Re: The End of m.p.s.v.
MEB
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 21:40:09 -0400, MEB <MEB-no...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The Notice and everything else applying to usage, deals with and
>> defines the public's ability to use any of Microsoft's property. These
>> groups, the hierarchy, and presentation are Microsoft's property.
>
> This is only true if you are using the Microsoft news servers or the
> Microsoft web forums. I am not even sure they can claim property
> rights over the content that other people write, since regardless of
> any TOU, the legal copyright holder of ANY written work is the author
> at the moment of creation unless it was created as a "work for hire"
> and their must be a consideration for this to be true and "use of the
> forums" is arguably not consideration (money).
>
> The simple fact is the change in policy will terminate the Microsoft
> news servers in favor of their lame forums. What happens in the rest
> of Usenet is not controllable by Microsoft. If the news servers on the
> rest of the planet want to continue to provide these groups and if the
> users continue to post articles in the groups is up to them, not
> Microsoft.
These two documents were posted to misc.legal.moderated. The
moderator(s) or other party is apparently bent upon deliberately
continuing public deception and has not posted the further response by
me [at least not yet]; these two supply the answers you apparently
ignorant people need.
Note this presentation here is also legally covered under my own site's
Notice, which is attached and directed to in every posting done in and
by me in this entity when discussing matters of potential or real
import, just as it has been included here.
Reproduced in relevant part from peoplescounsel.org under MY authority
as found in the *LEGAL AND LAWFUL NOTICES* [copyright applies]:
" *NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT*
*NOTICE:* Any and or all parties, organizations, entities, or otherwise,
grant right to publish without confinement and or further restraint any
and or all: responses, e-mails, proceedings, documents and other which
they might submit and or create and or author, concerning materials on
this site; and or, to or of the author of this site; and or, to or of
the ISP of this site; and or, to or of the parties mentioned upon the
documents contained within this site; and or, to or of the individuals
and or agents mentioned upon this page or elsewhere upon this site and
or web and its inclusions.""
You should note, of course, that all the usual worthless, baseless, and
merit-less "arguments" have been raised and answered ALREADY; the
Microsoft documents have been linked and/or posted; and other factors
have already been discussed; as has, not uniquely, also occurred in this
group previously. IOW, the same worthless arguments which refuse to
recognized the applicable Law, contract obligation and control, personal
liability, and other controlling factors and elements.
"
On 05/24/2010 01:53 PM, Seth wrote:
>> > > In article <ht92rk$ak7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > > MEB.peoplescounsel <m.e.b...@peoplescounsel.org> wrote:
>>>> >> >> On 05/21/2010 08:44 PM, Seth wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >>> In article <ht16ft$t1h$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>>> >>> >>> MEB.peoplescounsel <m.e.b...@peoplescounsel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> On 05/17/2010 02:11 AM, Seth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In article <hshatd$e0s$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> MEB.peoplescounsel
<m.e.b...@peoplescounsel.org> wrote:
>> > >
>>>>>> >>> >>> What controls does any entity other than myself have over
my server?
>>>>>> >>> >>> Who can force me to carry, or not carry, any particular
newsgroup?
>>>>>> >>> >>> Who can force me to carry, or not carry, any particular
article
or set
>>>>>> >>> >>> of articles?
>> > >
>>>> >> >> Since you all have apparently deliberately IGNORED direction
to the
>>>> >> >> actual linked and/or controlling elements [such as the actual
article of
>>>> >> >> creation posted in here]
>> > >
>> > > How is anything "controlling"? It seems to me that it is controlling
>> > > for me only if either (1) there is a valid law with jurisdiction over
>> > > me saying so, or (2) I have agreed to a contract saying so. I have
>> > > not agreed to any such contracts, nor have I seen any actual laws
>> > > saying so. Referring to "UN agreements, WIPO, blah blah blah" is not
>> > > a reference to such a law. "US Code number this, section that" is
>> > > such a reference.
Microsoft has already done that for the world in its TOS, TOU, other
documentation and legal resource references readily available to all and
to which I directed you [by linked materials] and everyone else to, so
have the U.S. courts, U.S. government and State government. So you
attempt to "claim" ignorance, too bad, as you are well aware "ignorance
of the Law is no excuse". Refusing to abide by it is illegal.
USING Microsoft's property directly or indirectly WITHOUT written
direct authorization has placed all parties under direct violation of
the applicable Laws.
You want to argue the applicability to YOU, then there are the courts.
Good luck and take ALL your money and assets with you.
Right now, you are in direct violation of numerous Laws.
>> > >
>>>> >> >> This was posted to a party within the
>>>> >> >> microsoft.public.win98.gen-discussion group on the ONLY
*authorized*
>>>> >> >> point of access,
>> > >
>> > > Authorized, presumably, by Microsoft; but why should I care?
Because you have no right to it.
>> > >
>>>> >> >> Per Microsoft's own documents, you never had any authority to the
>>>> >> >> hierarchy in the first place, it is and was Microsoft's solely.
>> > >
>> > > I never claimed any authority to the hierarchy, only the authority
>> > > over my own server.
And thereby, so are you bound BY LAW if you use Microsoft's hierarchy
WITHIN your server [which is YOUR supposed argument point]. You have no
right to it. It is essentially stolen property. Its not yours and never was.
>> > >
>>>> >> >> Per Microsoft's own documents [such as the 1996 document our
troll 98
>>>> >> >> Guy has repeatedly posted and provided to free servers, within
numerous
>>>> >> >> groups, and elsewhere] *only* Microsoft could serve those
offerings.
>> > >
>> > > Microsoft can publish whatever documents it wishes. That does not
>> > > make them binding on me.
Microsoft, as you do [if not you better get a legal eagle to write one
for you] has a TOU and TOS, and several other controlling aspects and
documents which BIND all parties regardless, mere usage brings those
forward. You didn't read them, so what, you were required to do so. Yes,
you had better have read the TOU, EULA, and ALL other applicable
attached to your Microsoft OS and products as well. You are bound SO
TIGHTLY to and under Law, its a wonder you can breath.
So your [and those without a clue here and elsewhere] ENTIRE purported
legal argument is that you received these and sent these via some other
party and that absolves you of all responsibility for that use, removes
all binding Laws, provides shelter EVEN though you know there are
property right, copyright, and other applicable on EVERYTHING, but not
when in *your* server.
That is the dumbest argument you can possibly raise and you are well
aware of it. If not then you are dumb as a box of rocks or have been
living in a "bubble" somewhere, you might want to look at the "real
world". But guess what, that does NOT relieve you from your illegal
activities. Not here in the U.S.A. or abroad.
** Now I will include the sent responses to the other ludicrous crap,
rejected by the clueless moderator(s).
TO the moderator(s): Hey, *There was NO worthwhile materials to quote
nor worthy of argument.* Why would I quote or include any of that trash.
And you MIGHT look at what I DID quote. Would you like me to make an
issue of this against this group, the moderators AND Robert... I would
have no problem doing so, if that's where you want to go with it. I'll
remind you this IS a moderated group, and SUPPOSEDLY deals with legal
activities and aspects.
*** On 05/23/2010 06:29 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>>> >> > > In article <ht14i7$c90$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> >> > > MEB.peoplescounsel <m.e.b...@peoplescounsel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >> On 05/17/2010 08:46 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > That website is a _hoot_!
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > Caveat: eliminate edibles from the vicinity before visiting,
they
may end up
>>>> >> > > on the monitor, otherwise.
>>>> >> > >
Guess what, so was I, all of your spouting of your "history" means
nothing to me, because I was there and involved.
Now, regardless of what you have said and would LOVE to claim, "you
have no Laws or other which control you", you do.
So I would say that whatever YOU post or have available, should be
treated as clearly uninformed, baseless, and lacking in any needed
intellect that is required in circumstances as this.
ROTFLMAO
Now had you actually paid attention to the two Bush era Supreme Court
placements on something such as CSpan you would have found the relevance
of the site's materials and their impact. You might also want to
actually look at some of the response/impact in various courts,
congress, and elsewhere.
