dementocrats vs the truth

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Reynmeistr

unread,
Sep 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/30/97
to

for yet another glimpse into their besotted, immoral minds, we note knapphack's
strenuous, laughable effort to censor NG posters, citing copyright laws, as if
Bill Nalty, or Warwick Hayes, or anyone else for that matter is profiting from
the clipping of an article and sharing this published wisdom over the fence
with cyber-neighbors. Of course, not a soul in this NG has heard from the New
York Times legal dept. I think I'll start posting entire articles and
encourage Joe Krapp to contact the NYT and sic em on me.

This craven, useless assault is insulting and ridiculous on its face. But more
than that, it betrays the socialist/liberal/nazi drive to filter, control and
squelch the free flow of information. Kill the messenger. Suppress the
truth. Stifle discussion.

Typical liberal. Knapphack has performed his unintended assignment. ThanQ!

J Knapp

unread,
Sep 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/30/97
to

Reynmeistr wrote:
>
You are foaming at the mouth. But rest assured, copyright
violations are a CRIMINAL act, based on an 1834 law. Just
because it's old doesn't mean you can ignore it. It's true
that while copyright owners can win suits to stop theft of
their material, monetary awards are limited to proof of
loss of revenue. At the very least, the offender's Internet
access can be revoked. I can't believe you would condone criminal
behavior! (Rhetorical point, I know you probably are aware
of your own vulnerabilities and thus are hiding behind a
pseudonym.)

I haven't contacted idiot rags like Washington Times or
Washington Weekly, because I hope they do lose revenue
with Nalty posting their stuff daily to their presumed
mainline, slavering audience for free.

Joe Knapp

J Knapp

unread,
Sep 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/30/97
to

Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >You are foaming at the mouth. But rest assured, copyright
> >violations are a CRIMINAL act, based on an 1834 law.
>
> So what?

Are you saying that there's no controlling legal
authority?

Joe Knapp

randy stiefer

unread,
Sep 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/30/97
to

J Knapp wrote:
> Fair use? Articles posted in their entirety on the day of their
> publication? You're out of your gourd.
"You're out of your
gourd"
Laugh-In ca 1967

j...@globaldialog.com

unread,
Sep 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/30/97
to

J Knapp wrote:
>
> jim hofmann wrote:
> >
> > I believe in
> > fair use,

>
> Fair use? Articles posted in their entirety on the day of their
> publication? You're out of your gourd.
>
> Joe Knapp

It's nice to see Little Joey Knapp defend the owners of the
corporate media, even if he doesn't know who owns what.

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
CHAPTER 1 - SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of
a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular
case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
use is
of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation
to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not
itself
bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of
all
the above factors.

----------

Not so neatly cut, is it, Little Joey?

You just keep right on trying to prevent people from
getting information, Little Joey. It's *you*.

J Knapp

unread,
Sep 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/30/97
to

j...@globaldialog.com

unread,
Sep 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/30/97
to

jim hofmann

unread,
Sep 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/30/97
to

troll troll troll... non commercial use... troll troll troll

--- Jim

randy stiefer

unread,
Sep 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/30/97
to

J Knapp wrote:
> Are you saying that there's no controlling legal authority?

No Joey, he's saying there is no law left after five years of Clinton.
Now go back to your PT boat model.

jim hofmann

unread,
Sep 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/30/97
to

to everything troll troll troll
there is a season....
and no time like the present to troll

a time to troll a time to annoy a time to distrupt a time to kill a time
to looooooove i swear it's not too laaaaate....

too everything troll troll troll
there is a season....
and no time like the present to trooooollll.....

--- sung to tune of "turn turn turn" by the Byrds

God Bless and apologies to Roger!

--- Jim


J Knapp wrote:


>
> Reynmeistr wrote:
> >
> You are foaming at the mouth. But rest assured, copyright

j...@globaldialog.com

unread,
Sep 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/30/97
to

J Knapp wrote:
>
> Reynmeistr wrote:
> >
> You are foaming at the mouth. But rest assured, copyright
> violations are a CRIMINAL act,

not to be used for commercial purposes
cited under fair use provisions, for discussion purposes only

Subject: INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR DNC
From: j...@globaldialog.com
Date: 1997/07/13
Message-Id: <33C90C...@globaldialog.com>
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.clinton
[More Headers]

China Military May Accept Foreign Money

By JOE McDONALD Associated Press Writer

BEIJING (AP)--China's military industries plan
to open up to foreign investment and hold a trade
fair next year to improve their electronics technology,
a government newspaper reported Sunday.

