and now to shrug and look
the other way, which is your choice, but also shows this "integrity"
of yours is selective, and generally amounts to you whining about
alleged theft of your own work and little else.
PJR applauded and defended both of these acts of copyright
infringement/theft... and Rik Roots remains silent while hiding behind
phoney "integrity".
Very /active support/.
Here's some of the details on the theft of my "Karma Bombs" poem, in
exchange with the thief Michael Cook, where he denies "stealing" and
posting one of my poems, "Karma Bombs":
http://www.lulu.com/content/32109
... he wrote that he only
"borrowed" it..:
----
From: Will Dockery
Subject: "Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery [Mp3]
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.pagan, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 14:36:49 PST
>From "Karma Bombs. by Will Dockery" read by Michael Cook:
http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info/images/Karma%20Bombs.mp3
Message 2 in thread
From: Michael Cook (mdcookaNOS...@ameritech.net)
Subject: Re: "Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery [Mp3]
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.pagan, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 15:24:03 PST
"Will Dockery" wrote in message news:3fe777da
$1...@news1.knology.net...
> From "Karma Bombs. by Will Dockery" read by Michael Cook:
> http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info/images/Karma%20Bombs.mp3
You hapless dullard!
One, you are stealing my bandwidth.
I'd rather you just took the recording
and post it to your own server.
(i only have 368 up)
Two, the voice is computer generated
mdc
Message 3 in thread
From: Will Dockery (ironywa...@knology.net)
"Michael Cook" wrote
http://www.lulu.com/content/32109
Message 4 in thread
From: Michael Cook (cook368NOS...@ameritech.net)
Subject: Re: "Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery [Mp3]
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.pagan, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 16:00:54 PST
"Will Dockery" wrote in message
> Hey! You "stole" my copyrighted poem! I prefer to think of it as a
"cover",
> and on my Lulu.com release, you get full credit.
As the recording clearly demonstrates, a poem I did not steal,
only borrowed
----
This was years ago, clearly showing Michael Cook has a habit of
"borrowing" [translation: stealing] copyrighted poetry, images and
other works created by other hands, to call his own, elsewhere in the
archives there are countless moments of PJR applauding Cook for his
thefts, copyright infringements and plagiarisms, meanwhile making
such
hypocritical statements as this one, when his agenda calls for it:
"Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame war in
which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with Tommy
because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects *all*
of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to be
ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
-Peter J. Ross on copyright theft/net abuse.
There's a good quote from you on plagiarism and copyright abuse which
looks good also, but in the end is nothing more than empty Bishop-
bashing.
> when others decided to fuck him over
Michael Cook. You seem afraid to use the little scumbag's name, Rik.
> the same arguments he himself had deployed in his many and varied
> schemes to plagiarise, copyright abuse and profit from the work of
> others.
So you justify theft in the case of Cook stealing Bishop's photo, and
it looks like below you're begining to cook up a lie to justify Cook
also stealing my photograph, then stealing my poem "Karma Bombs", /
then/, since he'd successfully stolen those, went on to threaten to
steal one of my videos and copuright it in his name... meanwhile you
snip all mention of these three thefts just to blather on in your
obsession with Tom Bishop.
In other words, I see no "integrity" here from you.
> Now, I seem to recall that you, too, were party to the conversations
I "seem to recall" you and others were "party" to that conversation,
also.
> that led Susan (I think that was her name) lifting a set of poems posted
> to rap/aapc and publishing them in a book on CafePress - without, let's
I gave Susan permission to use a couple of /my/ poems in that book,
and nothing else. For you to claim otherwise is a lie.
> remember, asking the various authors for their permission to use their
> work in that way. And charging enough to make a profit on any sales.
>
> I mean, how fucking blatant does a copyright abuse have to be, Will?
I'll ask /you/ that again, Rik: how about someone stealing a poem,
making a recording of it and posting it on his website without credit
to the writer?
Looks like blatant copyright abuse to me, how about you?
> you and Little Tommy Tosser talked Susan into publishing the book,
That's a lie.
She had the idea for the book, I liked the idea well enough and gave
my permission for Susan to use my work, as I assumed anyone else
involved could do, or not. I never "talked Susan into" anything, it
was her idea from the start.
> The people responsible for the photo know my views on it. I should hope
> most people who read the poetry newsgroups have some understanding of my
> distaste for plagiarism and copyright abuse.
When it suits your agenda.
Otherwise you don't seem to give a fuck.
How do you feel about someone taking a complete poem, recording it,
then posting the Mp3 on his website, without any credit to the poet
who created it?
Your silence is telling.
Amadeus Jinn
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1188917626.2...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 4, 8:00 am, Rik wrote:
>> Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>> > Even those who ballyhoo the creator's rights and nitpick any percieved
>> > copyright infringement (Rik Roots), supported Michael Cook's thefts
>> > and plagiarisms by ignoring them... exposing his blatant hypocrisy.
>>
>> Oh, look. Will's trying to fuck with my integrity again.
>
> I don't see any to fuck with at this point, Rik.
All in Kansas?
>
> At best, your self declared "integrity" is very selective... see
> below.
>
>> I have no legal or moral authority - or desire - to come galloping to
>> Little Tommy Tosser's defence
>
> And you snipped the main point of this thread, which is not about him
> but Michael Cook's theft of /my/ poem.
You always make it about that, but that wasn't much of an issue.
He wasn't attempting to harass you from Usenet poetry groups.
Nothing even remotely criminal.
It was his troll of the week, whatever.
You think he could sell it for anything? I don't.
It was a non-starter, but everyone knows how you feel.
Even though you don't care about Doug Yule, or many
audio artists. (same with karla, course)
Your "precious words", and you think you own every one.
Even though you are far too poor to sue anyone.
Who in the fuck could make, say, $20k from your stolen poetry
that you could easily lien?
You think they'll tell you about it, assuming anyone would be so /dipped/?
The discussion, in poetry groups, is a joke.
You weren't harassed. I was. Then I'm sued over a Usenet throw-away.
Thanks Usenet poetry, I get it. I'm vile and evil... (even though I never hurt
a soul) HA!
Rik
> I don't see any <snip>
Invest in some glasses.
I stopped reading most of your posts, on principle, after you helped
talk a clueless newbie into publishing other usenet poster's poems in a
book through CafePress, naturally without asking for their permission
first. The book was sold for profit, if I remember correctly.
You moan about some copyright infringement or other - what, weekly? daily?
If you want the culprits punished, sue them.
If you want a support group, go buy a dog.
Rik, knee deep.
Will Dockery
>
> you helped
> talk a clueless newbie into publishing other usenet poster's poems in a
You're confused, lying, or both.
The only thing I had to do with that project was that I gave
permission for Susan to use a couple of my poems in the book.
Amadeus Jinn
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1188923625.7...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 4, 12:19 pm, Rik wrote:
>>
>> you helped
>> talk a clueless newbie into publishing other usenet poster's poems in a
>> book through CafePress <snip>
>
> You're confused, lying, or both.
>
> The only thing I had to do with that project was that I gave
> permission for Susan to use a couple of my poems in the book.
Nothing happened, right?
Just a bunch of perpetual whiners.
>
Will Dockery
> On Sep 4, 1:04 am, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 7:35 pm, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> > > So you think that a theft that lasts for hours rather than days isn't
> > > really a theft.
>
> > Seems to have been your line of thinking when your friend Michael Cook
> > was stealing on a regular basis, PJR... and his thefts lasted for
> > months in multiple cases.
>
> > "Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery, stolen by Michael Cook for hours, days,
> > months:
>
> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22karma+bombs%22+%22michael+coo...
>
> > able to back it up with a registration in the Library Of Congress.
>
> > > > While most of it deals with copyright and trademark, here's one
> > > > section that shows even "fair use" on satire and parody can be
> > > > successfully challenged
>
> > creator's property and that copyright is created automatically on
> > creation of the work in "fixed form", without paying for the
> > registration the rewards of being stolen from are limited.
>
> > > If you don't register within 3 months of publication (in general)
> > > you are quite limited. Least that is what copyright.gov sez.
>
> > The law does state that... it seems possible that the judge might
> > decide otherwise if the theft is obvious... I look forward to seeing
> > the results.
>
> > > > different in Brit law and other countries I haven't read up on)
> > > > clearly states that though a work is "copyrighted" upon creation in
> > > > "fixed form", to be able to sue and claim the full $$$ judgement
> > > > "there must be money involved" because the work must be /registered/
>
> > but also says copyright is "automatic" on creation of the work in
> > "fixed form", and Karla's "April" /did/ come out long before your
> > video with the same words.
>
> > > > But bottom line, the copyright law clearly encourages the creator to
> > > > spend some money and register what they earlier state is /already/
> > > > copyrighted if the creator wants to profit from the fact that his work
> > > > was stolen, perhaps otherwise all that would happen is the thief would
> > > > be told to "cease and desist".
>
> > > I contend that with no money there isn't much of a case.
> > > Even though I contest that I never stole -- I ceased.
> > > In 1 other case when only 2 phrases were used -- I desisted.
