response from chris...
Karen Marie
you're just like having my own little private news agency.
btw: posting people's email is rude and illegal and marks you as a
newbie or
an idiot.
btw#2... i was just talking to someone who works in film/video industry in
winnipeg... your posts are hurting you.
Well Chris, here I am again, posting bad shit. Maybe even blackmail
shit. No one will tell me what I can or can not post here. This is
public group and I won't be bullied or threatened by you or any one. You
picked the wrong person to mind fuck. I was taught to respect myself and
I won't have you belittling me with threats and innuendoes. Plenty of
people will stand up for my character. I may be an idiot but I'm a NICE
idiot, which you would have found out if you had taken the time. A
response to your outlandish posts (elevator to the beach?) was not a
character judgment, it was a knee jerk response to your degrading
remarks you implied to the others on this group. Where as I have made
friends, you seemed to make enemies. Whose posts are hurting who?
BTW..I thank you for the industry buzz, but I can get a job on my own.
Karen:)
Walter Roberson
Opus- <jbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 06:34:34 GMT, shepatRE...@interlog.com
:(Sheila Paterson) spake thusly:
:>On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 03:39:16 GMT, Karen Marie <kc...@home.com> wrote:
:>>btw: posting people's email is rude and illegal and marks you as a
:>>newbie or an idiot.
:>It's definitely bad form. How is it illegal?
:It's not illegal at all. All forms of mail belong to the receiver upon
:receipt.
Jim, you have simplified the law to the point of being incorrect.
The law in question is the Copyright Act. What it says is that the
author retains copyright to all creative works -- and that includes
email. Copyright deals with the right to control who makes copies and
under what circumstances.
When someone sends you mail, what you as receiver get is control over
that one copy of the letter/message -- but you do not have any rights
to make any copies of the letter/message. You can show that one copy
you received to anyone you want, provided you do not reproduce it in
any way. You could, for example, have a party at your house and let
people one by one read "Karen"'s message off of your display... but you
couldn't forward a copy of the message or post it in wpg.general. If
you'd received the mail in physical form, you could even put that one
copy up on the lamp-post in front of your residence and let any
passer-by read it -- but you couldn't photocopy it and stand on the
corner handing out the copies.
For more information on this topic, please read the Copyright FAQ.
Sheila Paterson
wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 06:34:34 GMT, shepatRE...@interlog.com
>(Sheila Paterson) spake thusly:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 03:39:16 GMT, Karen Marie <kc...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>btw: posting people's email is rude and illegal and marks you as a
>>>newbie or an idiot.
>>
>>It's definitely bad form. How is it illegal?
>
>It's not illegal at all. All forms of mail belong to the receiver upon
>receipt.
I have my doubts about it's illegality, but I've been wrong before.
But how about something like a copyright violation?
Sheila Paterson
Note: address transmogrified.
Walter Roberson
T. N. Johns <tjohns@*SPAM*longcoat.com> wrote:
:There are hundreds of reasons to post an e-mail, as for copyright,
:well Walter, you give up the copyright when you send an *unsolicited*
:e-mail to someone.
You are incorrect, Terry. Whether the message is unsolicited or not
has no bearing on whether copyright is given up.
There are only a few ways to lose copyright:
A) A court ruling that the work was not sufficiently "original" to
have ever been protected by copyright. In this case, whether the work was
unsolicited or not has no bearing, and it isn't really that copyright
is -lost- but rather that it never existed in the first place;
B) A decision that the copyright is owned by someone else (e.g., work
done for your employers is usually owned by your employers.) An explicit
agreement [e.g., a contract or employment contract] would have to have
been in place. Note that the question is who owned the copyright in the
first place, not whether it is lost when it is sent to someone
unsolicited;
C) You explicitly give the copyright to someone else. Sending someone
a copy of the work is not enough for this purpose: the copyright owner
must make it clear that copyright is being assigned.
D) You explicitly release the work "to the public domain". Again this
must be made extremely clear, and absolutely no reservations can
be made. For example a statement that the work is placed in the public
domain "and can be used by everyone except Microsoft" would contain a
reservation sufficient that the author would end up retaining complete
copyright.
To reiterate: if you receive unsolicited mail, electronic or physical,
you only gain control over that one copy of the mail. You can save it,
trade it, sell it [usually], burn it, post it on a hydro pole for
everyone to read -- but you cannot make any more copies without
the author's permission!
(Just so, if Steven King were to send you an unsolicited copy of his
forthcoming book for you to preview, you would own that *one* copy
but you wouldn't have the right to publish the book or photocopy
it for your friends.)
Note: if the author of the work did not register the copyright
with the copyright office, the damages they can collect are extremely
limited -- but the work is still just as protected!