The Business Weekly of the China Daily newspaper
did not say what sectors of the industry would
be open to foreign participation or what form that
participation was expected to take.

China has spent heavily since 1988 to improve its
rudimentary military industries, buying Russian
technology to build supersonic jet fighters and
pursuing electronics expertise from other countries.

That modernization drive has unsettled Taiwan and
other Chinese neighbors and caused frictions with
the United States over the possible diversion to
military use of computers and technology bought
by civilian firms.

But despite progress in missiles and other areas,
analysts say Chinese military technology is so
far behind Russia and the West that the country
cannot catch up on its own.

Complicating its modernization efforts, Beijing
has been cut off by the United States and other
Western arms producers since its military crushed
the Chinese pro-democracy movement in 1989.

China is expected to spend $120 billion on military
electronics and high-tech equipment by 2000, according
to the Business Weekly.

U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry said earlier
this year that in a confidence-building move, Chinese
military officials had agreed to brief their American
counterparts on their spending plans.

Critics of China contend it is using civilian front
companies to evade limits on sales of military
technology.

China has denied accusations that it is using a
U.S.-made supercomputer for military research,
in violation of a purchase agreement that said
it would be devoted to civilian research.

The four-day military trade fair planned by the
People's Liberation Army next May is to include
displays of radar, communications and intelligence
systems; military computers; microwave components
and other equipment, the Business Weekly said.

Foreign suppliers will be invited.

AP-NY-07-13-97 1217EDT

Copyright 1997 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

jim hofmann

unread,
Sep 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/30/97
to

Waita second not all us "demoncrats" are like these guys... I believe in
fair use, hell most performance art would be illegal if it didn't
apply... :-P Give Reid his due, he's challenged Knapp on his obsession
with pseudonyms and privacy...

Listen, Reyne, stay on subject don't let these trolls get us down...
We're here to get to the truth and exchange information. Don't let
these people with other agendas control the flow.

Knapp has proven himself to be a lightweight - just look at my exchange
with him.

Not all Democrats are evil, please don't be a troll ...

--- Jim

Martin McPhillips

unread,
Oct 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/1/97
to

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:50:52 -0400, J Knapp <j...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Reynmeistr wrote:
>>
>You are foaming at the mouth. But rest assured, copyright

>violations are a CRIMINAL act, based on an 1834 law.

So what?

Martin McPhillips

unread,
Oct 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/1/97
to

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:52:27 -0400, J Knapp <j...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>jim hofmann wrote:
>>
>> I believe in
>> fair use,
>

>Fair use? Articles posted in their entirety on the day of their
>publication? You're out of your gourd.
>
>Joe Knapp

Call the cops, Joe. It's your duty as a citizen.

Get busy.


Martin McPhillips

unread,
Oct 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/1/97
to

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:36:19 -0400, J Knapp <j...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Martin McPhillips wrote:
>> >You are foaming at the mouth. But rest assured, copyright
>> >violations are a CRIMINAL act, based on an 1834 law.
>>
>> So what?
>

>Are you saying that there's no controlling legal
>authority?
>

>Joe Knapp

No, I'm saying "So What?"

You remember that, don't you?

Tell Carville when he's in the pen that I'll be
stopping by for a hello on visiting day.


Steven H. Findeiss

unread,
Oct 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/7/97
to

: >Reynmeistr wrote:
: >>You are foaming at the mouth. But rest assured, copyright
: >>violations are a CRIMINAL act, based on an 1834 law.

Sheila Katko retorted,
: Gee, I guess a mistake was made....that should make it all go away, right?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, absolutely. But also, the 1834 law is so *antiquated*, and it's
almost *never* enforced, so why start now? Hey, they didn't even *have*
the Internet in 1834. In fact, I don't think they even had computers! ;)
So how could that ancient law have been intended to apply to copyright
violations *on the Internet*?
Smiling at the pro-Clinton absurdities all the way.... --s

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages