Re: Can a law firm sue Google over "New Google Newsgroups"

[K Wills]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:26:56 +0200, Jos Bergervoet
<jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>On 7/25/2012 11:23 PM, K Wills wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:59:54 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
> [...]
>>>>> In some states, artists may sue
>>>>> you and recover damages if you alter or destroy their works without
>>>>> permission.
>>>>
>>>> Even if I own them? That makes no sense to me.
>>>
>>> Surprised me, too. It's an extension of intellectual property rights
>>> that gives the artist a legal interest in the ends to which his work is
>>> put to. It's not universal.
>>>
>>> There was a case in which an artist won a lawsuit against a vendor who
>>> resold his work, framed. Apparently the framed canvasses constituted a
>>> derivative work.
>>
>> Now that is pure stupidity.
>
>Don't you have any respect for the law?!
>

It's is a stupid law. If I own something like a Van Gogh and
wish to do something as stupid as ruin it, so what? As long as I
don't try to file an insurance claim against it, and I don't harm
anyone else, why would it matter?

>> A frame?
>> I do hope the ruling was appealed and overturned.
>
>Oh, I see! You're more concerned about the
>earnings of the lawyers :-)

Isn't everyone? I mean, how do they manage to stay in business
with such low fees? :)

--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.

[David Bernier]

It's like an arms race. Everyone wants the best defense team.

[richard miller]

On Jul 24, 6:57 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Google is switching to "New Google Newsgroups."
>
> New Google Newsgroups allows bully posters to eliminate the posts of
> others under a mechanism of:
>
> "This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse."
>
> Google is a private company, but in this case, it is using the posts
> of Usenet which is not a private company.
>
> Freedom of Speech is being denied in this "New Google Newsgroups" and
> many authors are censored in this new format.
>
> Can Google be sued for this new format?
>
> There is a law on artists protecting artists that once a painting is
> done, that others cannot go in and alter the painting into a new
> painting. So that a painting cannot be bought and altered posing as a
> new painting. The New Google Newsgroups violates this law of artists,
> for there is no stopping of bully posters eliminating not only fresh
> new posts of an author to Usenet, but also, going backwards through
> the archive kept by Google and eliminating old posts of an author.
>
> Can Google be made to always carry Old Google Newsgroups and then have
> New Google Newsgroups as an option.
>
> Or, can Google be forced to retain the posts of Usenet and if Google
> wants to radically change the formatting of those posts, that Google
> must create an entirely new portal with different names of newsgroups
> and cannot use Usenet of sci.math, sci.physics, misc.legal etc etc.
>
> I believe Usenet can be considered a separate entity from that of
> Google Newsgroups, and thus Usenet a separate legal entity.
>
> I believe the changes of New Google Newsgroups infringes on the
> Freedom of Speech of Usenet and all the posts that preceded these
> sweeping changes by Google.
>
> Can a law firm force Google to always keep "Old Google Newsgroups and
> then have as **optional** any changes in format.
>
> AP

Does Archimedes return from the grave to question the usage of his
name?

Do the discoverers of Plutonium question the usage of this element as
a surname?

Do scientists ask for a mathematical foundation rather than just
words, incessant words?

Discuss.

Regards,

Richard Miller

[Bill Graham]

Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 7/25/2012 11:23 PM, K Wills wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:59:54 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
> [...]
>>>>> In some states, artists may sue
>>>>> you and recover damages if you alter or destroy their works
>>>>> without permission.
>>>>
>>>> Even if I own them? That makes no sense to me.
>>>
>>> Surprised me, too. It's an extension of intellectual property
>>> rights that gives the artist a legal interest in the ends to which
>>> his work is put to. It's not universal.
>>>
>>> There was a case in which an artist won a lawsuit against a vendor
>>> who resold his work, framed. Apparently the framed canvasses
>>> constituted a derivative work.
>>
>> Now that is pure stupidity.
>
> Don't you have any respect for the law?!
>

>> A frame?
>> I do hope the ruling was appealed and overturned.
>
> Oh, I see! You're more concerned about the
> earnings of the lawyers :-)

Opens up a whole new can of worms. Exactly what is a, "work of art"? If you
work in a furniture factory, does every chair you produce constitute a work
of art? So, if somebody you don't like sits in it, can you sue them? Sounds
like liberal stupidity to me, but what do I know?

[Shmuel Metz]

In <dg1218pu82re13vit...@4ax.com>, on 07/26/2012

at 03:57 AM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:

>It's is a stupid law.

You haven't given a reason to believe that it is.

>If I own something like a Van Gogh

He's dead, Jim.

>and I don't harm anyone else,

If your grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. The point of the law
is precisely that you do harm someone else; specifically, you harm the
reputation of the artist.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[K Wills]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:04:15 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

If one claims the chair is a work of art, the builder would
probably fall under Work for Hire, since it was made in a furniture
factory. This means the builder will not have any say in the use or
display of the chair.
Even so, the idea that someone can sue because the owner of an
item chose to ruin that item is pure stupidity.

--
"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer.

[K Wills]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:30:35 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <dg1218pu82re13vit...@4ax.com>, on 07/26/2012
> at 03:57 AM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>It's is a stupid law.
>
>You haven't given a reason to believe that it is.
>

That you don't like what I gave doesn't mean I didn't give it.

>>If I own something like a Van Gogh
>
>He's dead, Jim.
>
>>and I don't harm anyone else,
>
>If your grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. The point of the law
>is precisely that you do harm someone else; specifically, you harm the
>reputation of the artist.

How? It's not like I'm claiming Van Gogh ruined his painting.
If it's a contemporary artist, I'm not claiming s/he did it. I
would be openly admitting that I ruined the painting. Such an action
may earn me some rest at a local mental health care facility, but it
shouldn't violate any law.

[Bill Graham]

Still, I don't want my government deciding what is a work of art and what
isn't, and making laws that control my use of it. That's not their job, man.
There are some people (Me) who just want the government to stay the hell out
of our private lives. (And while they are at it, they can stop supporting
art and artists with my tax dollars, too.)

[Bill Graham]

When somebody creats something, and sells it to someone else, he is putting
it and his creative ability out there into the public domain. Some people
will like his work, andf some will not. But that's all part of the game. If
he doesn't want anyone to criticise it, he better keep it in his own living
room. He shouldn't try to get my government to make laws protecting it, or
forcing others to like and take care of it.

[deadrat]

OK, I can't stand it any longer. This has nothing at all do with
criticism, nothing to do with forcing people to like things, nothing to
do with requiring people to take care of art works.

Works of art are two kinds of property -- intellectual and personal.
The creator retains some rights in the intellectual property he creates
while the owner has the remaining rights that accrue to ownership.

The primary right of intellectual property is the right to make copies.
Even if you own a book and can therefore sell it or gift it or
bequeath it, you cannot make a copy without permission of the copyright
holder. Part of copyright is the ability to control derivative works:
you can't make a copy of _Gone with the Wind_, change the last line to
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a shit." and claim that your version is
different and thus the copyright holder has no rights to it. One artist
claimed that his work framed was a separate work of art from his work
frameless, and a jury agreed. The result is that the framer had to
negotiate a fee for the artist.

Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing interest in
his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't deliberately damage
or destroy it without permission.

You may think intellectual property rights are bunk, and your opinion is
so noted. At least get the facts of the matter straight.

[Seth]

In article <5011386b$48$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

> The point of the law
>is precisely that you do harm someone else; specifically, you harm the
>reputation of the artist.

If I own the artwork, and I put it in a box in a storage closet and
never let anyone else see it, that's perfectly legal. But if I
destroy it, that isn't.

How does the second one hurt the artist's reputation more than the
first? In both cases, nobody else can see it.

What if the destruction is with the artist's permission (or at his
request)? Been there, done (or at least participated in) that.

Seth

[deadrat]

On 7/27/12 10:41 AM, Seth wrote:
> In article <5011386b$48$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The point of the law
>> is precisely that you do harm someone else; specifically, you harm the
>> reputation of the artist.
>
> If I own the artwork, and I put it in a box in a storage closet and
> never let anyone else see it, that's perfectly legal.

That's because you as the owner of the art as property have the
exclusive right of use and enjoyment.

> But if I destroy it, that isn't.

That's because some jurisdictions allow the artist to retain the
intellectual property right of future display.

> How does the second one hurt the artist's reputation more than the
> first? In both cases, nobody else can see it.
>
> What if the destruction is with the artist's permission (or at his
> request)? Been there, done (or at least participated in) that.

Like most rights, the artist may give it up.

> Seth
>

[cda...@jprude.net]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:44:38 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Exactly what is a, "work of art"?

In the few states in this country whose law in some
acknowledged way recognizes and to one degree or another enforces "le
droit moral" principles, the answer will depend on how the law to such
effect is construed and applied in each such state. While this might
often be in ways influenced by and which to some extent parallel
federal law, many factors therefore will influence answers at the
state level. Obviously.
For the purposes of the federal 1988 Berne Convention
Implementation Act and of the federal Visual Artists Rights Act
enacted in 1990 and now codified as part of the U. S. Copyright Act as
the minimum that the U. S. congress decided was required by the
country's required compliance with the Berne copyright treaties to
which the U S. has been a party, treaties and federal statutes
negotiated in large part at the behest of large and politically
powerful I.P. related corporations, you can consult especially 17 U.
S. Code sects. 100, 101, and 506.
If, however, you are too uninterested or lazy to do that, it
may suffice to be aware that the Copyright Act's provisions that
answer or at least provide the legislative framework for answering
your question are in essence this:
That law covers a work of visual art which, for that statutory
purpose, would be an original painting, drawing, print, or sculpture
that exists as a single copy or in a limited edition of fewer than 201
copies and is not a poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing,
diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audio-visual
work.

>If you work in a furniture factory, does every chair you produce
>constitute a work of art?

Very probably not especially when, as here, you seem to refer
to a mass produced chair as part of a run of more than 200 and not to
what may be accurately regarded as an actually unique chair in form
and function but which also is an original sculpture. Still, if there
was an unresolved controversy about whether an object was a chair that
is not a visual work of art within the statutory definition between
parties with standing to resort to this and who do so in a timely
fashion, a federal district court may and presumably would determine
the answer in any particular litigated case.
HOWEVER, this question is almost certainly irrelevant for
adroit moral purposes to a you who is employed by a furniture
manufacturer, which presumably is what you mean by works in a
furniture factory.
This is because answering this question requires contrasting
someone who designs and on her or his own fabricates a sculpture as a
work of art even if it also may be fairly regarded in part as
functionally a chair and, if relevant, whether the person doing this
in a furniture factory was permitted by the factory owner to use the
owner's facility for that individually determined purpose with someone
employed by the furniture manufacturer in that manufacturer's factory.
The reasons for this HOWEVER and distinction are that the
federal VARA does not cover a work made for hire, which including
whatever if any artistic value that inheres in it belongs entirely to
the employer and not to the employee who made it within the scope of
his or her employment, and that courts in the comparatively few so far
litigated cases dealing with these issues appear to take and also
signal that they will continue to take a broad view of what is a work
for hire for these purposes.