> > > (With DMCA letters)
>
> > > You think the registration fee is /something/... heh... :)
>
> > According to the law, the fee is very important in a copyright
> > lawsuit... you seem to agree sometimes.
>
> > > >> >> > "borrowing" [translation: stealing] copyrighted poetry, images and
> > > >> >> > other works created by other hands, to call his own, elsewhere in the
> > > >> >> > archives there are countless moments of PJR applauding Cook for his
> > > >> >> > thefts, copyright infringements and plagiarisms, meanwhile making such
> > > >> >> > hypocritical statements as this one, when his agenda calls for it:
>
> > > >> >> > "Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame war in
> > > >> >> > which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with Tommy
> > > >> >> > because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects *all*
> > > >> >> > of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to be
> > > >> >> > ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
> > > >> >> > -Peter J. Ross on copyright theft/net abuse.
>
> > > >> >> peter has always been a talentless whiner. The brits must have their
> > > >> >> head up their ass on copyrights -- vs. America (the beautiful).
>
> sympathise with your cause and applaud your enthusiasm for
> restitution, I suspect you are debating intellectual property ethics
> with people who think ethics is a place near London and who have the
> collective intellectual capacity of a claw hammer... I suggest the
> only thing you are likely to raise from this current course my friend
> is your blood pressure.
Yeah, I only brought it up after reading the endless whines of these
people here who want to /pretend/ to have been stolen from.
> If and when they make a PROFIT from stealing your work - SUE!. Until
> then I think you would be better served by satisfying yourself with
> the fact they have to steal other people's work because they are
> incapable of producing any quality work of their own... And that of
> all the poets on the web they chose to steal YOURS!
>
> Which does rather make a nonsense of some of their past criticisms
> doesn't it?
Most of what passes fot "critique" around here amounts to mostly
jealous whining, as you've no doubt already noticed.
--
"Wobble" (recorded August 14 2007)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVIF2-qWIUc
words- Will Dockery
music & guitar: Henry Conley
trumpet: Riley Yielding
bass: Sam Phillips
drums: Brad Strickland
Rik
> You're confused, lying, or both.
>
> The only thing I had to do with that project was that I gave
> permission for Susan to use a couple of my poems in the book.
>
Yeah, right.
http://tinyurl.com/3cw64l - not much sign of you giving a shit about
copyrights in that thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3cubvn - and your clever suggestion in this thread
seems to be to ask people if they are happy to be included in the book
*after* it's been published and offered for sale ...
Quoting Will Dockery: "The easy way to get around that is to obtain
permission from the poets involved... some won't give the permission,
but probably most will, I think. Just email a request to the poets
involved, and those that reply favorably, keep. Those that don't wanna
be involved, delete."
And who can forget this act of encouragement ...
Quoting Will Dockery: "Awwwww, Susan... don't give up so quickly...
it's a good idea, you have to expect a few kinks to have to be worked
out when more than one person is involved. Give it time, hardly anyone
involved has even shown up yet with their thoughts about the thing."
Nuff said.
Rik, knee deep.
Barbara's Cat
> Goober Duck Will "Crybaby" Dockery quacked:
Don't be so sure about that "nuff said" thing, Rik.
Duck can drag out a 'not guilty' quack for years.
--
Cm~
"You're either confused, lying, or both."
- Dockery's Standard I'm-Fucked Speech
Will Dockery
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > You're confused, lying, or both.
Which this new post by you seems to prove... the answer is "both."
> > The only thing I had to do with that project was that I gave
> > permission for Susan to use a couple of my poems in the book.
>
> Yeah, right.
Exactly right.
The only thing I had, or would have had to do with the book, since it
was never published, was to give my permission for Susan to use a
couple of my poems in the book.
> http://tinyurl.com/3cw64l- not much sign of you giving a shit about
> copyrights in that thread.
So post a quote from that thread that shows that. The ones below show
that I do "give a shit"... that's what the asking permission comments
were all about.
Since you seem to be a smart guy I have to assume that you're not
confused about what happened, but are lying about what I wrote and
what happened.
> http://tinyurl.com/3cubvn- and your clever suggestion in this thread
> seems to be to ask people if they are happy to be included in the book
> *after* it's been published and offered for sale ...
Not at all. I remember writing more than once that anyone included
should give Susan permission to be included, or omit them from the
list.
Again, I can't imagine you being this stupid, so I have to assume you
conciously twisting the fact on what went down.
I gave permission for my work to be included, and I expect any other
of the newsgroup poets would have enough sense to do the same without
your manipulations.
> Quoting Will Dockery: "The easy way to get around that is to obtain
> permission from the poets involved... some won't give the permission,
> but probably most will, I think. Just email a request to the poets
> involved, and those that reply favorably, keep. Those that don't wanna
> be involved, delete."
Thanks for posting that, since that's how I remember it... and a good
plan for any small press poetry anthology.
> And who can forget this act of encouragement ...
I'd /already/ given my permission to be included in the book, so I
obviously that it was a good idea... still do, in fact/
Maybe the time is right to start a Usenet poetry zine, if other poets
are interested.
> Quoting Will Dockery: "Awwwww, Susan... don't give up so quickly...
> it's a good idea, you have to expect a few kinks to have to be worked
> out when more than one person is involved. Give it time, hardly anyone
> involved has even shown up yet with their thoughts about the thing."
So, you must not have found any quotes from me "not giving a shit"
about copyrights, or you'd have posted them, right?
Oh, yeah... I was right that you're a confused liar, then?
> Nuff said.
Sure, and if you and others hadn't harrassed Susan off of Usenet, it
might have happened eventually.
But she got the same thugish treatment that many of you and your
friends have tried here over the years, and that time it worked.
Rik
> The only thing I had, or would have had to do with the book, since it
> was never published, was to give my permission for Susan to use a
> couple of my poems in the book.
>
It was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.
Read the fucking evidence.
> Since you seem to be a smart guy I have to assume that you're not
> confused about what happened, but are lying about what I wrote and
> what happened.
>
It was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.
Were you drunk that day?
>> http://tinyurl.com/3cubvn- and your clever suggestion in this thread
>> seems to be to ask people if they are happy to be included in the book
>> *after* it's been published and offered for sale ...
>
> Not at all. I remember writing more than once that anyone included
> should give Susan permission to be included, or omit them from the
> list.
>
It was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.
It was too late for people to give their permissions. Read the fucking
evidence.
> Again, I can't imagine you being this stupid, so I have to assume you
> conciously twisting the fact on what went down.
>
> I gave permission for my work to be included, and I expect any other
> of the newsgroup poets would have enough sense to do the same without
> your manipulations.
>
It was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.
My "manipulations" were directed entirely at having the book withdrawn.
Where was your advice to Susan that she cease and desist selling
copyrighted material for her own profit?
> So, you must not have found any quotes from me "not giving a shit"
> about copyrights, or you'd have posted them, right?
>
I saw no evidence of you suggesting to Susan that she STOP SELLING THE BOOK.
Let's try an experiment.
Original Will Dockery quote:
"Even those who ballyhoo the creator's rights and nitpick any percieved
copyright infringement (Rik Roots), supported Michael Cook's thefts
and plagiarisms by ignoring them... exposing his blatant hypocrisy."
Quote adapted by Rik Roots:
"Even those who ballyhoo the creator's rights and nitpick any percieved
copyright infringement (Will Dockery), supported Susan's thefts
and plagiarisms by ignoring them... exposing his blatant hypocrisy."
> Oh, yeah... I was right that you're a confused liar, then?
>
You believe whatever the alcohol tells you to, Will.
> Sure, and if you and others hadn't harrassed Susan off of Usenet, it
> might have happened eventually.
>
> But she got the same thugish treatment that many of you and your
> friends have tried here over the years, and that time it worked.
>
Drink up! The delusions get better after the third bottle of bourbon (or
so I'm told).
Rik, knee deep.
Rik
> Don't be so sure about that "nuff said" thing, Rik.
> Duck can drag out a 'not guilty' quack for years.
>
Normally I ignore him.
But if his delusions demand that I be nasty to him, then so be it. Who
am I to deny a man his delusions?
Rik, knee deep.
Will Dockery
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > The only thing I had, or would have had to do with the book, since it
> > was never published, was to give my permission for Susan to use a
> > couple of my poems in the book.
>
> It was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.
No, it was never /published/... at least I never saw a copy.
Did you or anyone else ever see a copy of this book?
Rik
> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, Rik wrote:
>> Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing I had, or would have had to do with the book, since it
>>> was never published, was to give my permission for Susan to use a
>>> couple of my poems in the book.
>> It was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.
>
> No, it was never /published/... at least I never saw a copy.
>
> Did you or anyone else ever see a copy of this book?
>
You went to the cafepress website and you pressed the "order" button.
Then you gave your credit card details. Then cafepress printed the book
for you and sent it to your home address.
It's how Print On Demand works, Will.
The book was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.
Rik, knee deep.
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >>> The only thing I had, or would have had to do with the book, since it
> >>> was never published, was to give my permission for Susan to use a
> >>> couple of my poems in the book.
>
> Then you gave your credit card details. Then cafepress printed the book
> for you and sent it to your home address.