What can you indicate other than your failure to actually understand
all elements needed for a proper discourse of the actual controlling
facts and factors necessary to the discussions materials and parties
engaged in these activities. This purported response by you certainly
has nothing of actual value.
--MEB
*** On 05/24/2010 12:55 AM, Seth wrote:
>>>> >> > > In article <ht14i7$c90$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Since you are obviously a legal expert, perhaps you might wish to
provide the discussion on how these cases might impact or have bearing
on the issues the issues being discussed [I would suggest you actually
read them rather than the syllabus or similar so you understand what
these actually do discuss]:
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 US 250 - 1819
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission No.08-205
You might also wish to include discussions on W.T.O., Free Trade
Agreements, E.U. agreements, U.N. Treaties and agreements, and other
similar and of impact on and to the issues of the discussion.
--MEB
"
Seth posted the normal garbage which you all spout, added a few
personal slights/attacks, and this was the response by me:
"
On 05/26/2010 03:09 PM, Seth wrote:
>> > > In article <hthbu2$9u1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > > MEB.peoplescounsel <m.e.b...@peoplescounsel.org> wrote:
>>>> >> >> On 05/24/2010 01:53 PM, Seth wrote:
>> > >
>>>>>> >>> >>> How is anything "controlling"? It seems to me that it is
controlling
>>>>>> >>> >>> for me only if either (1) there is a valid law with
jurisdiction
over
>>>>>> >>> >>> me saying so, or (2) I have agreed to a contract saying
so. I have
>>>>>> >>> >>> not agreed to any such contracts, nor have I seen any
actual laws
>>>>>> >>> >>> saying so. Referring to "UN agreements, WIPO, blah blah
blah"
is not
>>>>>> >>> >>> a reference to such a law. "US Code number this, section
that" is
>>>>>> >>> >>> such a reference.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Microsoft
>> > >
>> > > Did they give you permission to use their name in your posting?
Microsoft did, and I used it in the allowed form. Had you read what is
authorized usage you would know that, or if you had the *least bit* of
useful legal knowledge applicable, which you clearly don't.
>> > >
>>>> >> >> has already done that for the world in its TOS, TOU, other
>>>> >> >> documentation and legal resource references readily available to
all and
>>>> >> >> to which I directed you [by linked materials] and everyone
else to,
>> > >
>> > > In other words, you're not providing any specific pointers to
laws. I
>> > > will therefore remain unaware of any such.
In other words and specifically, *I* don't need to do anything FOR YOU,
*you* are required by Law, to do so yourself.
But I'll help you to a point: Use it your own computer WITH NO ACCESS
to or by others, mostly/probably fair use.
Do anything else, then the ALL the linked materials apply, so do the
Laws to which you are directed by Microsoft, and so do the Laws which
you are required to know.
See TOU [also note that this part here is also allowed specifically
elsewhere in Microsoft's materials AND by following that and applicable
Law]:
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Copyright/Default.aspx
ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS.
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES.
PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION.
"Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and
non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit,
display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works
from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services
obtained from the Services."
>>>> >> >> You didn't read them, so what, you were required to do so. Yes,
>>>> >> >> you had better have read the TOU, EULA, and ALL other applicable
>>>> >> >> attached to your Microsoft OS and products as well.
>> > >
>> > > You mean Microsoft attaches those to linux, xemacs, and OpenOffice?
>> > >
Of course, if there applicable factors or elements within or otherwise
relating, then absolutely so. Such as, since you deliberately went to
"open source":
Patent Cooperation Agreement - Microsoft & Novell Interoperability
Collaboration
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/patent_agreement.mspx
Joint Letter to the Open Source Community
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/open_letter.mspx
Per usual you didn't actually read the cases or missed what else is
contained in the statements of the justices per the applicable, but of
course you would since you argue nothing applies to you anyway, and no
one controls anything you do.
You continue to argue your baseless and worthless points, and you
deliberately ignore everything applicable as if that provides your
protection.
The rest of your trash has been sent where it belongs, to null/nothingness.
"
-----
Now if you can't understand the *illegality* of the usage unless done
under Microsoft's allowances, and the *personal liability* attached with
usage of ANY of Microsoft's property regardless the method which YOU
received it, then you have no ability to complain when/if Microsoft,
individual, class and/or group, or any prosecutor [all of which can do
so] files any action against your illegal usage, whether in the U.S.A.
or abroad.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
@nomail.afraid.org FromTheRafters
news:eQFdWR2$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[...]
Usenet is not a site, and its content is not Microsoft's property.
MEB
But anything IN Usenet/use net/usenet it obtained elsewhere [which it
does own, control, and otherwise, is NOT its property. So again, a
useless claim. Microsoft OWNS its groups, the hierarchy, and the
presentation as so stated BY Microsoft.
MEB
> On 05/29/2010 04:11 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> "MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eQFdWR2$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Usenet is not a site, and its content is not Microsoft's property.
>>
>>
>
> But anything IN Usenet/use net/usenet it obtained elsewhere [which it
> does own, control, and otherwise, is NOT its property. So again, a
> useless claim. Microsoft OWNS its groups, the hierarchy, and the
> presentation as so stated BY Microsoft.
>
Sorry, should proof read these:
which it does NOT control,..
Geoff
wrote:
[snip] completely irrelevant and unfathomable gibberish about
copyright on his web site content.
The prima fascia truth is that Microsoft gave up any copyright on
content of their news servers when they created them as part of Usenet
and that content was disseminated and copied by the peering news
servers all over the globe. They can make no ex post facto claims on
such content after many years of dissemination of that content. They
can only terminate their news server functions and not accept any new
articles from Usenet from those groups that were created many years
ago. They can do what they want with their property (their servers)
but they have no right to dictate what others do with their own
property (the Usenet community at large).
In future, they can claim to "own" content on their web forums but
copyright cannot be forfeit by the authors of the content regardless
of any TOS/TOU. Microsoft cannot own the content they didn't author
themselves, only the presentation of that content. There is simply no
contract when there is no agreement, performance and consideration. As
a Microsoft shareholder, I would consider suing Microsoft if they were
to pursue any recourse along the lines of enforcing their specious
TOS/TOU as a waste of money and resources and a breach of fiduciary
duty to the shareholders.
An author's works are copyright at the moment of creation. Such
copyright cannot be assigned without his/her specific and explicit
agreement. TOS/TOU agreements are unenforceable.
As an author of any writing along the topics encompassed by the
Microsoft newsgroups, I would consider taking action against any
company claiming to "own" those works and making money with them
without paying me a consideration. (Theft and copyright infringement.)
I won't be posting much on Microsoft's forums unless it interests me
to do so or I know it will be freely available to others on those
forums. I will continue to use these groups as freely available
resources as long as they continue to exist.
MEB
> On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:22:52 -0400, MEB <MEB-no...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip] completely irrelevant and unfathomable gibberish about
> copyright on his web site content.
>
> The prima fascia truth is that Microsoft gave up any copyright on
> content of their news servers when they created them as part of Usenet
Wrong. Microsoft never GAVE UP anything. Your purported arguments have
no worth, value or merit.
Microsoft never "created them as part of Usenet".
Geoff
wrote:
>On 05/29/2010 04:53 PM, Geoff wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:22:52 -0400, MEB <MEB-no...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip] completely irrelevant and unfathomable gibberish about
>> copyright on his web site content.
>>
>> The prima fascia truth is that Microsoft gave up any copyright on
>> content of their news servers when they created them as part of Usenet
>
> Wrong. Microsoft never GAVE UP anything. Your purported arguments have
>no worth, value or merit.
>
> Microsoft never "created them as part of Usenet".
Yes, they did so by creating an NNTP server for the purpose. The also
accepted peerage of other NNTP servers. The groups were not private to
the Microsoft servers. The content of such groups, except where posts
were created by Microsoft employees while on working hours, was not
the property of Microsoft.
QED
If, in fact, you are a lawyer, you must not be a very successful one.
You seem to have time to post useless arguments about Microsoft's
rights but can't be bothered to pay court fees in Brahier vs. Bonini.
Leythos
he...@hotmail.com says...
> But anything IN Usenet/use net/usenet it obtained elsewhere [which it
> does own, control, and otherwise, is NOT its property. So again, a
> useless claim. Microsoft OWNS its groups, the hierarchy, and the
> presentation as so stated BY Microsoft.
>
MS does not "Own" the groups, and they only control the content ON THEIR
OWN SERVERS.
--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
David H. Lipman
From: "Geoff" <ge...@invalid.invalid>
| QED
My main man Geoff :-)
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
MEB
> On Sat, 29 May 2010 17:02:18 -0400, MEB <MEB-no...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 05/29/2010 04:53 PM, Geoff wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:22:52 -0400, MEB <MEB-no...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip] completely irrelevant and unfathomable gibberish about
>>> copyright on his web site content.
>>>
>>> The prima fascia truth is that Microsoft gave up any copyright on
>>> content of their news servers when they created them as part of Usenet
>>
>> Wrong. Microsoft never GAVE UP anything. Your purported arguments have
>> no worth, value or merit.
>>
>> Microsoft never "created them as part of Usenet".
>
> Yes, they did so by creating an NNTP server for the purpose.
Microsoft created the NNTP server for its OWN users and specifically
indicated and stated that in the 1996 news release document.
So again, your purported arguments are baseless, valueless, and have no
merit.
Geoff
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>My main man Geoff :-)
Hi David, yes this is great fun, isn't it? Fine entertainment on a
Saturday afternoon. More fun than Topo Gigo. :)
MEB
> In article <eSkgI22$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB-not-
> he...@hotmail.com says...
>> But anything IN Usenet/use net/usenet it obtained elsewhere [which it
>> does own, control, and otherwise, is NOT its property. So again, a
>> useless claim. Microsoft OWNS its groups, the hierarchy, and the
>> presentation as so stated BY Microsoft.
>>
>
> MS does not "Own" the groups, and they only control the content ON THEIR
> OWN SERVERS.
>
Nifty, but that is not factual, Microsoft documents and the Law show
otherwise.
More baseless, worthless, and material lacking merit.
David H. Lipman
;-)
Leythos
he...@hotmail.com says...
>
> On 05/29/2010 05:37 PM, Leythos wrote:
> > In article <eSkgI22$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB-not-
> > he...@hotmail.com says...
> >> But anything IN Usenet/use net/usenet it obtained elsewhere [which it
> >> does own, control, and otherwise, is NOT its property. So again, a
> >> useless claim. Microsoft OWNS its groups, the hierarchy, and the
> >> presentation as so stated BY Microsoft.
> >>
> >
> > MS does not "Own" the groups, and they only control the content ON THEIR
> > OWN SERVERS.
> >
>
> Nifty, but that is not factual, Microsoft documents and the Law show
> otherwise.
>
> More baseless, worthless, and material lacking merit.
You are a lot like Alias, full of claims and having nothing to back-up
your position.
Leythos
he...@hotmail.com says...
>
> On 05/29/2010 05:22 PM, Geoff wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 May 2010 17:02:18 -0400, MEB <MEB-no...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/29/2010 04:53 PM, Geoff wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:22:52 -0400, MEB <MEB-no...@hotmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [snip] completely irrelevant and unfathomable gibberish about
> >>> copyright on his web site content.
> >>>
> >>> The prima fascia truth is that Microsoft gave up any copyright on
> >>> content of their news servers when they created them as part of Usenet
> >>
> >> Wrong. Microsoft never GAVE UP anything. Your purported arguments have
> >> no worth, value or merit.
> >>
> >> Microsoft never "created them as part of Usenet".
> >
> > Yes, they did so by creating an NNTP server for the purpose.
>
> Microsoft created the NNTP server for its OWN users and specifically
> indicated and stated that in the 1996 news release document.
>
> So again, your purported arguments are baseless, valueless, and have no
> merit.
And yet they freely move and accept information from non-MS servers and
have no control over the non-MS servers and have never once suggested
otherwise.
MEB
> In article <#5Kdld3$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB-not-
> he...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> On 05/29/2010 05:22 PM, Geoff wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 17:02:18 -0400, MEB <MEB-no...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/29/2010 04:53 PM, Geoff wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:22:52 -0400, MEB <MEB-no...@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip] completely irrelevant and unfathomable gibberish about
>>>>> copyright on his web site content.
>>>>>
>>>>> The prima fascia truth is that Microsoft gave up any copyright on
>>>>> content of their news servers when they created them as part of Usenet
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. Microsoft never GAVE UP anything. Your purported arguments have
>>>> no worth, value or merit.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft never "created them as part of Usenet".
>>>
>>> Yes, they did so by creating an NNTP server for the purpose.
>>
>> Microsoft created the NNTP server for its OWN users and specifically
>> indicated and stated that in the 1996 news release document.
>>
>> So again, your purported arguments are baseless, valueless, and have no
>> merit.
>
> And yet they freely move and accept information from non-MS servers and
> have no control over the non-MS servers and have never once suggested
> otherwise.
>
>
Oh yes, Microsoft does have control.
MEB
> In article <OvvQ6g3$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB-not-
> he...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> On 05/29/2010 05:37 PM, Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <eSkgI22$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB-not-
>>> he...@hotmail.com says...
>>>> But anything IN Usenet/use net/usenet it obtained elsewhere [which it
>>>> does own, control, and otherwise, is NOT its property. So again, a
>>>> useless claim. Microsoft OWNS its groups, the hierarchy, and the
>>>> presentation as so stated BY Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>
>>> MS does not "Own" the groups, and they only control the content ON THEIR
>>> OWN SERVERS.
>>>
>>
>> Nifty, but that is not factual, Microsoft documents and the Law show
>> otherwise.
>>
>> More baseless, worthless, and material lacking merit.
>
> You are a lot like Alias, full of claims and having nothing to back-up
> your position.
>
HAHAHAHA, Microsoft's documents, copyright Law, Laws against theft, and
numerous others all provide the answer you people can't seem to get...
Provide a shred of proof you or anyone has been legally "allowed" to
use Microsoft's property, these groups; that takes distinctive written
authorization from Microsoft.
Leythos
he...@hotmail.com says...
> Provide a shred of proof you or anyone has been legally "allowed" to
> use Microsoft's property, these groups; that takes distinctive written
> authorization from Microsoft.
>
I see you still can't prove that MS owns anything in these groups, other
than the copyright to the content that MS itself/employees post here,
and even that's questionable in most countries.
So, again, you provide nothing, you can't even prove your claim, and
those of us that have worked on Usenet, been part of it, understand it,
since the 80's, know that you're completely unable to support your
mistaken claim.
Leythos
he...@hotmail.com says...
> > And yet they freely move and accept information from non-MS servers and
> > have no control over the non-MS servers and have never once suggested
> > otherwise.
> >
> >
>
> Oh yes, Microsoft does have control.
>
Prove it
MEB
> In article <uKARK55$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB-not-
> he...@hotmail.com says...
>> Provide a shred of proof you or anyone has been legally "allowed" to
>> use Microsoft's property, these groups; that takes distinctive written
>> authorization from Microsoft.
>>
>
> I see you still can't prove that MS owns anything in these groups, other
> than the copyright to the content that MS itself/employees post here,
> and even that's questionable in most countries.
>
> So, again, you provide nothing, you can't even prove your claim, and
> those of us that have worked on Usenet, been part of it, understand it,
> since the 80's, know that you're completely unable to support your
> mistaken claim.
>
You fool, I have shown you and everyone else EXACTLY what controls
this. All of you have *no leg to stand on*.
MEB
> In article <uUQBr55$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB-not-
> he...@hotmail.com says...
>>> And yet they freely move and accept information from non-MS servers and
>>> have no control over the non-MS servers and have never once suggested
>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh yes, Microsoft does have control.
>>
>
> Prove it
>
Well, if I had to guess, you will have that proof shortly. How deep are
your pockets?
Leythos
he...@hotmail.com says...
>
> On 05/29/2010 10:30 PM, Leythos wrote:
> > In article <uKARK55$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB-not-
> > he...@hotmail.com says...
> >> Provide a shred of proof you or anyone has been legally "allowed" to
> >> use Microsoft's property, these groups; that takes distinctive written
> >> authorization from Microsoft.
> >>
> >
> > I see you still can't prove that MS owns anything in these groups, other
> > than the copyright to the content that MS itself/employees post here,
> > and even that's questionable in most countries.
> >
> > So, again, you provide nothing, you can't even prove your claim, and
> > those of us that have worked on Usenet, been part of it, understand it,
> > since the 80's, know that you're completely unable to support your
> > mistaken claim.
> >
>
> You fool, I have shown you and everyone else EXACTLY what controls
> this. All of you have *no leg to stand on*.
LOL, and you've not shown anything. MS could say, do, jump up and down,
and not a single Usenet server/company would have to listen to them. The
groups can remain without permission from MS, that's the way that Usenet
works, no peer has to accept any changes or requests if they don't want
too and there is no legal reason for them to stop hosting these groups.
Leythos
he...@hotmail.com says...
>
> On 05/29/2010 10:31 PM, Leythos wrote:
> > In article <uUQBr55$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB-not-
> > he...@hotmail.com says...
> >>> And yet they freely move and accept information from non-MS servers and
> >>> have no control over the non-MS servers and have never once suggested
> >>> otherwise.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Oh yes, Microsoft does have control.
> >>
> >
> > Prove it
> >
>
> Well, if I had to guess, you will have that proof shortly. How deep are
> your pockets?
I see that you've not proven anything, again.
MEB
> In article <OFbbJH6$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB-not-
> he...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> On 05/29/2010 10:30 PM, Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <uKARK55$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB-not-
>>> he...@hotmail.com says...
>>>> Provide a shred of proof you or anyone has been legally "allowed" to
>>>> use Microsoft's property, these groups; that takes distinctive written
>>>> authorization from Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see you still can't prove that MS owns anything in these groups, other
>>> than the copyright to the content that MS itself/employees post here,
>>> and even that's questionable in most countries.
>>>
>>> So, again, you provide nothing, you can't even prove your claim, and
>>> those of us that have worked on Usenet, been part of it, understand it,
>>> since the 80's, know that you're completely unable to support your
>>> mistaken claim.
>>>
>>
>> You fool, I have shown you and everyone else EXACTLY what controls
>> this. All of you have *no leg to stand on*.
>
> LOL, and you've not shown anything. MS could say, do, jump up and down,
> and not a single Usenet server/company would have to listen to them. The
> groups can remain without permission from MS, that's the way that Usenet
> works, no peer has to accept any changes or requests if they don't want
> too and there is no legal reason for them to stop hosting these groups.
>
Check the group this was cross-posted to.. you will see my name [or
depending upon your reader maybe nothing, unless they now want to show
something else] as poster, no header, no message... just you quoting my
supposed post in response directly under it in the thread... I'd say
that's pretty actively controlling these groups.
David H. Lipman
David H. Lipman
MEB
Guys and Gals, none of anything you present means squat... what matters
is the Law. How dense can you people be...
John John - MVP
Certainly not as dense as you! Legal arguments aside, you really don't
know how this Usenet thing works, Microsoft *DOES NOT* control anything
on Usenet, they control their own servers and that is it. They don't
control any other independent nntp operators any more than they control
independent websites on the www. All of your 'legal' gibberish would
still remain to be proven in a court of law and a wise lawyer once told
me that there was no such thing as a slam dunk in court and to never
anticipate on the future outcome of a trial.
John
Leythos
he...@hotmail.com says...
> Guys and Gals, none of anything you present means squat... what matters
> is the Law. How dense can you people be...
>
And yet my Usenet provider says that they will continue to carry these
groups as long as there is traffic - and since posts originating from
the actual MS servers only make up a part of this traffic, it appears,
by law, that these groups will continue past MS ending their involvement
with Usenet.
Geoff
word "microsoft":
EasyNews : 4024
Eternal September: 1794
Microsoft.com : 1772
bob
what is Topo Gigo?
@nomail.afraid.org FromTheRafters
news:ulrfId3A...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
I think he meant Topo Gigio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topo_Gigio