>So, if somebody you don't like sits in it, can you sue them?

Since you know already that almost anyone can sue almost
anyone else for almost anything, this is not only a dumb but is an
actually perverse question. As for whether the you in question
probably would prevail of that you was to sue, see the comments above
and also those previously well stated by deadrat.

>Sounds like liberal stupidity to me, but wha,t do I know?

You point to a problem of yours, not of others, and it is one
that is worse than what you do not know.
It is your disregard of what you do know that is most
problematic here.
As of course you know, in the complex country and society in
which you have chosen to live and, one learns from your news group
postings, apparently without you having the courage and integrity of
your avowed convictions by you living independently off the grid or at
least trying in some actually meaningful and affirmative way besides
news group posting in which you indulge merely in generalized
political sloganeering, answers will be determined by effective effort
in the very legal systems on which, despite your catchphrases trying
to suggest otherwise, you rely.

>I don't want my government deciding what is a work of art and what
>isn't, and making laws that control my use of it. That's not their job,
>man. There are some people (Me) who just want the government to
>stay the hell out of our private lives. (And while they are at it, they
>can stop supporting art and artists with my tax dollars, too.)

And so here you again favor your readers with only superficial
slogans instead of clearly articulated thought which make you
seemingly cluelessly unaware that you build in to this kind of
sentiment assumption about what is and is not private, what is and is
not an appropriate role of government and law, and so forth.
Not only the present one but others of your news group
postings I have seen are actually striking in this connection not only
for your relentless avoidance of posting articulated reasoning for
your generalized shibboleths but also because they have not included
any concrete example that shows that you, in particular, have been
controlled in what reasonably may be said to by your private sphere of
being and of activity.

[K Wills]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:49:40 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>K Wills wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:30:35 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>> <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In <dg1218pu82re13vit...@4ax.com>, on 07/26/2012
>>> at 03:57 AM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> It's is a stupid law.
>>>
>>> You haven't given a reason to believe that it is.
>>>
>>
>> That you don't like what I gave doesn't mean I didn't give it.
>>
>>>> If I own something like a Van Gogh
>>>
>>> He's dead, Jim.
>>>
>>>> and I don't harm anyone else,
>>>
>>> If your grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. The point of the law
>>> is precisely that you do harm someone else; specifically, you harm
>>> the reputation of the artist.
>>
>> How? It's not like I'm claiming Van Gogh ruined his painting.
>> If it's a contemporary artist, I'm not claiming s/he did it. I
>> would be openly admitting that I ruined the painting. Such an action
>> may earn me some rest at a local mental health care facility, but it
>> shouldn't violate any law.
>
>When somebody creats something, and sells it to someone else, he is putting
>it and his creative ability out there into the public domain.

Not quite. The artist still retains the copyright, unless s/he
included the transfer of the copyright with the purchase.
In my hypothetical, I can't copy the painting unless I either own
the copyright or have secured permission from the copyright holder.
But then, I wasn't claiming I would copy it. I would ruin it.

>Some people
>will like his work, andf some will not.

If someone doesn't like a piece of work, they probably won't buy
it. Only in my hypothetical would such a thing be plausible.

>But that's all part of the game. If
>he doesn't want anyone to criticise it, he better keep it in his own living
>room. He shouldn't try to get my government to make laws protecting it, or
>forcing others to like and take care of it.

Exactly. The idea that someone can get sued for doing something
to their own property when it harms no one else is just stupid.

--
I could write about noble gases, but there would be no reaction.

[cda...@jprude.net]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:41:05 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth)

wrote:

>
>> The point of the law
>>is precisely that you do harm someone else; specifically, you harm the
>>reputation of the artist.
>
>If I own the artwork, and I put it in a box in a storage closet and
>never let anyone else see it, that's perfectly legal. But if I

>destroy it, that isn't ....

.... in a jurisdiction whose law recognizes such non
destruction as a component of le droit moral protectible there.

>How does the second one hurt the artist's reputation more than the
>first? In both cases, nobody else can see it.

When phrased this way, this question rests on the what can be
an incorrect assumption that a moral rights recognizing treaty or
other law or court ruling based in material part on a moral rights
approach is limited to protecting only the individual artist's
reputation.
You here apparently refer to the preservation and vindication
of the so called integrity standard of the federal VARA, which, as you
know or at least ought presume, also might but does not necessarily
apply in all of the few U. S. states that also recognize some version
of artist's continuing moral rights in a work of art during the
artist's life if the artist has not waived such rights.
Where and when such integrity protection derives from and is
intended to emphasize a public interest in preserving a nation's
culture, destruction is prohibited.
Where and when jurisdiction specific notions of integrity for
these purposes are intended mostly to emphasize the artist's
personality and individual reputation, destruction ordinarily is
deemed to be less harmful than the continued display of a
substantially altered or even mutilated work that misrepresents the
artist so that the work's destruction may be allowed law.
Thus case to case results may vary.

>What if the destruction is with the artist's permission (or at his
>request)? Been there, done (or at least participated in) that.

As sethb apparently knows, VARA is intended to protect the
reputation of covered artists and of the works of art they create by
providing artists with the rights of attribution and integrity
And as he also knows but as others may not, in pretty much
every part of the world and certainly in the U. S. where VARA applies,
an artist may waive the right to assert le droit moral claims.
In recent times commercial commissioning of a works of art,
many do waive moral rights claim making even when they may not have
also instead agreed or agreed expressly or in effect that accepting a
paid commission will be deemed to result in a work for hire
relationship.

[Bill Graham]

Huh?

Sorry.... You are over my head. I just don't want the government screwing
with my privwte life. I am not wn artist. But I play music, and somebody
bought all the music ever written since 1927. The year doesn't progress from
that point. It stays at 1927, even though the composers are long since dead.
If you walk down the street whistling a happy tune, sdome lawyer may jump
out for the woodwork and sue you for enjoying your whistle. Thei is, "your
government in action". It makes me sick. If you wasnt to have a discuassion
with me on this subject, please speak in words of one or perhaps two
syllables. I find you very hard to understand.

I am willing to entertain the right of an artist to not have his work
trashed while his name is still on it. With music, they allow (and perhaps
should require) the arranger to attach his name to the work, and perhaps
they should do the same with paintings. But how much, "screwing with" are
you going to put up with before you draw the line and say, the present owner
can use the work in that manner, and not be held liable for it? Certainly,
reframing a picture seems a normal use to me. That's kind of like the
composer saying, "You may play it in Carneige Hall, but not in Asbury Park".

[Bill Graham]

Yes. However, on reconsideration, I am willing to accept that one shouldn't
change a work of art but still leave the original artists name on it. IOW,
once I buy it, I can screw with it all I want, but I should take the
original artist's name off of it, so people won't think he/she made it that
way. As I said in another post, with music, the arranger's name on the work
should suffice.

[K Wills]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:47:11 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

[...]

>>> Some people
>>> will like his work, andf some will not.
>>
>> If someone doesn't like a piece of work, they probably won't buy
>> it. Only in my hypothetical would such a thing be plausible.
>>
>>> But that's all part of the game. If
>>> he doesn't want anyone to criticise it, he better keep it in his own
>>> living room. He shouldn't try to get my government to make laws
>>> protecting it, or forcing others to like and take care of it.
>>
>> Exactly. The idea that someone can get sued for doing something
>> to their own property when it harms no one else is just stupid.
>
>Yes. However, on reconsideration, I am willing to accept that one shouldn't
>change a work of art but still leave the original artists name on it. IOW,
>once I buy it, I can screw with it all I want, but I should take the
>original artist's name off of it, so people won't think he/she made it that
>way. As I said in another post, with music, the arranger's name on the work
>should suffice.

With the Van Gogh in my hypothetical, anyone who saw the ruined
piece would, or should, know that's not how it was originally made.
If it's from a modern artist, it may not be as easy to know. I've
seen some stuff that really stretched the definition of art with me. A
quick example: At a museum in Minneapolis, I once saw a very large
canvas with a single, small green dot on it. If I recall, it was
priced at $5000.00.
Even if the name is left on, I can easily tell a friend who stops
by that I did whatever it is that ruined the painting. If I had Van
Gogh's original Lyrics (which in all honesty I would LOVE to own) and
threw black paint all over it, first I should be locked up in a padded
room, I would let people know this isn't how Lyrics actually looked.
Of course, most people would see that right away. Even if they aren't
familiar with Lyrics, they would probably have had enough exposure to
Van Gogh's work to know he didn't use modern paints and didn't just
throw it haphazardly on the canvass.

--
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

[Bill Graham]

I wouldn't be so sure. My field of expertise is music, and I can tell you
that the average, "man on the street" can't tell a pretty tune from a car
hitting a pile of empty garbage cans.... Just watch the end of the Jay Leno
show every night.....

[Seth]

In article <PKCdneIKpdbGVY_N...@giganews.com>,

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>On 7/27/12 10:41 AM, Seth wrote:

>> If I own the artwork, and I put it in a box in a storage closet and
>> never let anyone else see it, that's perfectly legal.
>
>That's because you as the owner of the art as property have the
>exclusive right of use and enjoyment.
>
>> But if I destroy it, that isn't.
>
>That's because some jurisdictions allow the artist to retain the
>intellectual property right of future display.

If he has a photo of it, he can display it (the photo) just as much
whether I hide the art or destroy it. If he doesn't have a photo, he
has no legal ability to display the art: I don't have to let him. If
he has the legal ability to prevent me from displaying it publicly, he
can exercise that just fine if I destroy it (in fact, that makes it
even easier for him to exercise).

Seth

[deadrat]

Your post makes little sense, but that's probably because you're
responding to a statement of mine that's misleading. In some
jurisdictions, an artist retains some rights concerning the eventual
fate of his creation, in the sense that the owner does not have the
right to deface of destroy the work of art without the creator's permission.

The owner retains the right to display the intact work at his discretion.

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

In <juucqh$ap5$2...@reader1.panix.com>, on 07/27/2012

at 03:41 PM, se...@panix.com (Seth) said:

>If I own the artwork, and I put it in a box in a storage closet and
>never let anyone else see it, that's perfectly legal. But if I
>destroy it, that isn't.

That would depend on the jurisdiction, but IAC it isn't what was under
discussion. The issue was displaying an altered copy of the work.

>How does the second one hurt the artist's reputation more than the
>first?

I don't know; it's your red herring. Neither has any bearing on the
issue in dispute.

>What if the destruction is with the artist's permission (or at his
>request)?

I would hope that it is legal, but again it would depend on the
jurisdiction.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

In <Ir2dnejOTuosro7N...@giganews.com>, on 07/27/2012
at 05:34 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:

>It makes me sick. If you wasnt to have a discuassion (sic) with

> me on this subject, please speak in words of one or perhaps two
>syllables.

Will "right wing nut" do?

>I am willing to entertain the right of an artist to not have his
>work trashed while his name is still on it.

Then what's your beef?

>But how much, "screwing with" are you going to put up with

That's up to the author; if you don't like his terms, don't buy a copy
of the work.

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

In <wqqdnYQeY68Pq47N...@giganews.com>, on 07/27/2012

at 05:47 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:

>Yes. However, on reconsideration, I am willing to accept that one
>shouldn't change a work of art but still leave the original

?artists name on it. IOW, once I buy it, I can screw with it all I

>want, but I should take the original artist's name off of it, so
>people won't think he/she made it that way.

So now you endorse plagiarism.

--

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

[Shmuel Metz]

In <7dj3189q89jve17qa...@4ax.com>, on 07/26/2012

at 06:08 PM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:

> That you don't like what I gave doesn't mean I didn't give it.

The Devil is in the details. The US constitution explicitly provides
for copyrights, although the duration in current law makes am mockery
of the term "limited".

>How? It's not like I'm claiming Van Gogh ruined his painting.

No, you're implying that a dead artist is the same as a living one.

>If it's a contemporary artist, I'm not claiming s/he did it. I
>would be openly admitting that I ruined the painting.

If you display it as the work of the artist, then you are affecting
his reputation. That's harm.

>Such an action may earn me some rest at a local mental health
>care facility,

The current law on intellectual property is fascistic enough without
allowing the government to impose Soviet-style repression.

>but it shouldn't violate any law.

Your claim wasn't simply that it should be legal, but that it didn't
harm anyone else.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <WqGdnXjMpfrneYzN...@giganews.com>, on 07/26/2012

at 05:44 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:

>Still, I don't want my government deciding what is a work of art
>and what isn't, and making laws that control my use of it.

Then I suggest that you discard your prejudices and vote against the
right wing politicians that allow the corporations to dictate to you
how to use media that you have purchased, instead of blaming liberals
for things that they were not responsible for.

[K Wills]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:46:37 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <7dj3189q89jve17qa...@4ax.com>, on 07/26/2012
> at 06:08 PM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> That you don't like what I gave doesn't mean I didn't give it.
>
>The Devil is in the details. The US constitution explicitly provides
>for copyrights, although the duration in current law makes am mockery
>of the term "limited".

Destroying something I own isn't a violation of copyright.

>
>>How? It's not like I'm claiming Van Gogh ruined his painting.
>
>No, you're implying that a dead artist is the same as a living one.
>

Lying isn't going to help you.

>>If it's a contemporary artist, I'm not claiming s/he did it. I
>>would be openly admitting that I ruined the painting.
>
>If you display it as the work of the artist, then you are affecting
>his reputation. That's harm.
>

Who said I was displaying it? I did mention that others might be
able to see it, but that's not the same as displaying it.
You're trying, and failing, to argue points I've never presented.

>>Such an action may earn me some rest at a local mental health
>>care facility,
>
>The current law on intellectual property is fascistic enough without
>allowing the government to impose Soviet-style repression.
>
>>but it shouldn't violate any law.
>
>Your claim wasn't simply that it should be legal, but that it didn't
>harm anyone else.

Try to pay attention.
It should not be illegal because it doesn't harm anyone.

[K Wills]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 22:03:53 -0400, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <juucqh$ap5$2...@reader1.panix.com>, on 07/27/2012
> at 03:41 PM, se...@panix.com (Seth) said:
>
>>If I own the artwork, and I put it in a box in a storage closet and
>>never let anyone else see it, that's perfectly legal. But if I
>>destroy it, that isn't.
>
>That would depend on the jurisdiction, but IAC it isn't what was under
>discussion. The issue was displaying an altered copy of the work.
>

You're lying. The issue was destroying the work. I should know,
I brought it up.

[K Wills]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 22:11:57 -0400, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <Ir2dnejOTuosro7N...@giganews.com>, on 07/27/2012
> at 05:34 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:
>
>>It makes me sick. If you wasnt to have a discuassion (sic) with
>> me on this subject, please speak in words of one or perhaps two
>>syllables.
>
>Will "right wing nut" do?
>

I should have known you're a liberal. Your constant lying is
consistent with the liberal mind set.

--
'Life is pain. Anybody that says different is selling something.'
-- Fezzik's mother

[K Wills]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 22:19:42 -0400, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <wqqdnYQeY68Pq47N...@giganews.com>, on 07/27/2012
> at 05:47 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:
>
>>Yes. However, on reconsideration, I am willing to accept that one
>>shouldn't change a work of art but still leave the original
>?artists name on it. IOW, once I buy it, I can screw with it all I
>>want, but I should take the original artist's name off of it, so
>>people won't think he/she made it that way.
>
>So now you endorse plagiarism.

No reasonably prudent person would think that. Any number of
LIEberals would.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <4nhc18lql0n99mo8p...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012

at 03:33 AM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:

>I should have known you're a liberal.

Sorry, tonto, wrong again.

--

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the

[Shmuel Metz]

In <umhc185ecc7070jh8...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012

at 03:33 AM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:

>You're lying. The issue was destroying the work. I should know, I
>brought it up.

ROTF,LMAO! In Message-ID: <dg1218pu82re13vit...@4ax.com>
you quoted "deadrat "'s comment "There was a case in which an artist

won a lawsuit against a vendor who resold his work, framed.

Apparently the framed canvasses constituted a derivative work." Your
Van Gogh stupidity had nothing to do with that law.

"He who would lie needs must have a good memory." You don't, so stop
lying.

--

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the

[Shmuel Metz]

In <nlhc18l7m1ci23rtd...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012

at 03:33 AM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:

>Lying isn't going to help you.

That's why I, unlike you, don't. I do, however, point out when people
pretend that the disagreement is over something other than the actual
disagreement. The discussion was in response to "There was a case in

which an artist won a lawsuit against a vendor who resold his work,
framed. Apparently the framed canvasses constituted a derivative

work.". There's nothing there about whether it is legal to destroy or
mutilate the work of a dead artist, and pretending otherwise is
dishonest.

FOAD, HTH. HAND.

[K Wills]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:23:51 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <umhc185ecc7070jh8...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012
> at 03:33 AM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>You're lying. The issue was destroying the work. I should know, I
>>brought it up.
>
>ROTF,LMAO! In Message-ID: <dg1218pu82re13vit...@4ax.com>
>you quoted "deadrat "'s comment "There was a case in which an artist
>won a lawsuit against a vendor who resold his work, framed.
>Apparently the framed canvasses constituted a derivative work." Your
>Van Gogh stupidity had nothing to do with that law.
>

Please see Message-ID:
<9u6u085su170ut3aj...@4ax.com>

Now what are you going to do? Your lie has been exposed.
You surely knew I would expose it.

>"He who would lie needs must have a good memory." You don't, so stop
>lying.

And yet I've just PROVED you a liar.
Your move.

[K Wills]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:56:48 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <nlhc18l7m1ci23rtd...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012
> at 03:33 AM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>Lying isn't going to help you.
>
>That's why I, unlike you, don't.

And yet I the post I just sent, I was able to prove you a liar.
How do you explain this?

>I do, however, point out when people
>pretend that the disagreement is over something other than the actual
>disagreement.

You mean you flat out lie.

>The discussion was in response to "There was a case in
>which an artist won a lawsuit against a vendor who resold his work,
>framed. Apparently the framed canvasses constituted a derivative
>work.". There's nothing there about whether it is legal to destroy or
>mutilate the work of a dead artist, and pretending otherwise is
>dishonest.
>

Nice try, but as I am certain is always the case with you, the
truth and your claim doesn't match.
I brought up destroying a work of art. I used Van Gogh as an
example. DR then replied with what you mention.

>FOAD, HTH. HAND.

Feel free to get the mental heath care your pathological lying
makes very clear you NEED.

[Bill Graham]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <WqGdnXjMpfrneYzN...@giganews.com>, on 07/26/2012
> at 05:44 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> Still, I don't want my government deciding what is a work of art
>> and what isn't, and making laws that control my use of it.
>
> Then I suggest that you discard your prejudices and vote against the
> right wing politicians that allow the corporations to dictate to you
> how to use media that you have purchased, instead of blaming liberals
> for things that they were not responsible for.

And I would do just that, were I a complete and dedicated non-liberal. But
alas, I am half liberal. I am only an economic conservative. I am a social
liberal. So, I am a man without a country. Every election I have to choole
between a social friend who wants to steal all my money and give it to the
poor, and a narrow-minded religious nut who wants me to keep the money I
have earned. Sometimes the choice is very hard, but I usually go with the
money I have spent my life working for. Do you have any suggestions for me?

[Bill Graham]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

> In <Ir2dnejOTuosro7N...@giganews.com>, on 07/27/2012
> at 05:34 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> It makes me sick. If you wasnt to have a discuassion (sic) with
>> me on this subject, please speak in words of one or perhaps two
>> syllables.
>
> Will "right wing nut" do?
>
>> I am willing to entertain the right of an artist to not have his
>> work trashed while his name is still on it.
>
> Then what's your beef?
>
>> But how much, "screwing with" are you going to put up with
>
> That's up to the author; if you don't like his terms, don't buy a copy
> of the work.

What, "Terms". That was not part of the discussion. I have never seen a
painting for sale in an art gallery that had any strings attached to it. If
the artist wanted control over his work agter sale to someone else, he
should present a contract to the buyer, and have him read and sign it before
a notary public. Otherwise, the presumption is that one can do whatever they
want with it after they buy it, isn't that true?

Oh, by the way, do you think all libertarian constitutionalists are, "right
wing nuts", or do you just single me out in particular? Don't forget that
our founding fathers were libertarians and constitutionalists..... I am sure
that were they still alive, they would call you a, "left wing nut".

[Bill Graham]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

> In <wqqdnYQeY68Pq47N...@giganews.com>, on 07/27/2012
> at 05:47 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> Yes. However, on reconsideration, I am willing to accept that one
>> shouldn't change a work of art but still leave the original
> ?artists name on it. IOW, once I buy it, I can screw with it all I
>> want, but I should take the original artist's name off of it, so
>> people won't think he/she made it that way.
>
> So now you endorse plagiarism.

Ha! - Brilliant! I must admit that I never thought of that.... With music,
one doesn't remove the composers name, but one does add the arrangers name.
Perhaps something like that could be done with the graphic arts.... If you
hang it in a museum, you could add a tag that says, "Reframed by such and
such".

[deadrat]

Yeah, stop listening to the bullshit from your "economic [so-called]
conservative" friends, who are picking your pocket.

[deadrat]

On 7/31/12 12:27 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>> In <Ir2dnejOTuosro7N...@giganews.com>, on 07/27/2012
>> at 05:34 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> It makes me sick. If you wasnt to have a discuassion (sic) with
>>> me on this subject, please speak in words of one or perhaps two
>>> syllables.
>>
>> Will "right wing nut" do?
>>
>>> I am willing to entertain the right of an artist to not have his
>>> work trashed while his name is still on it.
>>
>> Then what's your beef?
>>
>>> But how much, "screwing with" are you going to put up with
>>
>> That's up to the author; if you don't like his terms, don't buy a copy
>> of the work.
>
> What, "Terms". That was not part of the discussion. I have never seen a
> painting for sale in an art gallery that had any strings attached to it.
> If the artist wanted control over his work agter sale to someone else,
> he should present a contract to the buyer, and have him read and sign it
> before a notary public. Otherwise, the presumption is that one can do
> whatever they want with it after they buy it, isn't that true?

Nope. The gov has pre-written a "contract" under intellectual property
right laws that lets the artist retain some rights. You can't do
"whatever" you want with a work you buy. In particular, you can't copy
it legally.

> Oh, by the way, do you think all libertarian constitutionalists are,
> "right wing nuts", or do you just single me out in particular? Don't
> forget that our founding fathers were libertarians and
> constitutionalists..... I am sure that were they still alive, they would
> call you a, "left wing nut".

Our founding fathers would have held an ignoramus like you in utter
contempt.

[bacle...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:57:29 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Google is switching to "New Google Newsgroups."
>
>
>
> New Google Newsgroups allows bully posters to eliminate the posts of
>
> others under a mechanism of:
>
>
>
> "This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse."
>


Maybe they're referring to your repeated cowardly libeling of Mathematicians,

and you're defacing sites by repeatedly posting OT ; posting on physics on

sci. %$^ math, because your majesty, fat-ass, functionally-iliterate and

unemployable baboon plutonium cannot be bothered to post somewhere else.
>
>
> Google is a private company, but in this case, it is using the posts
>
> of Usenet which is not a private company.
>
>
>
> Freedom of Speech is being denied in this "New Google Newsgroups" and
>
> many authors are censored in this new format.
>
>
You're an author? You copy-and-paste from physics textbooks and you make things

up. When was the last time you had any actual data to support what you said?

BTW: anyone ever asked to buy your books? 1-ply or 2-ply?
> Can Google be sued for this new format?
>
>
>
> There is a law on artists protecting artists that once a painting is
>
> done, that others cannot go in and alter the painting into a new
>
> painting. So that a painting cannot be bought and altered posing as a
>
> new painting. The New Google Newsgroups violates this law of artists,
>
> for there is no stopping of bully posters eliminating not only fresh
>
> new posts of an author to Usenet, but also, going backwards through
>
> the archive kept by Google and eliminating old posts of an author.
>
>
>
> Can Google be made to always carry Old Google Newsgroups and then have
>
> New Google Newsgroups as an option.
>
>
>
> Or, can Google be forced to retain the posts of Usenet and if Google
>
> wants to radically change the formatting of those posts, that Google
>
> must create an entirely new portal with different names of newsgroups
>
> and cannot use Usenet of sci.math, sci.physics, misc.legal etc etc.
>
>
Yes, google and others should live their lives to suit unemployable twats

like yourself. Go back to dishwashing; you're not good at this "thinking"

thing.
> I believe Usenet can be considered a separate entity from that of
>
> Google Newsgroups, and thus Usenet a separate legal entity.
>
>
>
> I believe the changes of New Google Newsgroups infringes on the
>
> Freedom of Speech of Usenet and all the posts that preceded these
>
> sweeping changes by Google.
>
And, yet, as usual, no one really gives a damn about what you think, because

you are not skilled at thinking; you have no published papers, no books, nothing.

Seriously, you are not well-viewed as a thinker. Seriously: have you

ever even had an _article_ with your views published _anywhere_? I mean,

if you did not engage in your stupid name-changing games and shouted and

libeled, no one would know who you are.
>
> Can a law firm force Google to always keep "Old Google Newsgroups and
>
> then have as **optional** any changes in format.
>
>
>
> AP

Hope you lose all your worthless work with the new format, LOSER.

[Seth]

In article <wqqdnYQeY68Pq47N...@giganews.com>,

Bill Graham <we...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Yes. However, on reconsideration, I am willing to accept that one shouldn't
>change a work of art but still leave the original artists name on it. IOW,
>once I buy it, I can screw with it all I want, but I should take the
>original artist's name off of it, so people won't think he/she made it that
>way.

If you change it, then you've produced a derivative work. The right
to do that is part of copyright, and owned by the original artist for
the term of the copyright.

Seth

[Seth]

In article <RKmdndaoGeBR8YrN...@giganews.com>,

Bill Graham <we...@comcast.net> wrote:

>What, "Terms". That was not part of the discussion. I have never seen a
>painting for sale in an art gallery that had any strings attached to it. If
>the artist wanted control over his work agter sale to someone else, he
>should present a contract to the buyer, and have him read and sign it before
>a notary public. Otherwise, the presumption is that one can do whatever they
>want with it after they buy it, isn't that true?

No, that isn't true. The presumption is that one can do what the law
does not prohibit.

Seth

[Pubkeybreaker]

On Monday, July 30, 2012 10:56:48 AM UTC-4, Seymour J. Shmuel Metz wrote:
> In <nlhc18l7m1ci23rtd...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012 at 03:33 AM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said: >Lying isn't going to help you.

<snip>

An associated but somewhat ancillary query.

Can the U.S. (federal or state) government take IP by
emminent domain?

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In sci.physics.electromag Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <wqqdnYQeY68Pq47N...@giganews.com>,
> Bill Graham <we...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>Yes. However, on reconsideration, I am willing to accept that one shouldn't
>>change a work of art but still leave the original artists name on it.

(snip)

> If you change it, then you've produced a derivative work. The right
> to do that is part of copyright, and owned by the original artist for
> the term of the copyright.

I suppose in the usual case (books) where you want to publish many
copies, after buying only one. (Then you would make an agreement
with the author on how much you would pay for each copy sold.)

As far as I know, though, if you buy books, modify each one,
put in the appropriate attribution (you for the changes, the
original author for the original book) then you can resell
them without specific permission.

One could, of course, violate other laws with the modified copy.

-- glen

[deadrat]

If the change produces a separate work suitable for copyright. Of
course, if it doesn't, you've merely made a copy of the orginal.

>
> Seth
>

[deadrat]

No, if your modification produced a work suitable for its own copyright,
then you've produced a derivative work, the rights to which belong to
the original author. If your modifications aren't extensive or original
enough to produce a derivative work, then you've violated the author's
copyright to the original. It doesn't matter how many you produce or
even whether you make money on the modified copies.

You've made this hypothetical easy because your modified book contains
all of the original author's work, thus removing the possibility of fair
use.

> One could, of course, violate other laws with the modified copy.

What laws would those be?

> -- glen

[Bill Graham]

But it is possible to do an almost infinite number of things with most any
work of art. How can the law specifically prohibit all of these things?
Since it can't, it doesn't make much sense. How many notes of a musical
composition would one have to change before he is encroaching on the
copyrights of the original composer? How many changed before it is viewed as
a different work altogether? This is a law made specifically to enhance the
pocketbooks of the lawyers.....

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 7/31/2012 6:09 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 7/31/12 10:19 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

...

>> As far as I know, though, if you buy books, modify each one,
>> put in the appropriate attribution (you for the changes, the
>> original author for the original book) then you can resell
>> them without specific permission.
>
> No, if your modification produced a work suitable for its own copyright,
> then you've produced a derivative work, the rights to which belong to
> the original author.

Why is that relevant? The rights to the *unmodified* book
also belong to the original author! But you are allowed
to sell it as a second-hand book, aren't you?

...

> If your modifications aren't extensive or original
> enough to produce a derivative work, then you've violated the author's
> copyright to the original.

OK, let's say the modifications are just some remarks
in the margin on some pages, or a few underlined
sentences. Do you think it is not allowed to resell
this as a second-hand book?

--
Jos

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In sci.physics.electromag deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:


(snip)

>>> If you change it, then you've produced a derivative work. The right
>>> to do that is part of copyright, and owned by the original artist for
>>> the term of the copyright.

(snip, then I wrote)

>> As far as I know, though, if you buy books, modify each one,
>> put in the appropriate attribution (you for the changes, the
>> original author for the original book) then you can resell
>> them without specific permission.

> No, if your modification produced a work suitable for its own
> copyright, then you've produced a derivative work, the rights
> to which belong to the original author. If your modifications
> aren't extensive or original enough to produce a derivative work,
> then you've violated the author's copyright to the original.

Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing, I am
not suggesting any copying. The suggesting is to buy N books,
modify them, then sell N books. No copying at all. The author
gets all royalties for all books sold.

> It doesn't matter how many you produce or
> even whether you make money on the modified copies.

I heard not so long ago of someone actually doing this.
Buying (many) copies of "Origin of Species", pasting a new page
on the inside front cover (anti-evolution of some sort) then
giving them away.

> You've made this hypothetical easy because your modified book contains
> all of the original author's work, thus removing the possibility of fair
> use.

Doesn't fair use only apply if actual copying is done?

>> One could, of course, violate other laws with the modified copy.

> What laws would those be?

How about libel? Maybe I add untrue comments about the author.
Or maybe add something that is government classified information.

Someone else mentioned writing notes in a book and then reselling it.
That happens pretty often in the used book market, and I have
never heard anyone say that selling such a book is illegal.
I am suggesting doing it on a larger scale, but otherwise the
same idea.

-- glen

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In sci.physics.electromag Bill Graham <we...@comcast.net> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)

>> No, that isn't true. The presumption is that one can do what the law
>> does not prohibit.

> But it is possible to do an almost infinite number of things
> with most any work of art. How can the law specifically prohibit
> all of these things?

Seems to me that if the author wants to prohibit more than the
law protects, then it should be done with a specific contract
with the buyer. Given the shrink-wrap licensing done for software,
you might be able to do that for other artwork, too. Usually that
requires the buyer to pass on the same requirements to subsequent
buyers.

DVDs often have restrictions against public performance, and
I would suspect that one could also do that for a painting.

> Since it can't, it doesn't make much sense. How many notes of a
> musical composition would one have to change before he is
> encroaching on the copyrights of the original composer?

If you want to make many copies and sell them, then copyright
comes up. If you just want to sell the one you bought, then
I believe it doesn't.

> How many changed before it is viewed as a different work
> altogether? This is a law made specifically to enhance the
> pocketbooks of the lawyers.....

-- glen

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 7/31/2012 9:49 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In sci.physics.electromag deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

...

>> You've made this hypothetical easy because your modified book contains
>> all of the original author's work, thus removing the possibility of fair
>> use.
>
> Doesn't fair use only apply if actual copying is done?
>
>>> One could, of course, violate other laws with the modified copy.
>
>> What laws would those be?
>
> How about libel? Maybe I add untrue comments about the author.
> Or maybe add something that is government classified information.
>
> Someone else mentioned writing notes in a book and then reselling it.
> That happens pretty often in the used book market, and I have
> never heard anyone say that selling such a book is illegal.
> I am suggesting doing it on a larger scale,

Of course it was your suggestion! Sorry if I
infringed on your rights to the idea in my
other posting. (Or perhaps my modifications
were extensive enough to produce a derivative
work?! I'm not sure now.. I think I'll leave
it to my lawyer!)

--
Jos

[deadrat]

On 7/31/12 12:45 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Seth wrote:
>> In article <RKmdndaoGeBR8YrN...@giganews.com>,
>> Bill Graham <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> What, "Terms". That was not part of the discussion. I have never
>>> seen a painting for sale in an art gallery that had any strings
>>> attached to it. If the artist wanted control over his work agter
>>> sale to someone else, he should present a contract to the buyer, and
>>> have him read and sign it before a notary public. Otherwise, the
>>> presumption is that one can do whatever they want with it after they
>>> buy it, isn't that true?
>>
>> No, that isn't true. The presumption is that one can do what the law
>> does not prohibit.
>>
>> Seth
>
> But it is possible to do an almost infinite number of things with most
> any work of art. How can the law specifically prohibit all of these
> things?

It doesn't. The law prohibits you from profiting from the intellectual
effort of another by making copies of the art produced through that
effort. In some jurisdictions the law also prohibits you from damaging
and destroying an art work.

> Since it can't, it doesn't make much sense. How many notes of a
> musical composition would one have to change before he is encroaching on
> the copyrights of the original composer?

That's an issue of fact to be determined by a jury.

<snip/>

[deadrat]

On 7/31/12 2:49 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In sci.physics.electromag deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>
> (snip)
>
>>>> If you change it, then you've produced a derivative work. The right
>>>> to do that is part of copyright, and owned by the original artist for
>>>> the term of the copyright.
>
> (snip, then I wrote)
>
>>> As far as I know, though, if you buy books, modify each one,
>>> put in the appropriate attribution (you for the changes, the
>>> original author for the original book) then you can resell
>>> them without specific permission.
>
>> No, if your modification produced a work suitable for its own
>> copyright, then you've produced a derivative work, the rights
>> to which belong to the original author. If your modifications
>> aren't extensive or original enough to produce a derivative work,
>> then you've violated the author's copyright to the original.
>
> Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing, I am
> not suggesting any copying. The suggesting is to buy N books,
> modify them, then sell N books. No copying at all. The author
> gets all royalties for all books sold.

Yes, we're on the same page here, pun intended The answer depends on
whether your emendations have created a separate work of art worthy of
copyright in itself and based on the original. Let us recall that in
the US "worthy" means something in a fixed medium that required a
certain minimal amount of originality and creativity, and "based on"
means that the new work has "recast, transformed, or adapted" the old
work. If you have created such a worthy work, it is derivative of the
original, and you have violated the original author's copyright.

But let's say that your efforts are unworthy. Perhaps you have merely
signed your name in the left margin of each page of the book. This
would hardly require much in the way of either originality or
creativity. Now what you have instead of a derivative work is a used
book, which you may sell without constraint.

>> It doesn't matter how many you produce or
>> even whether you make money on the modified copies.
>
> I heard not so long ago of someone actually doing this.
> Buying (many) copies of "Origin of Species", pasting a new page
> on the inside front cover (anti-evolution of some sort) then
> giving them away.

The copyright on OoS has lapsed, so the issue wouldn't arise in this case.

>
>> You've made this hypothetical easy because your modified book contains
>> all of the original author's work, thus removing the possibility of fair
>> use.
>
> Doesn't fair use only apply if actual copying is done?

No, fair use includes display and performance as well.

If you unbound each book, shuffled your page-by-page literary criticism
into the leaves, and then rebound the pages, I think you'd have made a
derivative work. If you started leaving out certain pages of the
original, at some point you'd get to fair use. At which point, it would
obviously be silly to buy whole copies of the original.

>>> One could, of course, violate other laws with the modified copy.
>
>> What laws would those be?
>
> How about libel? Maybe I add untrue comments about the author.

In the US, only if they're damaging, believable, and the author's
reputation wasn't already irredeemable.

> Or maybe add something that is government classified information.

In the US, only if you were the custodian of such information.

I suppose you could write a death threat on the flyleaf or hit somebody
with the book. But we're pretty far afield here.

[Gordon Burditt]

> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing interest in
> his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't deliberately damage
> or destroy it without permission.

How far does this go?

Hypothetical example: I wake up one morning and discover an artist
painting a mural on my house. I have him arrested for vandalism,
and he is convicted.

The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an anti-grafetti
ordinance. I want it gone, too, it's not my taste in art and the
neighbors are complaining.

I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have
rights here to preserve his work?

Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away". The work is
painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the
house.

[deadrat]

On 7/31/12 5:25 PM, Gordon Burditt wrote:
>> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing interest in
>> his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't deliberately damage
>> or destroy it without permission.
>
> How far does this go?
>
> Hypothetical example: I wake up one morning and discover an artist
> painting a mural on my house. I have him arrested for vandalism,
> and he is convicted.
>
> The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an anti-grafetti
> ordinance. I want it gone, too, it's not my taste in art and the
> neighbors are complaining.
>
> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
> visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
> or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have
> rights here to preserve his work?

17USC113. You must make a good faith effort to inform the artist of
your non-artistic intentions regarding your house and thus his work, so
as to give him a chance to pay for the removal of his work to a
friendlier location.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In sci.physics.electromag deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

(snip, after I wrote)

>> Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing, I am
>> not suggesting any copying. The suggesting is to buy N books,
>> modify them, then sell N books. No copying at all. The author
>> gets all royalties for all books sold.

> Yes, we're on the same page here, pun intended The answer depends on
> whether your emendations have created a separate work of art worthy of
> copyright in itself and based on the original. Let us recall that in
> the US "worthy" means something in a fixed medium that required a
> certain minimal amount of originality and creativity, and "based on"
> means that the new work has "recast, transformed, or adapted" the old
> work. If you have created such a worthy work, it is derivative of the
> original, and you have violated the original author's copyright.

Since it hasn't come up yet, or at least I don't remember it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

doesn't seem to say the exact line between what the buyer
can and can't do, but does somewhat restrict the author after
an item has been sold.

> But let's say that your efforts are unworthy. Perhaps you have merely
> signed your name in the left margin of each page of the book. This
> would hardly require much in the way of either originality or
> creativity. Now what you have instead of a derivative work is a used
> book, which you may sell without constraint.

To add another example, say someone makes an artwork, maybe
a painting or sculpture, that contains within it a book.

Maybe only one, or maybe many copies, each of which contains
a purchased copy of the book. Between first sale doctrine and
rights of a derivative work, how would you classify that?

(snip, I wrote)

>> Doesn't fair use only apply if actual copying is done?

> No, fair use includes display and performance as well.

I suppose by now I consider those a temporary form of copying.
If nothing else, onto the retina of someone's eye.
(Not so different from the usual restrictions on software,
which include loading it into DRAM of a computer.)

> If you unbound each book, shuffled your page-by-page literary criticism
> into the leaves, and then rebound the pages, I think you'd have made a
> derivative work. If you started leaving out certain pages of the
> original, at some point you'd get to fair use. At which point, it would
> obviously be silly to buy whole copies of the original.

But maybe you buy them on the used book market for a much lower
price, maybe even lower than the cost of new paper.


(and I also wrote)

>> How about libel? Maybe I add untrue comments about the author.

> In the US, only if they're damaging, believable, and the author's
> reputation wasn't already irredeemable.

Yes, but it is at least possible.

>> Or maybe add something that is government classified information.

> In the US, only if you were the custodian of such information.

Is that still true in the case of nuclear weapons designs?

> I suppose you could write a death threat on the flyleaf or hit
> somebody with the book. But we're pretty far afield here.

Yes.

-- glen

[deadrat]

On 7/31/12 8:18 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In sci.physics.electromag deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> (snip, after I wrote)
>>> Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing, I am
>>> not suggesting any copying. The suggesting is to buy N books,
>>> modify them, then sell N books. No copying at all. The author
>>> gets all royalties for all books sold.
>
>> Yes, we're on the same page here, pun intended The answer depends on
>> whether your emendations have created a separate work of art worthy of
>> copyright in itself and based on the original. Let us recall that in
>> the US "worthy" means something in a fixed medium that required a
>> certain minimal amount of originality and creativity, and "based on"
>> means that the new work has "recast, transformed, or adapted" the old
>> work. If you have created such a worthy work, it is derivative of the
>> original, and you have violated the original author's copyright.
>
> Since it hasn't come up yet, or at least I don't remember it:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
>
> doesn't seem to say the exact line between what the buyer
> can and can't do, but does somewhat restrict the author after
> an item has been sold.

It hasn't come up because it deals with the creators rights to
distribution, not to copying.

>> But let's say that your efforts are unworthy. Perhaps you have merely
>> signed your name in the left margin of each page of the book. This
>> would hardly require much in the way of either originality or
>> creativity. Now what you have instead of a derivative work is a used
>> book, which you may sell without constraint.
>
> To add another example, say someone makes an artwork, maybe
> a painting or sculpture, that contains within it a book.
>
> Maybe only one, or maybe many copies, each of which contains
> a purchased copy of the book. Between first sale doctrine and
> rights of a derivative work, how would you classify that?

If the book or books are part of a sculpture, then it's hard to see how
that qualifies as a derivative of the book. But you're a dedicated
member of the Whatiffer Club, so I'll guess you'll be able to extend
this hypothetical appropriately.

> (snip, I wrote)
>
>>> Doesn't fair use only apply if actual copying is done?
>
>> No, fair use includes display and performance as well.
>
> I suppose by now I consider those a temporary form of copying.
> If nothing else, onto the retina of someone's eye.

But that's not a "fixed" medium, so even though you consider it a copy,
copyright law doesn't.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In sci.physics.electromag deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)

>>> No, fair use includes display and performance as well.

>> I suppose by now I consider those a temporary form of copying.
>> If nothing else, onto the retina of someone's eye.

> But that's not a "fixed" medium, so even though you consider it a copy,
> copyright law doesn't.

DRAM isn't either, but that doesn't seem to slow down copyright,
or at least claims to it in licenses.

-- glen

[deadrat]

Copying a program into computer memory to run it doesn't violate
copyright. Execution rights are governed by the license.

Program copyright protects the copyright holder from unauthorized
copying to distributable medium like CDs and from the unauthorized
inclusion of the program into other software.

>
> -- glen
>

[Shmuel Metz]

In <hm2e18d09k1bk3j9o...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012
at 05:30 PM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:

>Please see Message-ID:
><9u6u085su170ut3aj...@4ax.com>

The issue is article <dg1218pu82re13vit...@4ax.com>.
Were there a working archive I'd read the other article just for
laughs, but google is well and truly broken.

> And yet I've just PROVED you a liar.

No, you've proved that you're an idiot.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Shmuel Metz]

In <RKmdndaoGeBR8YrN...@giganews.com>, on 07/30/2012
at 10:27 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:

>What, "Terms".

The terms of sale including those added by statute.

>Otherwise, the presumption is that one can do whatever they want
>with it after they buy it, isn't that true?

No, the presumption is that they are bound by the laws of the
jurisdiction in which they purchased the work.

>Oh, by the way, do you think all libertarian constitutionalists are,
>"right wing nuts",

No, but I also don't think that everyone applying that term to
themselves qualifies.

>Don't forget that our founding fathers were libertarians and constitutionalists.....

Shirley you're joking.

3/5

>I am sure that were they still alive, they would call you a, "left wing nut".

Thus proving my point that your perceptions are colored by your
prejudices.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <pt-dnedapMXB-orN...@giganews.com>, on 07/30/2012

at 10:04 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:

>Do you have any suggestions for me?

I once wrote in Franz Kafka. I wish that we had a "None of the above"
option.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <nn2e189sng9op6j72...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012

at 05:30 PM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:

> And yet I the post I just sent, I was able to prove you a liar.

Not even close.

> How do you explain this?

You're an idiot. You didn't send me a post, you sent me a message id,
which google was able to find only in the article citing it.

> You mean you flat out lie.

No, I mean that you're not only a liar but an idiot.

>Feel free to get the mental heath care your pathological lying makes
>very clear you NEED.

Well, somebody does.

[K Wills]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 07:54:32 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <hm2e18d09k1bk3j9o...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012
> at 05:30 PM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>Please see Message-ID:
>><9u6u085su170ut3aj...@4ax.com>
>
>The issue is article <dg1218pu82re13vit...@4ax.com>.

No it's not. Don't whine that your lie was exposed.

>Were there a working archive I'd read the other article just for
>laughs, but google is well and truly broken.

A pity you can't figure out how to make use of MIDs. It's really
very simple.
Personally, I think you were able to use it and saw that your lie
was exposed and now, in desperation, you're trying to deflect from it.
Here's a direct link to the post that you are DESPERATE to avoid:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/83b02817f07fbd38

BTW, I used the MID to find it on Google.
Note where I wrote, "While it would be a very stupid thing to do,
I could buy an original Van Gogh and cover the work with any paint I
wish. There is no law that prevents this."
As you can see, I was the one who brought up the matter of
ruining a painting. No amount of your lying will alter this very
simple truth.

>
>> And yet I've just PROVED you a liar.
>
>No, you've proved that you're an idiot.

You LIED about what began the discussion about ruining a
painting. I can only guess that you thought that since you are unable
to make use of the MID I posted, no one else will be able either.

--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George

[K Wills]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:14:03 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <nn2e189sng9op6j72...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012
> at 05:30 PM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> And yet I the post I just sent, I was able to prove you a liar.
>
>Not even close.
>
>> How do you explain this?
>
>You're an idiot. You didn't send me a post, you sent me a message id,

I didn't send YOU anything. I sent a post to Usenet. While you
read it, don't presume you alone received it. I'm sure others
downloaded the post, though each person would need to state so for
themselves.

>which google was able to find only in the article citing it.
>

How odd that in the post I just sent, I post a link to the very
article in question.
Would you like it again? I'm willing to expose you for the liar
you are. Just let me know.

>> You mean you flat out lie.
>
>No, I mean that you're not only a liar but an idiot.

Odd that while I've proved you a liar, and an idiot, you've been
unable to do so with me.

How do you explain this?

>

>>Feel free to get the mental heath care your pathological lying makes
>>very clear you NEED.
>
>Well, somebody does.

And that you are compelled to lie shows it's you.

--
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

[Bill Graham]

With music, you can't perform it for profit without specific permission from
the original copyright holder. (usually the composer) I don't fully
understand how to apply this same principal to paintings. If you make
printed reproductions and sell them, is that different from displaying it in
your own private museum and charging an entrance fee? I can buy "prints" of
almost any painting from a framing shop. Do they have to pay the original
artist a percentage of their profit for doing this? And, if so, for how long
after the orininal sale of the painting does this apply? Many of the
original artists are dead. But, even though many original composers are
dead, people like Hal Leonard still own the copyrights to their music, and
you can't perform it for gain either or the "whistle a happy tune police"
(BMI) will come to get you. I think the cut-off date for this is around
1927, and it doesn't change with time.... It will stay at 1927, apparently,
for the rest of time.

[Bill Graham]

There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and the canvas
its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The information on them
was his private "papers" and should have been protected by the forth
amendment, but SCOTUS said that since he purchased the tape and recording
equipment with government money, everything belonged to them, and so they
tromped on his forth amendment rights to be secure in his personal papers
and effects. Since the artist painted on your house, you can now trash his
work with impumity according to SCOTUS.....

[Bill Graham]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <pt-dnedapMXB-orN...@giganews.com>, on 07/30/2012
> at 10:04 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> Do you have any suggestions for me?
>
> I once wrote in Franz Kafka. I wish that we had a "None of the above"
> option.

Yes. Not only would the leadership be better, but we would save a lot of
money too......:^)

[Gordon Burditt]

>> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
>> visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
>> or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have
>> rights here to preserve his work?
>>
>> Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away". The work is
>> painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the
>> house.
>
> There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and the canvas
> its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The information on them
> was his private "papers" and should have been protected by the forth
> amendment, but SCOTUS said that since he purchased the tape and recording
> equipment with government money, everything belonged to them, and so they
> tromped on his forth amendment rights to be secure in his personal papers
> and effects.

If one of the "little guys" tried the same approach, I'd suspect
that they'd be told that since the conversations recorded were done
on the job that the information on the tapes was a "work for hire"
or some such thing and belonged to the government.

[Bill Graham]

Yes. I used to work for a government financed physics laboratory. We had an
office supplies locker. Occasionally, I would take a steno pad out of that
locker. Suppose I kept a personal diary on these steno pads. And suppose the
police confiscated one of my pads, and used the information on it against me
in a court of law. My attorney might argue that this was a violation of my
forth amendment rights to be secure in my papers and personal effects, but
the proswecution could argue that, since the steno pad was government
property, I had no right to the information on that pad, and it could be
used against me in a court of law. If this is the case, then everyone out
there take notice: If you keep a personal record of your activities, be sure
to keep it on paper that you purchase with your own money, and keep the
receipt you got when yuou bought it, preferably pasted on the book itself,
since our judges are apparently too stupid to be able to tell the difference
between data and the medium it is recorded on, and/or think that the framers
of the constitution couldn't tell that difference.

[deadrat]

Not exactly. Profit doesn't matter. And you don't need specific
permission if they artist has an agreement with companies that collect
royalties on behalf of artists. Or do you think your favorite radio
station has to get "specific permission" for each song on their playlist?

> (usually the composer) I don't fully
> understand how to apply this same principal to paintings.

It's "principle." And it doesn't apply to paintings.

> If you make
> printed reproductions and sell them, is that different from displaying
> it in your own private museum and charging an entrance fee?

Yes.

> I can buy
> "prints" of almost any painting from a framing shop. Do they have to pay
> the original artist a percentage of their profit for doing this?

Of course. Directly or indirectly.

> And, if
> so, for how long after the orininal sale of the painting does this
> apply?

As long as the copyright is in force.

> Many of the original artists are dead. But, even though many
> original composers are dead, people like Hal Leonard still own the
> copyrights to their music, and you can't perform it for gain either or
> the "whistle a happy tune police" (BMI) will come to get you. I think
> the cut-off date for this is around 1927, and it doesn't change with
> time.... It will stay at 1927, apparently, for the rest of time.

Congress changes it all the time.

[deadrat]

On 8/1/12 6:38 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>> Some jurisdictions mandate that a creator has a continuing interest
>>> in his work, even when sold, and thus the owners can't deliberately
>>> damage or destroy it without permission.
>>
>> How far does this go?
>>
>> Hypothetical example: I wake up one morning and discover an artist
>> painting a mural on my house. I have him arrested for vandalism,
>> and he is convicted.
>>
>> The city is pressuring me to remove grafetti under an anti-grafetti
>> ordinance. I want it gone, too, it's not my taste in art and the
>> neighbors are complaining.
>>
>> I want him to pay for repainting my house to make the mural not
>> visible. He and his lawyer claim he has the right to prohibit me
>> or anyone else from repainting my house. Does the "artist" have
>> rights here to preserve his work?
>>
>> Note that I cannot say "take your work and go away". The work is
>> painted on the house and can't be removed without destroying the
>> house.
>
> There must be a distinction between the "Artistic Expression" and the
> canvas its painted on... This reminds me of Nixon's tapes. The
> information on them was his private "papers"

No, it wasn't. They were all discussions he held as President.

> and should have been
> protected by the forth amendment,

It's "fourth." And the tapes were evidence of criminal activity. This
evidence was subpoenaed.

> but SCOTUS said that since he
> purchased the tape and recording equipment with government money,
> everything belonged to them,

SCOTUS said no such thing. They said that his claims of executive
privilege couldn't defeat a Congressional subpoena. Nothing to do with
who owned the tapes or the taping equipment, which, by the way, were
bought with GSA funds. As irrelevant as that is.

> and so they tromped on his forth amendment
> rights to be secure in his personal papers and effects.

It's "fourth." And that amendment doesn't mean that private papers and
effects can't be subpoenaed.

> Since the artist
> painted on your house, you can now trash his work with impumity
> according to SCOTUS.....

Wrong again. Copyright law tells you what you have to do to remove the
work.

Does it hurt to be this ignorant?

No?

Too bad.

[deadrat]

Gawd, what an ignoramus you are. When the prosecution gets a valid
search warrant for your papers, it doesn't matter who bought the pad.

[K Wills]

On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:38:43 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

That's a poor analogy.
Had Nixon bought the equipment with his money and used it in the
residential part of the White House, your argument could be valid. He
used government funds and recorded in a government office (the Oval
Office).
Further, the tapes were subpoenaed. It's not like law
enforcement just walked into the Oval Office and took everything.

>Since the artist painted on your house, you can now trash his
>work with impumity according to SCOTUS.....

I'd just paint over the mural without a second thought. But
that's me.

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

In <9s4j18175f5ld1i04...@4ax.com>, on 08/01/2012
at 03:37 PM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:

>No it's not.

Still denying the obvious?

>I think

No.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

In <9t4j189hdnrk90o47...@4ax.com>, on 08/01/2012

at 03:39 PM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:

>I post a link to the very article in question.

Still lying, I see. You did not post a link in Message-ID:
<hm2e18d09k1bk3j9o...@4ax.com>, you posted a message
id[1]. Or are you just too ignorant to know the difference?

[1] Specifically, Message-ID:
<9u6u085su170ut3aj...@4ax.com>

--

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

[K Wills]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:50:56 -0400, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <9t4j189hdnrk90o47...@4ax.com>, on 08/01/2012
> at 03:39 PM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>I post a link to the very article in question.
>

Interesting. That line appears NOWHERE in the article to which
you replied.

>Still lying, I see. You did not post a link in Message-ID:
><hm2e18d09k1bk3j9o...@4ax.com>, you posted a message
>id[1]. Or are you just too ignorant to know the difference?
>
>[1] Specifically, Message-ID:
><9u6u085su170ut3aj...@4ax.com>

Here is the text from the post to which you replied (feel free to
check the headers and confirm your deception):



[Begin C&P]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:14:03 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <nn2e189sng9op6j72...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012
> at 05:30 PM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> And yet I the post I just sent, I was able to prove you a liar.
>
>Not even close.
>
>> How do you explain this?
>
>You're an idiot. You didn't send me a post, you sent me a message id,

I didn't send YOU anything. I sent a post to Usenet. While you
read it, don't presume you alone received it. I'm sure others
downloaded the post, though each person would need to state so for
themselves.

>which google was able to find only in the article citing it.
>

How odd that in the post I just sent, I post a link to the very
article in question.

Would you like it again? I'm willing to expose you for the liar
you are. Just let me know.

>> You mean you flat out lie.
>
>No, I mean that you're not only a liar but an idiot.

Odd that while I've proved you a liar, and an idiot, you've been
unable to do so with me.
How do you explain this?

>
>>Feel free to get the mental heath care your pathological lying makes
>>very clear you NEED.
>
>Well, somebody does.

And that you are compelled to lie shows it's you.

[END C&P]

If you'd just be honest, you wouldn't get caught lying.

--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.

[K Wills]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:52:21 -0400, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:37:59 -0500, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 07:54:32 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>><spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>In <hm2e18d09k1bk3j9o...@4ax.com>, on 07/30/2012
>>> at 05:30 PM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>>Please see Message-ID:
>>>><9u6u085su170ut3aj...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>>The issue is article <dg1218pu82re13vit...@4ax.com>.
>>
>> No it's not. Don't whine that your lie was exposed.
>>
>

>Still denying the obvious?
>

See below where I prove you the liar you are.

>>>Were there a working archive I'd read the other article just for
>>>laughs, but google is well and truly broken.
>>
>> A pity you can't figure out how to make use of MIDs. It's really
>>very simple.
>> Personally, I think you were able to use it and saw that your lie
>>was exposed and now, in desperation, you're trying to deflect from it.
>> Here's a direct link to the post that you are DESPERATE to avoid:
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/83b02817f07fbd38
>>

I note you removed the link from your reply. Did you think I
wouldn't be able to get it and PROVE you lied?

[Bill Graham]

SCOTUS should have given Nixon the opportunity to give the government the
money it cost to buy and instal the taping equipment and the blank tapes.
Beyoe that, they had no right to see what was on the taqpes. Anyone with any
hint of logic in his soul would know that. Do you really think the framers
of our constitution were talking about the recording media when they wrote
the forth amendment? No. SCOTUS clearly violated Nixon's forth amendment
rights. It was a disgrace, and it took away my forth amendment rights, (and
yours) too.

[deadrat]

Every time I think you can't get any more ignorant, you prove me wrong.

> Beyoe that, they had no right to see what was on the taqpes.

The gov has the right to evidence of a crime.

> Anyone with any hint of logic in his soul would know that.

That wouldn't be you.

> Do you really
> think the framers of our constitution were talking about the recording
> media when they wrote the forth amendment?

It's "fourth." And no, the framers didn't have "recording media" in
mind when they banned unreasonable search and seizure, bu they're
covered anyway. The framers certainly recognized that a criminal
justice system requires reasonable search and seizure to prosecute
criminals like Nixon.

> No. SCOTUS clearly violated Nixon's forth amendment rights.

Despite his protestations, Nixon was a crook, and the government was
entitled to seize the evidence of his crimes using the due process
afforded by the judiciary.

> It was a disgrace,

Nixon's crimes? You bet. Your abyssal ignorance? Ditto.

> and it took away my forth amendment rights, (and yours) too.

Horseshit. The government still needs a judicial order based on cause
to seize any of my personal effects, just as they needed one to seize
Nixon's tapes.

Note that not even Nixon argued 4th Amendment issues in challenging the
subpoena. He relied on executive privilege.

[David Bernier]

Yes, so I've heard with respect to executive privilege.

The case was United States v. Nixon (1974).

On Wikipedia:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon > .

Dave

[K Wills]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:36:24 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>

Why? In all seriousness, it did seem a legitimate purchase. At
least on its face. He used government money to buy equipment used in a
government office.

>Beyoe that, they had no right to see what was on the taqpes.

I think you mean hear :)
Cute jokes aside, a legally obtained subpoena was issued for the
tapes. This gave prosecutors, and defendants, the right to listen.
And they would need to listen to know if there was anything that
could/would be used at trial.

>Anyone with any
>hint of logic in his soul would know that. Do you really think the framers
>of our constitution were talking about the recording media when they wrote
>the forth amendment? No.

Since such media didn't exist, they probably didn't have that in
mind.

>SCOTUS clearly violated Nixon's forth amendment
>rights.

Not so. That a subpoena was sought shows the Constitution was
being followed.

>It was a disgrace, and it took away my forth amendment rights, (and
>yours) too.

Mine still exist. I can't see how yours have been taken away.

[cda...@jprude.net]

On 1 Aug 2012, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote:

>With music, you can't perform it for profit without specific permission
>from the original copyright holder. (usually the composer)

As a matter of practicality, the obviously is incorrect and,
more to the point here, it is incorrect as a matter of law. Indeed,
you indicate below that you are aware of this so that this statement
not only is at best puzzling but suffers from obvious over breath.
As you later go on to say you are aware, depending on the
venue of performance, the performer may become obliged to pay a
royalty to the copyright older, but the performer generally including
lawfully need not ask the author for permission in advance to perform
the song or other piece of music.

>I don't fully understand how to apply this same principal to paintings.

Whether/how one may copy and, if relevant, republish an
original painting or a photograph or other copy of a painting and be
immune from a copyright infringement claim is governed by related but
not by completely the same principles that govern public performances
of a copyright protected work of music.

>If you make printed reproductions and sell them, is that different
>from displaying it in your own private museum and charging an entrance
>fee?

Absent an agreement with the copyright owner if the work is
copyright protected, basically - in other words, not always entirely -
No.
And do not forget that in the U.S. so-called moral rights
issues / claims connected with works of art and discussed earlier in
this thread requires taking account of facts and related principles of
law that can be different from, if you will, classic copyright
infringement claims.

> I can buy "prints" of
>almost any painting from a framing shop. Do they have to pay the original
>artist a percentage of their profit for doing this? And, if so, for how long
>after the orininal sale of the painting does this apply? Many of the
>original artists are dead.

The prints, as prints, may be copyright protected and these
days and especially when made from photographs of the original work
generally are.
Amazing as it may seem, not all frame stores and other sellers
of graphics are especially meticulous in abiding by what copyright law
says is required, but many are.
And for the most part as a matter of business practice these
days, these sorts of questions are answered by negotiated licenses.

> But, even though many original composers are
>dead, people like Hal Leonard still own the copyrights to their music, and
>you can't perform it for gain either or the "whistle a happy tune police"
>(BMI) will come to get you.

Not only BMI but also ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency, or
others, who retain relatively large staffs, effectively private
copyright police, who frequently visit and end up negotiating
settlements with restaurants, nightclubs, country clubs, etc., etc.,
as well as theaters and other venues where musicians perform.

> I think the cut-off date for this is around
>1927, and it doesn't change with time.... It will stay at 1927,
> apparently, for the rest of time.

There are lots of cut off dates depending on the history of
the particular works being copied.
As for whether copyrights for music and other works covered by
copyright will last for the rest of time, this is above all the result
of the very sorts of large and wealthy corporate interests you seem to
want to insulate from Big Government who have purchased laws to enable
what you complain about. And, also not incidentally in this
connection, it has been mostly so-called "conservative" Pres. Reagan
and Pres. Bush appointed federal judges and members of the U.S.
supreme court also commonly but very misleadingly referred to as
"conservatives" - supposedly, Down With Big Government! guys - that
have implemented this as enabled by folk who appear to be politically
like minded to you.

[Bill Graham]

Just because Nixon and his lawyers were too stupid to be able to read and
interpret the US Constitution, that doesn't mean that his 4th amendment
rights weren't violated. I say they were, and Nixon should have dug a hole
in the White house lawn, had a big bar-b-que, invited the press, and tossed
those tapes into the pit as soon as the hot dogs were cooked and served.

Just gbecasue the government does something, that doesn't mean its right. -
Only liberals believe that.....

[Bill Graham]

Oh, I see. As long as you, "get a subpoena, you can tromp on anybody's
constitutional rights anjd its A-OK.... Gee..... I wonder if the founding
fathers knew that.... All Obama has to do is, "Get a subpoena" and he can
trash the whole Constitution.... Come to think of it, that's what he's doing
anyway, with or without a subpoena.....

[Bill Graham]

I defend neithe4 big busines or big government. I simply refuse to throw
either into some, "good bag", or "bad bag". In general, its individual
crooks that I don't like, whether they represent anything big or not. It
disturbs me that someone could copyright all the music written after 1927
and keep my friend from playing it at the local pizza house on Monday nights
without paying BMI $500. Especially since the music he plays was written by
people long dead and gone, and as time goes on, more and more of them will
be dead and gone, but the 1927 cutoff date will stay right there frozen in
time. I wonder how much of that $500 gets in the pockets of anyone who even
knew anyone ever related to those composers..... I doubt if any of it will.
So, it is just another government backed scam to me. Somebody paid our
representatives a bunch of money to make that law......

[Bill Graham]

That's why I was careful to say, "recording media". Recording media of one
type or another hasw existed for thousands of years. A poen and parchment
was the recording media when the constitution was written, and the founding
fathers meant the information, and not the parchment and ink when they wrote
the forth amendment. Apparently SCOTUS is too stupid to realize that.....

[deadrat]

Nixon himself was a very smart lawyer. He graduated at the top of his
class at Duke Law. His lawyer in the tapes case was James St Clair, who
graduated from Harvard Law and had a brilliant career in public service.
You think these two didn't know how to read the Constitution? And who
are you? Besides an egregious ignoramus, that is.

> I say they were, and Nixon should
> have dug a hole in the White house lawn, had a big bar-b-que, invited
> the press, and tossed those tapes into the pit as soon as the hot dogs
> were cooked and served.

Destroying subpoenaed evidence is a crime, which would have led to his
immediate impeachment and conviction.

> Just gbecasue the government does something, that doesn't mean its
> right. - Only liberals believe that.....

Just because you don't like the result, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Only an ignoramus believes that.

[K Wills]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 20:54:23 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

[...]

>>> SCOTUS clearly violated Nixon's forth amendment
>>> rights.
>>
>> Not so. That a subpoena was sought shows the Constitution was
>> being followed.
>>
>>> It was a disgrace, and it took away my forth amendment rights, (and
>>> yours) too.
>>
>> Mine still exist. I can't see how yours have been taken away.
>
>Oh, I see. As long as you, "get a subpoena, you can tromp on anybody's
>constitutional rights anjd its A-OK....

Since a subpoena was sought and issued means the Constitution was
followed.

>Gee..... I wonder if the founding
>fathers knew that.... All Obama has to do is, "Get a subpoena" and he can
>trash the whole Constitution....

Huh?

>Come to think of it, that's what he's doing
>anyway, with or without a subpoena.....

I don't know if he's authorized to ask for a subpoena or not. If
he is and can show a judge why one is needed, then the Constitution
will have been followed.

[Dick Adams]

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Google is switching to "New Google Newsgroups."
>
> New Google Newsgroups allows bully posters to eliminate the posts of
> others under a mechanism of:
>
> "This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse."
>
> Google is a private company, but in this case, it is using the posts
> of Usenet which is not a private company.
>
> Freedom of Speech is being denied in this "New Google Newsgroups" and
> many authors are censored in this new format.
>
> Can Google be sued for this new format?
> .....
>
> Or, can Google be forced to retain the posts of Usenet and if Google
> wants to radically change the formatting of those posts, that Google
> must create an entirely new portal with different names of newsgroups
> and cannot use Usenet of sci.math, sci.physics, misc.legal etc etc.
>
> I believe Usenet can be considered a separate entity from that of
> Google Newsgroups, and thus Usenet a separate legal entity.
>
> I believe the changes of New Google Newsgroups infringes on the
> Freedom of Speech of Usenet and all the posts that preceded these
> sweeping changes by Google.

What Freedom of Speech of Usenet? If you know how to do it,
you can cancel someone else's posts today.

Moderated Usenet Newsgroups are run by people who pick and
choose what gets posted. There was one moderator who only
sent rejection notices if he felt like it and banned people
who argued with him.

As for Google: in my rarely humble opinion, Google has the
integrity of a third world country when it comes to copyright
infringement. My only concern with the last sentence is that
North Korea may sue me for defamation of character.

[Seth]

In article <50191f46$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>No, the presumption is that they are bound by the laws of the
>jurisdiction in which they purchased the work.

Or in which they later moved the work to.

Seth

[Shmuel Metz]

In <WNGdne0bd6U9BoHN...@giganews.com>, on 08/03/2012

at 08:48 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:

>Just gbecasue the government does something, that doesn't mean its
>right. - Only liberals believe that.....

Nixon was a liberal? You're another Pravda reporter. *PLONK*

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the

[Shmuel Metz]

In <89tl18lfnsrp20onu...@4ax.com>, on 08/02/2012

at 04:49 PM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:

>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:50:56 -0400, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
><spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>>In <9t4j189hdnrk90o47...@4ax.com>, on 08/01/2012
>> at 03:39 PM, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>>I post a link to the very article in question.
>>

> Interesting. That line appears NOWHERE in the article to which
>you replied.

ROTF,LMAO! You are not only a liar, you're a pathetic liar.

I'm adding you to my kill file along with the other Pravda reporters.
*PLONK*

--

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the

[Bill Graham]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <WNGdne0bd6U9BoHN...@giganews.com>, on 08/03/2012
> at 08:48 PM, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> Just gbecasue the government does something, that doesn't mean its
>> right. - Only liberals believe that.....
>
> Nixon was a liberal? You're another Pravda reporter. *PLONK*

How this person gets, "Nixon was a liberal" out of anything I have ever
posted is one of the great mysteries of usenet.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Google is switching to "New Google Newsgroups."

New Google Newsgroups allows bully posters to eliminate the posts of
others under a mechanism of:

"This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse."

Google is a private company, but in this case, it is using the posts
of Usenet which is not a private company.

Freedom of Speech is being denied in this "New Google Newsgroups" and
many authors are censored in this new format.

Can Google be sued for this new format?

There is a law on artists protecting artists that once a painting is
done, that others cannot go in and alter the painting into a new
painting. So that a painting cannot be bought and altered posing as a
new painting. The New Google Newsgroups violates this law of artists,
for there is no stopping of bully posters eliminating not only fresh
new posts of an author to Usenet, but also, going backwards through
the archive kept by Google and eliminating old posts of an author.

Can Google be made to always carry Old Google Newsgroups and then have
New Google Newsgroups as an option.

Or, can Google be forced to retain the posts of Usenet and if Google
wants to radically change the formatting of those posts, that Google
must create an entirely new portal with different names of newsgroups
and cannot use Usenet of sci.math, sci.physics, misc.legal etc etc.

I believe Usenet can be considered a separate entity from that of
Google Newsgroups, and thus Usenet a separate legal entity.

I believe the changes of New Google Newsgroups infringes on the
Freedom of Speech of Usenet and all the posts that preceded these
sweeping changes by Google.

Can a law firm force Google to always keep "Old Google Newsgroups and
then have as **optional** any changes in format.

AP

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 7/24/2012 7:57 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
..

> I believe the changes of New Google Newsgroups infringes on the
> Freedom of Speech of Usenet and all the posts that preceded these
> sweeping changes by Google.

I'm not so sure the policy really changed. Weren't
they always like that? Google-owned YouTube is the
same. (Censored, that is!)

I guess more people would be upset if everything
were allowed than if some things are forbidden..

But you do not have to worry, Archie! Unlike us
ordinary people you always have your own group:
alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Please do make sure you use it! Will you?!

--
Jos

[dev-...@example.com]

On 7/24/2012 10:57 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> ...

>
> Google is a private company, but in this case, it is using the posts
> of Usenet which is not a private company.
>
> Freedom of Speech is being denied in this "New Google Newsgroups" and
> many authors are censored in this new format.
>
> Can Google be sued for this new format?
>

> ...

Google controls Google Newsgroups and not USENET. Google is free to
select what they show of USENET posts.

Most USENET servers ignore cancellation attempts anyway.

[David Bernier]

Another point is that whoever uses the Google interface
to post to Usenet is using a Google service, and this service
has its "Terms of Service" rules, set by Google.

I don't think there's a case for arguing that Google
is censoring via this service, and that the
"censoring" is illegal ...

Dave

[K Wills]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:57:29 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Google is switching to "New Google Newsgroups."
>

Yes.

>New Google Newsgroups allows bully posters to eliminate the posts of
>others under a mechanism of:
>
>"This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse."

And?

>
>Google is a private company, but in this case, it is using the posts
>of Usenet which is not a private company.
>

No, it is archiving the posts of Usenet and permits the posting
to Usenet from its servers. Google has the legal right to determine
what will and will not be shown on Google Groups.

>Freedom of Speech is being denied in this "New Google Newsgroups" and
>many authors are censored in this new format.
>
>Can Google be sued for this new format?

Yes, but the likelihood of winning is very small.

>
>There is a law on artists protecting artists that once a painting is
>done, that others cannot go in and alter the painting into a new
>painting. So that a painting cannot be bought and altered posing as a
>new painting.

While it would be a very stupid thing to do, I could buy an
original Van Gogh and cover the work with any paint I wish. There is
no law that prevents this.

>The New Google Newsgroups violates this law of artists,

No it doesn't.

>for there is no stopping of bully posters eliminating not only fresh
>new posts of an author to Usenet,

Not true. For example, Google has zero control over what I post
to Usenet. People can try sending a cancel, but few servers pay
attention to cancels because of people doing just that.

>but also, going backwards through
>the archive kept by Google and eliminating old posts of an author.

If Google wants to allow this, they can. It may not be a wise
option to make available, but Google is permitted to allow such on its
site.

>
>Can Google be made to always carry Old Google Newsgroups and then have
>New Google Newsgroups as an option.

Newsgroups aren't going away. And if you want a new group, send
a control message for it.

>
>Or, can Google be forced to retain the posts of Usenet and if Google
>wants to radically change the formatting of those posts, that Google
>must create an entirely new portal with different names of newsgroups
>and cannot use Usenet of sci.math, sci.physics, misc.legal etc etc.

Google already has "private" discussion groups. Most anyone can
join, but any posts remain on Google's servers. They don't tend to get
sent out to any Usenet servers.

>
>I believe Usenet can be considered a separate entity from that of
>Google Newsgroups, and thus Usenet a separate legal entity.
>

Google groups (not Usenet) would be seen as separate from Usenet.
Whether it would be a separate legal entity is questionable. More
likely it would be seen as a part of Google itself.

>I believe the changes of New Google Newsgroups infringes on the
>Freedom of Speech of Usenet and all the posts that preceded these
>sweeping changes by Google.

You can believe anything you want. I don't think you'll be able
to prove your position.

>
>Can a law firm force Google to always keep "Old Google Newsgroups and
>then have as **optional** any changes in format.
>

No law firm anywhere can force them to do such. A law firm can
take Google to court and get a judge it force what you want. I don't
expect it to ever happen.