No, I never bought a copy, and in fact didn't expect one to be
available util the permissions were granted or denied.
> It's how Print On Demand works, Will.
Since none of us bought a copy it was never published... and if it /
had/ been published, I would have expected at least one contributors'
copy.
Will Dockery
>
> Normally I ignore him.
Which is a great idea for you since you're usually so busy with your
Tom Bishop obsession.
Barbara's Cat
> Barbara's Cat wrote:
>
> > Don't be so sure about that "nuff said" thing, Rik.
> > Duck can drag out a 'not guilty' quack for years.
>
>
> Normally I ignore him.
As most others do.
He's kind of like an old refrigerator with a bad compressor:
most times he's just consider as ignorable background noise,
but every once in a while his clunking begs for a kicking.
> But if his delusions demand that I be nasty to him, then
> so be it. Who am I to deny a man his delusions?
Goober Duck's elan vital.
You're a good man and your occasional donations will surely
win you a 'Get Out of Hell Free' card.
> Rik, knee deep.
--
Cm~
"The Classics Illustrated comic version...
I don't really like all that retro stuff."
- Dockery, when asked if he'd read Hamlet
Will Dockery
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
>
> If you're <slap>
Your killfile is leaking again, Uncle.
Rik
>> It's how Print On Demand works, Will.
>>
> Since none of us bought a copy it was never published... and if it /
> had/ been published, I would have expected at least one contributors'
> copy.
>
Irrelevant. It was available for purchase. It was thus published.
I suppose you're going to act all coy now and pretend you didn't realise
that Susan had gone ahead and published the book and offered it for
sale. I suppose you're going to claim that you thought it was just
another theoretical argument.
Tough, Will. The book was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.
Susan published your work before you - or anyone else - gave her
permission to use their work in her book. She abused your copyright and
everyone else's copyright, too.
And who was shouting at Susan to withdraw the book from cafepress and
reconsider her approach - was it you, Will? Were you fighting that day
to protect your copyright.
No. Didn't think so. You relied on others to fight that battle while you
sat in the corner mumbling inanities and grumbling about "bullies".
Rik, knee deep.
joerev...@bellsouth.net
"Rik" <r...@kalieda.org> wrote in message
news:C5hDi.21046$xp6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
You do realize that what you just posted shows that Dockery is correct in
his claims, and that the accusation against him was false.
Barbara's Cat
> Rik wrote:
>
> > Goober Duck Will "The Liar" Dockery quacked:
You do realize ... on second thought ...
you obviously don't realize you can't read.
--
Cm~
And "freedom of speech" is something that
allows retarded kooks like you to scribble
invalid and impotent collections of words
and place them out in the public.
Amadeus Jinn
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1188939845....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, Rik wrote:
>> Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>> > The only thing I had, or would have had to do with the book, since it
>> > was never published, was to give my permission for Susan to use a
>> > couple of my poems in the book.
>>
>> It was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.
>
> No, it was never /published/... at least I never saw a copy.
>
> Did you or anyone else ever see a copy of this book?
Seems unlikely.
>
Amadeus Jinn
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1188943551.3...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 4, 4:53 pm, Rik wrote:
>>
>> Normally I ignore him.
>
> Which is a great idea for you since you're usually so busy with your
> Tom Bishop obsession.
Let's all relax. rik's poetry is the best he can do --- and that's it.
I'm like that... :)
>
Dennis M. Hammes
But a dog is hard to steal, and takes up a whole sofa cushion.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
I do not "negotiate" for half my baby back, Solomon.
http://scrawlmark.org
Barbara's Cat
> Rik wrote:
>
> > Goober Duck Will "Bad Talent Hack" Dockery quacked:
> >
> >> I don't see any <snip>
> >
> >
> > Invest in some glasses.
> >
> > I stopped reading most of your posts, on principle, after you helped
> > talk a clueless newbie into publishing other usenet poster's poems in a
> > book through CafePress, naturally without asking for their permission
> > first. The book was sold for profit, if I remember correctly.
> >
> > You moan about some copyright infringement or other - what, weekly? daily?
> >
> > If you want the culprits punished, sue them.
> >
> > If you want a support group, go buy a dog.
> >
> > Rik, knee deep.
>
>
> But a dog is hard to steal, and takes up a whole sofa cushion.
The 'buy' part brought me great convulsive laughter;
a knife through Duck's financial jugular, but still.
--
Cm~
"Nothing is really so poor and melancholy
as art that is interested in itself and
not in its subject."
- George Santayana
Dennis M. Hammes
> Rik said:
>
>
>>Barbara's Cat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don't be so sure about that "nuff said" thing, Rik.
>>>Duck can drag out a 'not guilty' quack for years.
>>
>>
>>Normally I ignore him.
>
>
>
> As most others do.
> He's kind of like an old refrigerator with a bad compressor:
> most times he's just consider as ignorable background noise,
> but every once in a while his clunking begs for a kicking.
>
...right in the Allnut.
>
>>But if his delusions demand that I be nasty to him, then
>>so be it. Who am I to deny a man his delusions?
>
>
>
> Goober Duck's elan vital.
> You're a good man and your occasional donations will surely
> win you a 'Get Out of Hell Free' card.
>
>
>
>>Rik, knee deep.
>
>
>
--
Dennis M. Hammes
Let's try another experiment:
Just what the / .k/ is Michael Cook supposed to have "stolen"?
I understand that a mouse will squeak forever that to take his
PIC-ture is to steal his soul; many human savages believe that even
today.
But what's all the flapping and quacking and eating its own shit
about "Michael Cook's thefts"?
>
> Quote adapted by Rik Roots:
> "Even those who ballyhoo the creator's rights and nitpick any percieved
> copyright infringement (Will Dockery), supported Susan's thefts
> and plagiarisms by ignoring them... exposing his blatant hypocrisy."
>
>> Oh, yeah... I was right that you're a confused liar, then?
>>
> You believe whatever the alcohol tells you to, Will.
>
>> Sure, and if you and others hadn't harrassed Susan off of Usenet, it
>> might have happened eventually.
>>
>> But she got the same thugish treatment that many of you and your
>> friends have tried here over the years, and that time it worked.
>>
> Drink up! The delusions get better after the third bottle of bourbon (or
> so I'm told).
>
> Rik, knee deep.
Dennis M. Hammes
He's just jealous.
Conan O'Brien unveiled a new NBC shitcom about a shiteating duck
last night -- really -- and it wasn't about /him/.
Coming on top of his jealousy over http://hornymanatee.com -- also a
Conan Creation and also Not Him -- it was just too much.
And you must admit that he has a point; those PIC-tures he
released of himself in front of Pizza Roma...
Dennis M. Hammes
Try to have your reading make sense.
As for your "writing," get a language or shut up.
Dennis M. Hammes
He sounds out the letters real purty though.
Dockery sounds out the letters...
...he sounds out the letters...
...Dockery sounds out the letters...
...he sounds out the letters...
Where'd you /think/ they got "Duelling Banjos"?
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Sep 4, 4:11 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" wrote:
>
>>Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Are we sure the thieving little scumbag is even still alive?
>>
>>If you're <slap>
>
>
> Your killfile is leaking again, Uncle.
>
Your willie is leaking again, Willie.
Peter J Ross
<will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Cook
It's obesssion time again.
<snip>
Fuck off, George!!!!1!
--
PJR :-)
<http://pjr.gotdns.org/verse/16-poems>
Barbara's Cat
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> > Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Cook
> >
> > It's obsession time again.
>
> It's obsession time all the time.
It's obsession time all the time in farm critter land.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Fuck off, George!!!!1!
> Fuck off, George!!!!2!
Fuck off, George!!!!3!
--
Cm~
"HUMANITY, n. The human race, collectively,
exclusive of the anthropoid poets."
- Ambrose Bierce
Peter J Ross
<c...@NOSPAMscientist.com> wrote:
> Meat Plow said:
>
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>
>> > Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Michael Cook
>> >
>> > It's obsession time again.
>>
>> It's obsession time all the time.
>
> It's obsession time all the time in farm critter land.
It's obsession time today in the People's Republic of Tommyslurpania.
>> > <snip>
>> >
>>>Fuck off, George!!!!1!
>>Fuck off, George!!!!2!
>Fuck off, George!!!!3!
Fuck off, George!!!!4!
George Dance
> In rec.arts.poems on Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:57:59 -0400, Barbara's Cat
>
> <c...@NOSPAMscientist.com> wrote:
> > Meat Plow said:
>
> >> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>
> >> >> Michael Cook
>
> >> > It's obsession time again.
>
> >> It's obsession time all the time.
>
> > It's obsession time all the time in farm critter land.
>
> It's obsession time today in the People's Republic of Tommyslurpania.
>
> >> > <snip>
>
> >>>Fuck off, George!!!!1!
> >>Fuck off, George!!!!2!
> >Fuck off, George!!!!3!
>
> Fuck off, George!!!!4!
>
No, 3! Someone was obsessed enough to try to vote twice.
> --
> PJR :-)
Will Dockery
>
> I suppose you're going to act all coy now and pretend you didn't realise
> that Susan had gone ahead and published the book and offered it for
> sale.
There was a page on a website with a list of poems and the names of
the writers. As far as I can tell, no actual copies were ever
"published" as you keep whining.
I saw the site, it looked like an interesting idea and gave Susan
permission to use my work, and at that point gave my opinion that she
should email the others on her list (not yet a book since it wasn't
published yet) for permission to use their poems, and if they didn't
give the permission, omit them from the list.
But unless someone shows up here with an actual /hard copy/ of the
book, it was /not/ published, as you continue to whine.
--
"Wobble" by Dockery & Conley (recorded August 14 2007):http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVIF2-qWIUc
"Dream Tears" by Dockery & Mallard:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
Barbara's Cat
> quack
> keep whining
> quack
> continue to whine
> quack
--
Cm~
"you can't find "sense" in the poem, fine...
that doesn't mean there's none there, just
that you can't, or won't, see it."
- Goober Duck, 15 May 2007
Rik
> But unless someone shows up here with an actual /hard copy/ of the
> book, it was /not/ published, as you continue to whine.
>
It was published. A published book that sells no copies is still -
published. It was offered for sale on the cafepress website. It had a
"buy this item" button next to it. It was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR
PURCHASE.
Learn something about print-on-demand publishing before continuing this
whinge.
Then learn to stop whinging.
Then fuck off.
Rik, knee deep.
Will Dockery
> On Sep 5, 12:35 pm, Peter J Ross wrote:
> > In rec.arts.poems on Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:57:59 -0400, Barbara's Cat wrote:
> > > Meat Plow said:
> > >> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> > >> >> Michael Cook
>
> > >> > It's obsession time again.
Did your obsessions with Bishop and Chuck ever really fade, PJR?
> > >> It's obsession time all the time.
>
> > > It's obsession time all the time in farm critter land.
>
> > It's obsession time today in the People's Republic of Tommyslurpania.
>
> > >> > <snip>
>
> > >>>Fuck off, George!!!!1!
> > >>Fuck off, George!!!!2!
> > >Fuck off, George!!!!3!
>
> > Fuck off, George!!!!4!
>
> No, 3! Someone was obsessed enough to try to vote twice.> --
> > PJR :-)
PJR's upset because after all his whining about "thieves" he was
reminded that he sided with, aided, and even hosted a website for the
habitual thief Micahel Cook.
Will Dockery
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > But unless someone shows up here with an actual /hard copy/ of the
> > book, it was /not/ published, as you continue to whine.
>
> It was published. A published book that sells no copies is still -
> published.
A /published/ book that sells no copies sits on a shelf until the
unsold copies go to a cut-out bin or are destroyed.
An /idea/ of a book that is only published when a copy is bought
remains nothing but an /idea/ until that one copy is sold.
Apparently, none were sold, so the "book" was never "published", and
sales could have been held off until permissions were granted or
denied.
I gave permission for Susan to use my poems, and that's all I had to
do with this imaginary book, and for you to claim I had anything else
to do with it makes you confused, lying or both... to bring this
discussion back to the point.
Karla
says...
>
>On Sep 4, 7:10 pm, Rik wrote:
>>
>> I suppose you're going to act all coy now and pretend you didn't realise
>> that Susan had gone ahead and published the book and offered it for
>> sale.
>
>There was a page on a website with a list of poems and the names of
>the writers. As far as I can tell, no actual copies were ever
>"published" as you keep whining.
>
>I saw the site, it looked like an interesting idea and gave Susan
>permission to use my work, and at that point gave my opinion that she
>should email the others on her list (not yet a book since it wasn't
>published yet) for permission to use their poems, and if they didn't
>give the permission, omit them from the list.
>
>But unless someone shows up here with an actual /hard copy/ of the
>book, it was /not/ published, as you continue to whine.
One of the points Rik's is making is that you accuse everyone of shrugging and
looking the other way but then do so yourself when it suits you. You cheered
Susan on rather than dissuade her. It's in the links provided. Susan herself
wrote this about her book:
"I set the price at two dollars above the printing cost-- (after all it did
take me a few hours to put the book together and make the cover art) then
lowered it so that it was *at cost* I wouldn't have made a cent if any sold."
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/d4dd25f8faa14112?
The other link that Rik recently posted was to a sample page - had not Rik and
others spoken up, Susan would have allowed people to purchase the book without
the writers' permission to use their work.
Regarding publication, see this link at copyright.gov which says in part
"Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the
public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.
The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for
purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display
constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of
itself constitute publication."
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#pub
Susan offered to distribute copies of other writers' work without their
permission. She realized that she was wrong after Rik and others spoke up. I
don't know her history after that fact but respect that she admitted that she
went about her project in the wrong way. Others should learn from her.
Karla
--
--
Will Dockery
> Will Dockery says...
>
> >There was a page on a website with a list of poems and the names of
> >the writers. As far as I can tell, no actual copies were ever
> >"published" as you keep whining.
>
> >I saw the site, it looked like an interesting idea and gave Susan
> >permission to use my work, and at that point gave my opinion that she
> >should email the others on her list (not yet a book since it wasn't
> >published yet) for permission to use their poems, and if they didn't
> >give the permission, omit them from the list.
>
> >But unless someone shows up here with an actual /hard copy/ of the
> >book, it was /not/ published, as you continue to whine.
>
> One of the points Rik's is making is that you accuse everyone of shrugging and
> looking the other way but then do so yourself when it suits you. You cheered
> Susan on rather than dissuade her.
I don't see anywhere where I "cheered" Susan on, but as I stated
above, I did think the collection was an interesting idea and gave her
permission to use my poems, then suggested that she either get
pemission from the others included, and delete those who denied
permission.
> It's in the links provided. Susan herself
> wrote this about her book:
>
> "I set the price at two dollars above the printing cost-- (after all it did
> take me a few hours to put the book together and make the cover art) then
> lowered it so that it was *at cost* I wouldn't have made a cent if any sold."
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/d4dd25f8faa14112?
>
> The other link that Rik recently posted was to a sample page - had not Rik and
> others spoken up, Susan would have allowed people to purchase the book without
> the writers' permission to use their work.
>
> Regarding publication, see this link at copyright.gov which says in part
>
> "Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the
> public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.
> The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for
> purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display
> constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of
> itself constitute publication."
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#pub
>
> Susan offered to distribute copies of other writers' work without their
> permission. She realized that she was wrong after Rik and others spoke up.
I was one who "spoke up", by giving permission to use my poem, I made
the point that permission was needed, and then went on to suggest that
Susan get pemission from everyone involved, and delete those that
wanted no involvement.
> don't know her history after that fact
She returned once or twice and posted some poetry.
Amadeus Jinn
post... Most artists have to actually work to produce anything.
"a printed skirt of sunflowers"
Now whine, Will...
and rik wonders why he can sell piddle.
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1189022988.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Will Dockery
> "Will Dockery" wrote...
> > On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, Rik wrote:
> >> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >> > The only thing I had, or would have had to do with the book, since it
> >> > was never published, was to give my permission for Susan to use a
> >> > couple of my poems in the book.
>
> >> It was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.
>
> > No, it was never /published/... at least I never saw a copy.
>
> > Did you or anyone else ever see a copy of this book?
>
> Seems unlikely.
Unlikely for several reasons... here's a few:
Why pay for poetry that can be had for free on Usenet and a half dozen
other web portals of Usenet postings (Google Groups being the most
well known), Susan took the page down that listed the contents and
price, pending permissions, and the price seemed a bit high for a
collection of sub-par poets like Rik Roots, Hammes et al.
Plus, those who gave pemission should have recieved at least one
contributor's copy, or better yet a percentage of the profits.
--
"Wobble" by Dockery & Conley (recorded August 14 2007):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVIF2-qWIUc
"Dream Tears" by Dockery & Mallard:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
> --
Amadeus Jinn
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1189026422.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> I gave permission for Susan to use my poems, and that's all I had to
> do with this imaginary book,
Did you have a contract that you signed?
The concept that some Usenet or mail posting is secure is questionable.
> and for you to claim I had anything else
> to do with it makes you confused, lying or both... to bring this
> discussion back to the point.
Be something if you and the rest kept whining
about copyrights, and how damaged po' po' karla is.
Fyck, she is wallowing in it. Imagine a poetic wannabee hippo.
joerev...@bellsouth.net
"Barbara's Cat" <c...@NOSPAMscientist.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2147efd41...@127.0.0.1...
> <joerev...@bellsouth.net> said:
>
>> Rik wrote:
>>
>> > Goober Duck Will "The Liar" Dockery quacked:
>> >
>> >> You're confused, lying, or both.
>> >>
>> >> permission for Susan to use a couple of my poems in the book.
>> >>
>> >
On the contrary.
Though I'm not a fan of Dockery's and ususally ignore both his posts and
those about him; I did haeppen to click on and read this post.
After skimming over it, i went back and read more carefully to confirm the
impression that in the only post of Will's quoted that really showed
anything about his atitude toward the claimed plagerism, he says exactly
what he claimed saaying, that he advised the person in question to get the
permission of the writers of the poetry,
I havwe no idea what actually went on, and don't care.
I was just struck by the ineptness of an attack which proved nothing but one
of the claims of the person being attacked.
>
>
> --
> Cm~
>
> And "freedom of speech" is something that
> allows retarded kooks like you to scribble
> invalid and impotent collections of words
> and place them out in the public.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Amadeus Jinn
"Karla" <kar...@sbcNOSPAMglobal.net> wrote in message news:fbn5u...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <1189022988.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Will Dockery
> says...
>>
>>On Sep 4, 7:10 pm, Rik wrote:
>>>
>>> I suppose you're going to act all coy now and pretend you didn't realise
>>> that Susan had gone ahead and published the book and offered it for
>>> sale.
>>
>>There was a page on a website with a list of poems and the names of
>>the writers. As far as I can tell, no actual copies were ever
>>"published" as you keep whining.
>>
>>I saw the site, it looked like an interesting idea and gave Susan
>>permission to use my work, and at that point gave my opinion that she
>>should email the others on her list (not yet a book since it wasn't
>>published yet) for permission to use their poems, and if they didn't
>>give the permission, omit them from the list.
>>
>>But unless someone shows up here with an actual /hard copy/ of the
>>book, it was /not/ published, as you continue to whine.
>
> One of the points Rik's is making is that you accuse everyone of shrugging and
> looking the other way but then do so yourself when it suits you. You cheered
> Susan on rather than dissuade her. It's in the links provided. Susan herself
> wrote this about her book:
That's not what he said, but you are impersonating a moron some more, right?
>
> "I set the price at two dollars above the printing cost-- (after all it did
> take me a few hours to put the book together and make the cover art) then
> lowered it so that it was *at cost* I wouldn't have made a cent if any sold."
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/d4dd25f8faa14112?
>
> The other link that Rik recently posted was to a sample page - had not Rik and
> others spoken up, Susan would have allowed people to purchase the book without
> the writers' permission to use their work.
If she had labelled it clearly as a filtered extension of Usenet she could have
told prisses like you to shove it up your fat ass.
>
> Regarding publication, see this link at copyright.gov which says in part
So explain Usenet, dumbass.
Most of the traffic is infringement.
Only a prissy moron like you would think that a teensie wordpile
on Usenet is worth suing over.
>
> "Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the
> public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.
> The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for
> purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display
> constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of
> itself constitute publication."
There are numerous businesses that print parts of the Usenet onto
CD's... Mostly pictures. (which are mostly infringements worth more
than your drivel.
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#pub
>
> Susan offered to distribute copies of other writers' work without their
> permission.
"writers' work" translated: "usenet crap postings"
She should have simply called it Usenet. (explains the quality)
But who has the guts to go against a fat priss like you?
Or a bunch of bald brits?
> She realized that she was wrong after Rik and others spoke up.
She chickened out due to a bunch of whiners.
She was trying to do you idiots a favor and typically the prisses spit.
You are all mostly vile jerkwads.
And you spit on anyone that tries to do you a favor.
Now your poetry groups are pretty shitty. Your fault, karla.
> I
> don't know her history after that fact but respect that she admitted that she
> went about her project in the wrong way. Others should learn from her.
Better her than you. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I would suggest FOAD. You don't know anything about copyrights
or "in personum jurisdiction". The brief of your Expert is laughable.
He's a support person that moonlights. HAAAAAAA
Peter J Ross
<kar...@sbcNOSPAMglobal.net> wrote:
> Susan offered to distribute copies of other writers' work without their
> permission. She realized that she was wrong after Rik and others spoke up. I
> don't know her history after that fact but respect that she admitted that she
> went about her project in the wrong way. Others should learn from her.
Amen.
Amadeus Jinn
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1189025678.4...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 5, 3:50 pm, George Dance wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 12:35 pm, Peter J Ross wrote:
>> > In rec.arts.poems on Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:57:59 -0400, Barbara's Cat wrote:
>> > > Meat Plow said:
>> > >> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> > >> > Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> Michael Cook
>>
>> > >> > It's obsession time again.
>
> Did your obsessions with Bishop and Chuck ever really fade, PJR?
>
>> > >> It's obsession time all the time.
>>
>> > > It's obsession time all the time in farm critter land.
>>
>> > It's obsession time today in the People's Republic of Tommyslurpania.
>>
>> > >> > <snip>
>>
>> > >>>Fuck off, George!!!!1!
>> > >>Fuck off, George!!!!2!
>> > >Fuck off, George!!!!3!
>>
>> > Fuck off, George!!!!4!
>>
>> No, 3! Someone was obsessed enough to try to vote twice.> --
>> > PJR :-)
>
> PJR's upset because after all his whining about "thieves" he was
> reminded that he sided with, aided, and even hosted a website for the
> habitual thief Micahel Cook.
To me, peter is the worst harasser around.
His hosting of mikey's pics for over a year beats everything
I've seen. Usenet is optional.
Your concept of thievery awaits money to make any sense to me.
How do you steal nothing?
I'm on Usenet for a reason... I don't want to hear about
copyrights, but I need to (so I do)...
>
Amadeus Jinn
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1189029519....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 5, 5:08 am, "Amadeus Jinn" wrote:
>> "Will Dockery" wrote...
>> > On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, Rik wrote:
>> >> Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>> >> > The only thing I had, or would have had to do with the book, since it
>> >> > was never published, was to give my permission for Susan to use a
>> >> > couple of my poems in the book.
>>
>> >> It was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.
>>
>> > No, it was never /published/... at least I never saw a copy.
>>
>> > Did you or anyone else ever see a copy of this book?
>>
>> Seems unlikely.
>
> Unlikely for several reasons... here's a few:
>
> Why pay for poetry that can be had for free on Usenet and a half dozen
> other web portals of Usenet postings (Google Groups being the most
> well known), Susan took the page down that listed the contents and
> price, pending permissions, and the price seemed a bit high for a
> collection of sub-par poets like Rik Roots, Hammes et al.
Permissions are a pain in the ass.
The people that sell CD's of selected Usenet pics don't ask.
They could probably be sued, but who knows.
Usenet is not a land of copyrights... It is freeland, or should be.
You actually think you will sue over some few words
stacked thusly. Try it, Will. I'm getting to watch someone
piss all over themselves in the attempt. Couldn't be more
clueless.
>
> Plus, those who gave pemission should have recieved at least one
> contributor's copy, or better yet a percentage of the profits.
Poems don't deserve copyright protection. I would vote against it.
A book of poems, yes. Make attribution very important.
Lawyers are dirt-bags.
Amadeus Jinn
<joerev...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:mFFDi.53373$U24....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Amazing, hunh. Will is like that.
>>
>>
Will Dockery
> "Karla" wrote
> >Will Dockery says...
>
> >>the writers. As far as I can tell, no actual copies were ever
> >>"published" as you keep whining.
>
> >>I saw the site, it looked like an interesting idea and gave Susan
> >>permission to use my work, and at that point gave my opinion that she
> >>should email the others on her list (not yet a book since it wasn't
> >>published yet) for permission to use their poems, and if they didn't
> >>give the permission, omit them from the list.
>
> >>But unless someone shows up here with an actual /hard copy/ of the
> >>book, it was /not/ published, as you continue to whine.
>
> > One of the points Rik's is making is that you accuse everyone of shrugging and
> > looking the other way but then do so yourself when it suits you. You cheered
> > Susan on rather than dissuade her. It's in the links provided. Susan herself
> > wrote this about her book:
>
> That's not what he said, but you are impersonating a moron some more, right?
Not at all what I "said"... then or now.
Which is why Rik Roots remains confused, a liar, or both.
What I "said", then and now is:
"There was a page on a website with a list of poems and the names of
the writers. As far as I can tell, no actual copies were ever
"published" as you keep whining.
I saw the site, it looked like an interesting idea and gave Susan
permission to use my work, and at that point gave my opinion that she
should email the others on her list (not yet a book since it wasn't
published yet) for permission to use their poems, and if they didn't
give the permission, omit them from the list.
But unless someone shows up here with an actual /hard copy/ of the
book, it was /not/ published, as you continue to whine."
I've never "supported" copyright theft or plagiarism... but the point
of this thread is that PJR has and did, repeatedly, in the case of
Michael Cook and "Karma Bombs".
PJR knows it, and most others here do... while they shrugged and
looked the other way if not cheering and applauding that and other
crimes commited by Cook.
> > The text to both Karla's "April" and your video were placed here side-
> > by-side a couple of times last year, and it was immediately obvious
> > that the "phrases" were almost exactly the same.
>
> They weren't the same. Even in /that/ skewed context
> my words do NOT NOT NOT equal a derivative work.
> WHAT, I condensed it???? Feh. Wasn't trying to...
> Just a Usenet "Evaluation Copy"... some poetic phrases
> that showed karla how to improve her crap poetry.
> Fyck this is boring.
> Just squinting might work, but for sure the jury is going
> to view my supposed derivative work if it comes to that.
>
> > Did the judge have print outs when you and Karla met in front of him
> > recently?
>
> That was merely to see if settlement was possible
> and start setting up a schedule. karla is /TERRIBLY HURT/.
And intends to make an educational show, either way it comes out.
> >> Don't forget fair use, and the fact that no damage was done.
> >> No profit made, and she registered too late.
>
> > US copyright law does seem pretty clear that for a $$$ settlement to
> > be awarded, the work must be registered, and by a deadline.
>
> NO, NO, NO... registration affords the possibility of statutory
> damages and attorney's fees. One can always sue for damages
> and profits, which in this idiotic case don't exist.
>
> > The interesting question now is will a judge skip these rules and go
> > to the fact that Karla wrote the lines first, and "created them in
> > fixed form", which US copyright law earlier states that gave her
> > automatic copyright "protection"... which might mean that you'd need
> > her permission to use it, or take the work down.
>
> IMO I didn't infringe her.
> Phrases simply ain't copyrightable. (only literary works)
> You lose again. Please stop, makes you look like a pizza delivery guy,
> and not a performance artistee... :)
I think stopping the discussion of Karla and "April" is a fine idea,
we've gone over it a dozen times and as I've stated, "its not my
problem"... best to shrug and look the other way... heh.
So, let's get on to something we both have an interest in, video.
Over the last week an old friend from past decades, Timothy Maxwell,
has returned and have been video taping almost everything he sees,
Parnello's Pizza footage including a nice clip of Jerald Register's
performance (with Gene Woolfolk on flute) of his new song "Witch
Around The Corner" outside on the Parnello's porch, footage of a jam
session in my shed with many close-ups of my abstract paintings while
Tim and Gene played jazz with saxophone and flute, and last night
performances at SoHo, including Conley, Yielding, Michael Orstein,
Woolfolk, et cetera... tonight at the Loft, more of the same.
He agrees with your vision that video should be more than just static
performance footage, but should include visuals of interest, and so
on.
More on this later, time is short.
--
"Wobble" by Dockery & Conley (recorded August 14 2007):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVIF2-qWIUc
"Dream Tears" by Dockery & Mallard:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
> --
Will Dockery
>
> >> >> The only thing I had to do with that project was that I gave
> >> >> permission for Susan to use a couple of my poems in the book.
>
> >> > Yeah, right.
>
> >> > copyrights in that thread.
>
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/3cubvn- and your clever suggestion in this thread
> impression that in the only post of Will's quoted that really showed
> anything about his atitude toward the claimed plagerism, he says exactly
> permission of the writers of the poetry,
>
> I was just struck by the ineptness of an attack which proved nothing but one
> of the claims of the person being attacked.
Rik Roots, to be such a self-proclaimed /smart guy/, sure came off
looking pretty goofy with quotes showing that in no way did I support
plagiarism or copyright infringement... and in fact made a suggestion
that could have resolved any question of it.
Which is why Rik Roots remains confused, a liar, or both.
What I "said", then and now is:
"There was a page on a website with a list of poems and the names of
the writers. As far as I can tell, no actual copies were ever
"published" as you keep whining.
I saw the site, it looked like an interesting idea and gave Susan
permission to use my work, and at that point gave my opinion that she
should email the others on her list (not yet a book since it wasn't
published yet) for permission to use their poems, and if they didn't
give the permission, omit them from the list.
But unless someone shows up here with an actual /hard copy/ of the
book, it was /not/ published, as you continue to whine."
I've never "supported" copyright theft or plagiarism... but the point
of this thread is that PJR has and did, repeatedly, in the case of
Michael Cook and "Karma Bombs".
PJR knows it, and most others here do... while they shrugged and
looked the other way if not cheering and applauding that and other
crimes commited by Cook.
--
Karla
Does anyone know if Michael Cook or PJR provided link(s) to the PICTURE anywhere
else besides Usenet? Someone recently tried (and failed) to make a point about
only providing links on Usenet. Like chatting on Usenet and providing links on
Usenet doesn't count. Like Usenet doesn't count.
>Your concept of thievery awaits money to make any sense to me.
>How do you steal nothing?
>
>I'm on Usenet for a reason... I don't want to hear about
>copyrights, but I need to (so I do)...
>
>
>--
> AJ http://Here.Nu
> http://Midis.Here.Nu
> http://Art.Here.Nu
>
>
>>
>> --
>> "Wobble" by Dockery & Conley (recorded August 14 2007):
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVIF2-qWIUc
>>
>> "Dream Tears" by Dockery & Mallard:
>> http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
>>
>>
>
>
--
--
Barbara's Cat
> I havwe no idea what actually went on,
That was obvious.
> and don't care.
And yet here you are.
--
Cm~
"It's a dangerous business going out your front door."
- J R R Tolkien
Will Dockery
>
> Just what is Michael Cook supposed to have "stolen"?
Glad you asked, Uncle.
Here's an update:
On Sep 2, 6:35 pm, George Dance wrote:
> <snip>
> If 'active support' just means not treating such a person as a thief
> (theft here including plagiarism), then I'm sorry; until I'm convinced
> that someone is a thief, I'm not going to treat him or her as one. It
> doesn't take that much to convince me, but just having someone else,
> from a different 'alignment', say that is not sufficient for -
> especially when that "alignment" is declaring at the same time that
> I'm a thief and a plagiarist myself. (Which details I won't rehash
> here.)
How do you feel about photographs of poets used without permission
(stolen), pasted on likewise stolen porno images, then used on
websites hosted by the "creator" of these works for months, then
hosted by PJR himself for months, perhaps even now somewhere?
How do you feel about someone taking a complete poem, recording it,
then posting the Mp3 on his website, without any credit to the poet
who created it?
PJR applauded and defended both of these acts of copyright
infringement/theft.
Very /active support/.
Here's some of the details on the theft of my "Karma Bombs" poem, in
exchange with the thief Michael Cook, where he denies "stealing" and
posting one of my poems, "Karma Bombs":
http://www.lulu.com/content/32109
... he wrote that he only "borrowed" it..:
----
From: Will Dockery
Subject: "Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery [Mp3]
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.pagan, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 14:36:49 PST
>From "Karma Bombs. by Will Dockery" read by Michael Cook:
http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info/images/Karma%20Bombs.mp3
Message 2 in thread
From: Michael Cook (mdcookaNOS...@ameritech.net)
Subject: Re: "Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery [Mp3]
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.pagan, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 15:24:03 PST
"Will Dockery" wrote in message news:3fe777da
$1...@news1.knology.net...
> From "Karma Bombs. by Will Dockery" read by Michael Cook:
> http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info/images/Karma%20Bombs.mp3
You hapless dullard!
One, you are stealing my bandwidth.
I'd rather you just took the recording
and post it to your own server.
(i only have 368 up)
Two, the voice is computer generated
mdc
Message 3 in thread
From: Will Dockery (ironywa...@knology.net)
Subject: Re: "Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery [Mp3]
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.pagan, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 15:37:31 PST
"Michael Cook" wrote
> > From "Karma Bombs. by Will Dockery" read by Michael Cook:
> > http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info/images/Karma%20Bombs.mp3
> You hapless dullard!
> One, you are stealing my bandwidth.
Hey! You "stole" my copyrighted poem! I prefer to think of it as a
"cover", and on my Lulu.com release, you get full credit.
> I'd rather you just took the recording
> and post it to your own server.
> (i only have 368 up)
This has been done, more-or-less. What music do *you* envision for
the
poem? We'll create our own, similar to the one already performed, but
I'm
curious about what you'd come up with:
http://www.lulu.com/content/32109
> Two, the voice is computer generated
> mdc
I knew that, of course, but I think it's kind of fun to go into the
Google archives with *another* "Collaboration with Michael Cook... by
the way,
when will you be putting the "Oz" photo-story back up, at least long
enough
for me to copy/paste it to a more permanent site?
Will
Message 4 in thread
From: Michael Cook (cook368NOS...@ameritech.net)
Subject: Re: "Karma Bombs" by Will Dockery [Mp3]
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.pagan, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 16:00:54 PST
"Will Dockery" wrote in message
> Hey! You "stole" my copyrighted poem! I prefer to think of it as a
"cover",
> and on my Lulu.com release, you get full credit.
As the recording clearly demonstrates, a poem I did not steal,
only borrowed
----
This was years ago, clearly showing Michael Cook has a habit of
"borrowing" [translation: stealing] copyrighted poetry, images and
other works created by other hands, to call his own, elsewhere in the
archives there are countless moments of PJR applauding Cook for his
thefts, copyright infringements and plagiarisms, meanwhile making
such
hypocritical statements as this one, when his agenda calls for it:
"Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame war in
which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with Tommy
because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects *all*
of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to be
ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
-Peter J. Ross on copyright theft/net abuse.
Of course PJR won't be able to respond to this since he's no doubt
pretendig to have me killfiled... heh.
Barbara's Cat
> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
> > Just what is Michael Cook supposed to have "stolen"?
>
>
> Glad you asked, Uncle.
Of course you are. It helps keep your misery nourished.
> Here's an update:
[ mercy snip ]
That was the same things you were quacking about last year;
in fact, it was the same things you have constantly quacked
about for the past four or five years. The same old quacks
over and over again like an endless loop of repeated quacks.
So, how much longer are you going to continue living in and
quacking about that nightmarish world you have created for
yourself? Another year? Another five years? Until you die?
Just curious.
--
Cm~
"A misery is not to be measured from the nature of the evil,
but from the temper of the sufferer."
- Joseph Addison
Amadeus Jinn
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1189032419....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
At this point I'm of the opinion that poems don't deserve copyright protection.
Effectively they don't have it now, really...
Streamline the laws concerning arbitration to avoid lawyers,
but when will that happen...
(especially unpublished(non-pulp) posts to usenet and websites...)
Only books. Not the world I live in but <oh well>...
Poets are too /poetic/ for concepts like laws.
Just puts money into "dirt-bag" lawyer's pockets, IMO.
If sanity ruled money would be made from hemp.
Paper would be made from hemp.
Clothing would be, etc...
Jesus would be dead.
Iraq would be feed.
///not in my lifetime. Burma Shave.
>
> But unless someone shows up here with an actual /hard copy/ of the
> book, it was /not/ published, as you continue to whine."
>
> I've never "supported" copyright theft or plagiarism... but the point
> of this thread is that PJR has and did, repeatedly, in the case of
> Michael Cook and "Karma Bombs".
My beef with mikey and peter is that they are harassers.
Seems like it is becoming more criminal all the time.
Your /tilting/ about copyrights is like so many windmills
in Voltaire. "...is this really the best of all possible worlds?"
>
> PJR knows it, and most others here do... while they shrugged and
> looked the other way if not cheering and applauding that and other
> crimes commited by Cook.
Stealing people's facial image and using it for sexual harassment
reaches FAR beyond copyright infringement of one fycking poem.
(even if it has bombs in it's karma) :)
Amadeus Jinn
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1189034374.3...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> I've never "supported" copyright theft or plagiarism...
Well you do. What? Doug Yule?
Amadeus Jinn
"Karla" <kar...@sbcNOSPAMglobal.net> wrote in message news:fbngg...@drn.newsguy.com...
WRT to TOSs and harassment laws I doubt they would need to,
but mikey boasted at having seeded search engines.
The links are on Usenet the last I looked. peter is nailed on it
if anyone has a mind.
> Someone recently tried (and failed) to make a point about
> only providing links on Usenet.
Yes. I don't think I failed. Only in your twisted braincell.
See below...
> Like chatting on Usenet and providing links on
> Usenet doesn't count.
One can't post binaries in poetry groups.
They are routine in poser groups.
There are groups for movies, and MP3s and more.
If one wants to post a picture to poetry they need
to host it somewhere and forge a link. <doh>
Happens quite often. (were you one a twinkie break?)
> Like Usenet doesn't count.
Not that it doesn't coun't.
Just that it is "freeland"... No one makes money
on their post.
>
>>Your concept of thievery awaits money to make any sense to me.
>>How do you steal nothing?
Answer this karla. Why such a secret?
Honestly, if you sue me for more than $0 I'm going to
appeal it as high as it goes. copyright.gov is either correct
or it is a HUGE thieving lie. Can you imagine?
When are you ready to come down with your tech-support guy
for deposition?
Let me know, and I'll put it together.
Rik
> A /published/ book that sells no copies sits on a shelf until the
> unsold copies go to a cut-out bin or are destroyed.
>
> An /idea/ of a book that is only published when a copy is bought
> remains nothing but an /idea/ until that one copy is sold.
>
> Apparently, none were sold, so the "book" was never "published"
>
Priceless.
Rik, knee deep.
Rik
> One of the points Rik's is making is that you accuse everyone of shrugging and
> looking the other way but then do so yourself when it suits you. You cheered
> Susan on rather than dissuade her. It's in the links provided. Susan herself
> wrote this about her book:
>
> "I set the price at two dollars above the printing cost-- (after all it did
> take me a few hours to put the book together and make the cover art) then
> lowered it so that it was *at cost* I wouldn't have made a cent if any sold."
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/d4dd25f8faa14112?
>
> The other link that Rik recently posted was to a sample page - had not Rik and
> others spoken up, Susan would have allowed people to purchase the book without
> the writers' permission to use their work.
>
But Karla, according to The Will Dockery Bumper Colouring Book of
Definitions, which is apparently the major authority on these issues,
having a "buy this book" button next to the advert does not mean that it
was published.
Will's going to be arguing this one for months, if not years.
> Karla
>
Rik, knee deep.
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Sep 5, 12:35 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In rec.arts.poems on Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:57:59 -0400, Barbara's Cat
>>
>><c...@NOSPAMscientist.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Meat Plow said:
>>
>>>>Peter J Ross wrote:
>>
>>>>>Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Michael Cook
>>
>>>>>It's obsession time again.
>>
>>>>It's obsession time all the time.
>>
>>>It's obsession time all the time in farm critter land.
>>
>>It's obsession time today in the People's Republic of Tommyslurpania.
>>
>>
>>>>><snip>
>>
>>>>>Fuck off, George!!!!1!
>>>>
>>>>Fuck off, George!!!!2!
>>>
>>>Fuck off, George!!!!3!
>>
>>Fuck off, George!!!!4!
>>
>
>
>
> No, 3! Someone was obsessed enough to try to vote twice.
>
Try to have your fucking off make sense.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
I do not "negotiate" for half my baby back, Solomon.
http://scrawlmark.org
Dennis M. Hammes
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
>> But unless someone shows up here with an actual /hard copy/ of the
>> book, it was /not/ published, as you continue to whine.
>>
> It was published. A published book that sells no copies is still -
> published. It was offered for sale on the cafepress website. It had a
> "buy this item" button next to it. It was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR
> PURCHASE.
>
> Learn something about print-on-demand publishing before continuing this
> whinge.
>
> Then learn to stop whinging.
>
> Then fuck off.
>
> Rik, knee deep.
You told Will Dockery to "learn something"?
About /"publication"/?
Try to have your writing make sense...
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:09:37 -0700, Karla wrote:
>
>
>>In article <1189022988.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Will Dockery
>>says...
>>
>>>On Sep 4, 7:10 pm, Rik wrote:
>>>
>>>>I suppose you're going to act all coy now and pretend you didn't realise
>>>>that Susan had gone ahead and published the book and offered it for
>>>>sale.
>>>
>>>There was a page on a website with a list of poems and the names of
>>>the writers. As far as I can tell, no actual copies were ever
>>>"published" as you keep whining.
>>>
>>>I saw the site, it looked like an interesting idea and gave Susan
>>>permission to use my work, and at that point gave my opinion that she
>>>should email the others on her list (not yet a book since it wasn't
>>>published yet) for permission to use their poems, and if they didn't
>>>give the permission, omit them from the list.
>>>
>>>But unless someone shows up here with an actual /hard copy/ of the
>>>book, it was /not/ published, as you continue to whine.
>>
>>One of the points Rik's is making is that you accuse everyone of shrugging and
>>looking the other way but then do so yourself when it suits you. You cheered
>>Susan on rather than dissuade her. It's in the links provided. Susan herself
>>wrote this about her book:
>
>
> Welcome to the delusional land of Will Dockery.
>
Is /anybody/ welcome in the land of Will Dockery?
Oh.
Right.
Somebody called "Tipper."
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, Rik wrote:
>
>>Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The only thing I had, or would have had to do with the book, since it
>>>was never published, was to give my permission for Susan to use a
>>>couple of my poems in the book.
>>
>>It was PUBLISHED and AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.
>
>
> No, it was never /published/... at least I never saw a copy.
You've never seen Berryman's /Dream Songs/, either.
>
> Did you or anyone else ever see a copy of this book?
>
Did anyone else ever see a Will Dockery?
Oh.
Right.
"Zorrrrroowwwwwwww" was /"published"/.
"Available for pur*spit* ah, purcha*hack* ah, /purchase/."
Try to have your cocksucking make sense.
Alexandra Ceelie
> On Sep 5, 4:26 pm, Rik Roots wrote:
>> Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>>> But unless someone shows up here with an actual /hard copy/ of the
>>> book, it was /not/ published, as you continue to whine.
>> published.
>
> unsold copies go to a cut-out bin or are destroyed.
>
> An /idea/ of a book that is only published when a copy is bought
> remains nothing but an /idea/ until that one copy is sold.
Actually, you are wrong. It doesn't.
A work doesn't have to be "published", only fixed in tangible form (a
digital file qualifies) to be eligible for protection according to this
site:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork
Under the question "When is my work protected" it states:
"Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and
fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with
the aid of a machine or device."
So, just the act of uploading someone else's work in any file format
than can be read with the aid of a machine or device, to a site with the
intent to sell *is* (as Rik keeps saying) a copyright violation.
While the fact that she never sold any would mostly likely serve to help
reduce her obligation to the copyright holder(s) were she ever sued
(since there were no monetary damages) it makes it no less of a crime.
=^..^=
Xandra
Dennis M. Hammes
> Goober Duck Will "Perpetual Crybaby" Dockery quacked:
>
>
>>Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just what is Michael Cook supposed to have "stolen"?
>>
>>
>>Glad you asked, Uncle.
>
>
>
> Of course you are. It helps keep your misery nourished.
>
>
>
>>Here's an update:
>
>
>
> [ mercy snip ]
>
>
> That was the same things you were quacking about last year;
> in fact, it was the same things you have constantly quacked
> about for the past four or five years. The same old quacks
> over and over again like an endless loop of repeated quacks.
It's the quack in his record.
But it's "published" and "available for purchase."
And that so astonishes him that he has to "cite" his "previous
authority," which is In The Archives.
No, it really is. r.a.p. and a.a.p.c. are the cheapest,
largest-circulation, longest-shelf-life little magazines in the
history of literature.
And his peeing on our papers is Part Of That!
Barbara's Cat
> Goober Duck Will "Bad Talent Hack" Dockery quacked:
In Shadowville, nothing outshines
the goober's comic book education.
--
Cm~
"Win or lose, I /always/ get my point across."
- Goober Duck, stoned again
Dennis M. Hammes
Dennis M. Hammes
> Dennis M. Hammes said:
>
>
>>Rik wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Goober Duck Will "Bad Talent Hack" Dockery quacked:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't see any <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>Invest in some glasses.
>>>
>>>I stopped reading most of your posts, on principle, after you helped
>>>talk a clueless newbie into publishing other usenet poster's poems in a
>>>book through CafePress, naturally without asking for their permission
>>>first. The book was sold for profit, if I remember correctly.
>>>
>>>You moan about some copyright infringement or other - what, weekly? daily?
>>>
>>>If you want the culprits punished, sue them.
>>>
>>>If you want a support group, go buy a dog.
>>>
>>>Rik, knee deep.
>>
>>
>>But a dog is hard to steal, and takes up a whole sofa cushion.
>
>
>
> The 'buy' part brought me great convulsive laughter;
> a knife through Duck's financial jugular, but still.
>
"...Duck's financial..."?
Try to have your writing make sense...
--
Barbara's Cat
> At this point I'm of the opinion that poems
> don't deserve copyright protection.
You're insane, so your opinion doesn't count.
It's the law. Honest. Look it up.
--
Cm~
Mousy Tom Bishop LARTed me
for "moronic harassment".
You can't see this post.
George Dance
demonstrated his knowedge of law:
> Mousy Tom "Champion of Perpetual Whining" Bishop squeaked:
>
> > At this point I'm of the opinion that poems
> > don't deserve copyright protection.
>
> You're insane, so your opinion doesn't count.
> It's the law.
Oh, it is? There's a law out there that says "Tom Bishop is insane."
Can you provide a link to a webpage?
> Honest.
All that honest indicates is that you believe there is a law that says
"Tom Bishop is insane."
Look it up.
Sure thing. I'm just waiting on your cite.
Barbara's Cat
> Goober Duck Will "Perpetual Crier" Dockery quacked:
>
> > Rik Roots wrote:
> >
> >> Goober Duck Will "Bad Talent Hack" Dockery quacked:
> >>
Explaining reality to Dockery is like
explaining quantum physics to a duck.
--
Cm~
Stand still, true poet that you are!
I know you; let me try and draw you.
Some night you'll fail us: when afar
You rise, remember one man saw you,
Knew you, and named a star!
- Robert Browning
Will Dockery
>
> according to Will Dockery
> having a "buy this book" button next to the advert does not mean that it
> was published.
I define "publish on demand" to mean just that... the book isn't
published until there is a demand... when someone buys one.
You can continue to whine about a "book" that doesn't exist, since it
was never actually published, for years... oh wait, you already are...
> Will's going to be arguing this one for months, if not years.
The argument is actaully about your confused lies about me in relation
to this unpublished bookm which I /can/ argue for years about:
"...you, too, were party to the conversations that led Susan (I think
that was her name) lifting a set of poems posted to rap/aapc and
publishing them in a book..."
"...you and Little Tommy Tosser talked Susan into publishing the
book..."
"...you helped talk a clueless newbie into publishing other usenet
poster's poems in a book..."
You're confused, lying, or both.
The only thing I had to do with that project was that I gave
permission for Susan to use a couple of my poems in the book... a
book that never actually existed.
Barbara's Cat
> Barbara's Cat wrote:
>
> > Mousy Tom "Champion of Perpetual Whining" Bishop squeaked:
> >
> > > At this point I'm of the opinion that poems
> > > don't deserve copyright protection.
> >
> > You're insane, so your opinion doesn't count.
> > It's the law.
>
>
> Oh, it is? There's a law out there that says "Tom Bishop is insane."
> Can you provide a link to a webpage?
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/comprehension
> > Honest.
>
>
> All that honest indicates is that you believe there is a law that says
> "Tom Bishop is insane."
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/imbecile
> > Look it up.
>
>
> Sure thing. I'm just waiting on your cite.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/eternity
--
Cm~
"Life is full of misery, loneliness, and suffering--
and it's all over much too soon."
- Woody Allen
George Dance
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > You're confused, lying, or both.
>
> > The only thing I had to do with that project was that I gave
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3cw64l- not much sign of you giving a shit about
> copyrights in that thread.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3cubvn- and your clever suggestion in this thread
> seems to be to ask people if they are happy to be included in the book
> *after* it's been published and offered for sale ...
>
> Quoting Will Dockery: "The easy way to get around that is to obtain
> permission from the poets involved... some won't give the permission,
> but probably most will, I think. Just email a request to the poets
> involved, and those that reply favorably, keep. Those that don't wanna
> be involved, delete."
>
> And who can forget this act of encouragement ...
>
> Quoting Will Dockery: "Awwwww, Susan... don't give up so quickly...
> it's a good idea, you have to expect a few kinks to have to be worked
> out when more than one person is involved. Give it time, hardly anyone
> involved has even shown up yet with their thoughts about the thing."
>
> Nuff said.
Evidently that was enough to talk Susan out of continuing with the
project, as her reply was:
"But, you see, if I can't include **all** the poems. and it
seems I can't. it destroys the whole **point** of it.
"It's supposed to be THE book of ALL the poems. Not just the ones we
got permission for."
>
> Rik, knee deep.
Alexandra Ceelie
...but the duck has a tiny chance of comprehending? ;)
I appreciate the heads up, but I figured he probably wouldn't
understand. My post wasn't really for him. In fact, I don't give a
flying fig about what he THINKS he knows or whether or not he encouraged
the violation... but there are a lot of uninformed people out there that
may take his "opinion" as fact... and get themselves into trouble.
I wanted to cite an undisputable source that would show just how
completely incorrect he is in his assertion that "physical publishing"
is the only form of infringement. Rik was doing well, don't get me
wrong, but I felt his message may have been getting lost in the back and
forth/signal to noise ratio.
Besides, "Another county heard from" never hurts. :)
=^..^=
Xandra
Barbara's Cat
> I /can/ argue for years
As you have many times proved.
--
Cm~
How to make Goober Duck quack:
1. Type a sentence that contains truth.
2. Click "Send".
Will Dockery
>
> A work doesn't have to be "published", only fixed in tangible form (a
> digital file qualifies) to be eligible for protection according to this
> site:
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork
>
> Under the question "When is my work protected" it states:
>
> "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and
> fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with
> the aid of a machine or device."
>
> So, just the act of uploading someone else's work in any file format
> than can be read with the aid of a machine or device, to a site with the
> intent to sell *is* (as Rik keeps saying) a copyright violation.
>
> While the fact that she never sold any would mostly likely serve to help
> reduce her obligation to the copyright holder(s) were she ever sued
> (since there were no monetary damages) it makes it no less of a crime.
>
> =^..^=
> Xandra
Which is why I suggested that Susan try to get permission to use the
poems if she wanted to continue with the book.
Besides the fact that Susan went about the idea backwards (there never
was a question that a book with a dozen or so writers could be legally
"published" without their permission), I thought the idea of a poetry
anthology of Usenet poets was (and is) a good one, and gave her
permission to use my poems at that point.
What began this discussion, though, was the lies Rik Roots posted at
the start that I had anything to do with the so-called book other than
being a potential contributor, not whether or not Susan violated
copyrights or whether the "book" was actually "published":
"...you, too, were party to the conversations that led Susan (I think
that was her name) lifting a set of poems posted to rap/aapc and
publishing them in a book..."
"...you and Little Tommy Tosser talked Susan into publishing the
book..."
"...you helped talk a clueless newbie into publishing other usenet
poster's poems in a book..."
All of the above are either confused statements, lies, or both.
The only thing I had to do with that project was that I gave
Barbara's Cat
Las Vegas odds on that would be astronomical.
> I appreciate the heads up, but I figured he probably wouldn't
> understand. My post wasn't really for him. In fact, I don't give a
> flying fig about what he THINKS he knows or whether or not he encouraged
> the violation... but there are a lot of uninformed people out there that
> may take his "opinion" as fact... and get themselves into trouble.
>
> I wanted to cite an undisputable source that would show just how
> completely incorrect he is in his assertion that "physical publishing"
> is the only form of infringement. Rik was doing well, don't get me
> wrong, but I felt his message may have been getting lost in the back and
> forth/signal to noise ratio.
>
> Besides, "Another county heard from" never hurts. :)
Never. And most people know or at least can understand
the truth/reality of the subject of this conversation.
It's only the putz farm critters who are demonstrating
outright belligerent ignorance.
> =^..^=
> Xandra