Norm Gall
robe...@ibd.nrc.ca wrote on 4/1/00 16:56hrs:
> In article <3cp47s4b6423cd9p6...@4ax.com>,
> T. N. Johns <tjohns@*SPAM*longcoat.com> wrote:
> :There are hundreds of reasons to post an e-mail, as for copyright,
> :well Walter, you give up the copyright when you send an *unsolicited*
> :e-mail to someone.
>
> You are incorrect, Terry. Whether the message is unsolicited or not
> has no bearing on whether copyright is given up.
But you are overlooking the portions of the Copyright Act that talk about
fair use for commentary. There has never been a Cdn copyright case regarding
this sort of thing.
Send me some e-mail, I'll post it, and sue me. Let's make some law.
--
Probably the saddest thing about Ottawa is the number of fourth-rate
intellects applied to first-rate problems.
gutz
wrote:
>To reiterate: if you receive unsolicited mail, electronic or physical,
>you only gain control over that one copy of the mail. You can save it,
>trade it, sell it [usually], burn it, post it on a hydro pole for
>everyone to read -- but you cannot make any more copies without
>the author's permission!
So putting it up on your home page and posting a link here is fine,
taking into consideration that the *only* copy goes into the home page
index?
beergut
Jim
"T. N. Johns" <tjohns@*SPAM*longcoat.com> wrote
> You are trying to apply copyright law to material that was never meant
> to be included in any of the laws.
Terry's got it... Copyright laws (to me anyway) are more of a mechanism for
protecting people and organizations financially. That is, you can't plagarize
someone elses work verbatim and benefit by it. A classic example would be to
get paid to teach a course and using photocopies of an educational textbook as
a teaching resource.
Simply repeating casual and personal conversation can't fall under these laws.
Geez.. it we took it as literally as it's being discussed here, you couldn't
read a book and tell people the ending via email since you would in some
respect be divulging it's contents.
Norm Gall
shepatRE...@interlog.com wrote on 4/1/00 18:24hrs:
> I just read the Copyright FAQ:
> http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/help/faq_cp-e.html and Walter
> appears to be right and there is no mention of giving up copyright
> when something in unsolicited.
The question is not one of whether anyone has or has given up a copyright.
It is whether a copyright holder's permission needs to be obtained before
publication. These are two completely different issues.
Let's look at the statute itself.
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/estats.nfo/query=c!2D42/doc
/{@31477}?
> Infringement of copyright
>
> 27. (1) Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed by any person
> who, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, does anything
> that, by this Act, only the owner of the copyright has the right to do.
>
> Acts not constituting infringement of copyright
>
> (2) The following acts do not constitute an infringement of copyright:
> (a) any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of private study or
> research;
>
> (a.1) any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of criticism,
> review or newspaper summary, if
>
> (i) the source, and
> (ii) the author's name, if given in the source, are mentioned;
So, if sending someone an e-mail does constitute a work that is copyrighted
(and that is far from certain), re-posting it with attribution for purposes
of criticism or review does not constitute an infringement.
The FAQ above points this out quite clearly at
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/help/faq_cp-e.html#18
Norm Gall
--
"To say that Windows 95 is just like the Mac is like finding a
potato in the shape of Jesus and thinking you have witnessed the
second coming." -Guy Kawasaki
Norm Gall
wrote on 4/1/00 19:07hrs:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 18:53:07 -0600, Norm Gall <ga...@mts.net> wrote:
>>> Infringement of copyright
>>>
>>> 27. (1) Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed by any person
>>> who, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, does anything
>>> that, by this Act, only the owner of the copyright has the right to do.
> This leaves much room for interpretation. I can go the Coke's website,
> copy their pic of the coke sign ( actually I have budweiser on my
> page) and just put it on my page as it was the intent of the owner to
> have it viewed? This is not to mention *hotel California* by the
> eagles have playing in the background ;)
There is a difference again between trademarks and copyrighted material.
That's a whole different can of worms. Use of a trademark is not open to
this sort of use. Aqua was sued by Mattel for their song 'Barbie Girl'.
>>> Acts not constituting infringement of copyright
>>>
>>> (2) The following acts do not constitute an infringement of copyright:
>>> (a) any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of private study or
>>> research;
>>>
>>> (a.1) any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of criticism,
>>> review or newspaper summary, if
> This would explain movie reviews.
And quotations in scholarly articles, books, newspapers, magazines,
reproductions of copyrighted material in classrooms for educational use,
etc. Posting someone's e-mail even to hold it up to ridicule is covered by
'fair dealings'.
This is why all that Walter has said on the matter is of no moment.
>>> (i) the source, and
>>> (ii) the author's name, if given in the source, are mentioned;
>>
>> So, if sending someone an e-mail does constitute a work that is copyrighted
>> (and that is far from certain), re-posting it with attribution for purposes
>> of criticism or review does not constitute an infringement.
> Tell that to Amero
> heh heh heh
Forget it... you tell her. :)
--
On an occasion of this kind it becomes more than a moral duty
to speak one's mind. It becomes a pleasure. - Oscar Wilde
Norm Gall
4/1/00 19:13hrs:
> Walter Roberson wrote:
> <SNIP>
> So you have effectively broken a copyright law by quoting the copyright
> law in here?
Well, according to Walter, yes. Her Majesty in Right of Canada holds the
copyright on all statutes of the Parliament of Canada. But since he quoted
it for educational purposes, there was in fact no copyright infringement.
--
The truth is rarely pure, and never simple.
- Oscar Wilde
Norm Gall
robe...@ibd.nrc.ca wrote on 4/1/00 19:14hrs:
> In article <s7544jl...@corp.supernews.com>, Jim <j...@jim.ca> wrote:
> :Geez.. it we took it as literally as it's being discussed here, you couldn't
> :read a book and tell people the ending via email since you would in some
> :respect be divulging it's contents.
> Quoting verbatim from the book might be deemed a copyright violation.
> Or might not. It would depend on the amount quoted and the context.
And the purpose...
> Canadian law does not set out strong guidelines as to how much is
> acceptable and when. US law is much more specific.
Boy howdy are you wrong about that!
http://www.cancopy.com/welcome.shtml
Clear as a bell.
--
Where is the Prince who can afford so to cover his country with troops for
its defence, as that 10,000 men descending from the clouds, might not, in
many places, do an infinite deal of mischief before a force could be brought
together to repel them? - Benjamin Franklin
Norm Gall
robe...@ibd.nrc.ca wrote on 4/1/00 19:43hrs:
> In article <38729A0A...@home.com>, Greg Kopp <gk...@home.com> wrote:
> :So you have effectively broken a copyright law by quoting the copyright
> :law in here?
> If I had just wholesale reproduced the entire Act without comment
> or context, then the situation would have been different.
Actually, no it would not. I can go to the law library at the UM and
photocopy the whole Consolidated Statues and give a copy to all my friends.
I cannot sell them for more than it costs me to reproduce them.
Norm Gall
--
"I had a million pounds in the bank. I spent most of it on booze,
women, and fast cars. The rest I squandered." -- George Best
Norm Gall
In article 84u5tt$mqi$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca, Walter Roberson at
robe...@ibd.nrc.ca wrote on 4/1/00 19:14hrs:
:> Canadian law does not set out strong guidelines as to how much is
:> acceptable and when. US law is much more specific.
Then I said:
:Boy howdy are you wrong about that!
:http://www.cancopy.com/welcome.shtml
:Clear as a bell.
Wow. I guess the NRC really has beaten a sense of sarcasm right out of you.
I'll make sure I use the 'winky' for you from here on in.
Norm Gall
--
Most people would rather die than think: many do.
-- Bertrand Russell
Norm Gall
j...@NOSPAMescape.ca wrote on 4/1/00 21:22hrs:
> "Norm Gall" <ga...@mts.net> wrote
>> Actually, no it would not. I can go to the law library at the UM and
>> photocopy the whole Consolidated Statues and give a copy to all my friends.
> Do they not have the standard line that goes something like "May not be copied
> in whole or in part without the express permission of the author" ?
The very nature of law is that it must be able to be freely promulgated. Her
Majesty is very gracious with her copyright of her laws.
> I seem to recall reading that in quite a few books/documents I've read.
Most documents have this disclaimer in it.
--
Perhaps whisky really does improve with age, when it gets a chance.
Opus-
>Note: if the author of the work did not register the copyright
>with the copyright office, the damages they can collect are extremely
>limited -- but the work is still just as protected!
Actually, there would be NO damages for several reasons. 1) It's not a
case of libel or defamation of character since the e-mail was quoted
verbatim. 2) No financial loss could be demonstrated, the "work" was
not likely to be offered for sale. In fact, no judge could ever be
convinced otherwise. 3) Karen can easily claim that she was asking for
"fair comment" 4) Karen could also claim harassment, since the e-mail
sender in question does have a reputation, in the public record, of
unstable behavior.
--
jbu...@hotmail.com
(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)
"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman
gutz
wrote:
>On 4 Jan 2000 22:56:30 GMT, robe...@ibd.nrc.ca (Walter Roberson)
>spake thusly:
>
>>Note: if the author of the work did not register the copyright
>>with the copyright office, the damages they can collect are extremely
>>limited -- but the work is still just as protected!
>
>Actually, there would be NO damages for several reasons. 1) It's not a
>case of libel or defamation of character since the e-mail was quoted
>verbatim. 2) No financial loss could be demonstrated, the "work" was
>not likely to be offered for sale. In fact, no judge could ever be
>convinced otherwise. 3) Karen can easily claim that she was asking for
>"fair comment" 4) Karen could also claim harassment, since the e-mail
>sender in question does have a reputation, in the public record, of
>unstable behavior.
My take on this , is that Terry is taking Karen to task ( as Bayomi
has said no one would ) for an opinion. His wording is strong, but in
the same vane, so has Karen's been.
I doubt if this will spank/scare Karen.
Now.......Is this weekend ok........should I call, or are you gonna
e-mail me. I'm fighting this urge to take it apart!!
Not a good thing as I *always* have left over parts!
cheers
beergut
gutz
<tjohns@*SPAM*longcoat.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 23:56:30 GMT, gu...@nothere.com (gutz) wrote:
>
>>On 4 Jan 2000 22:56:30 GMT, robe...@ibd.nrc.ca (Walter Roberson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>To reiterate: if you receive unsolicited mail, electronic or physical,
>>>you only gain control over that one copy of the mail. You can save it,
>>>trade it, sell it [usually], burn it, post it on a hydro pole for
>>>everyone to read -- but you cannot make any more copies without
>>>the author's permission!
>>
>>So putting it up on your home page and posting a link here is fine,
>>taking into consideration that the *only* copy goes into the home page
>>index?
>
>What about when someone video tapes your website, puts it into a "How
>to" video and then sells the video. Without written consent I can see
>some interesting court cases against ShareViews.
Oh Yea.........that's an infringement of the copyright act.......I'm
getting real familiar with copyright stuff as I collect * Canadian*
mp3's ;)
beergut
Sheila Paterson
On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 21:32:38 GMT, T. N. Johns
<tjohns@*SPAM*longcoat.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 06:34:34 GMT, shepatRE...@interlog.com
>(Sheila Paterson) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 03:39:16 GMT, Karen Marie <kc...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>btw: posting people's email is rude and illegal and marks you as a
>>>newbie or an idiot.
>
>Yeah right....lololololol
Oops. Sorry, I forgot to say that the "btw: ..." was from Chris
McKinstry's e-mail to Karen. However, anyone who had been following
the thread would have known that.
My apologies to Karen for the accidental misatribution.
>It's rude to show your e-mail that threatens bodily harm to you, to
>the police?
I had originally written "Barring illegal activities ... " For some
reason I decided to take it out. Obviously, I shouldn't have. So
yes, "e-mail that treatens bodily harm to you" can be taken to the
police.
>
>It's rude to post a con artist's letter in wpg.general to warn others
>of their plan?
What kind of scenario do you envision? The above sounds like illegal
activity.
>
>It's rude to post someone's e-mail in wpg.general when you are showing
>how they have lied and deceived people?
One can do the above without posting the e-mail. However, given that
lying and deception are generally immoral, a case might be made for
posting the e-mail.
>
>How ignorant and stupid are you kc...@home.com?
See above re the quote being from Chris McKinstry.
>
>There are hundreds of reasons to post an e-mail, as for copyright,
>well Walter, you give up the copyright when you send an *unsolicited*
>e-mail to someone.
I can't see that there are "hundreds of reasons." Most would boil
down to some sort of illegal activity.
If Walter is right and it's a copyright violation, I see no reason why
copyright is given up in the case of unsolicited e-mail. What's your
reasoning here?
I just read the Copyright FAQ:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/help/faq_cp-e.html and Walter
appears to be right and there is no mention of giving up copyright
when something in unsolicited.
>
>>It's definitely bad form. How is it illegal?
>
>Why is it bad form Sheila?
People have an expectation of privacy when they send e-mail just as
they have when they send snail mail. It's rude to violate that
expectation. It's a violation of netiquette.
>If someone sends you an e-mail stating one thing then posts in here
>stating something completely different, is it bad form to reveal that
>persons character?
You're assuming in a case like this that the person is lying in one of
the messages. What if the person changed his/her mind?
Anyway, I don't see the necessity of posting the person's e-mail.
gutz
(Sheila Paterson) wrote:
>Anyway, I don't see the necessity of posting the person's e-mail.
I agree with you Sheila, but posting of e-mail is done here and all
over the net all the time.
We can just look at virus warnings coming from Norton or another
company that deals with viri.
A better example could be the posting by numerous posters of the cd-r
tax levy letter that was sent to everyone that signed the petition.
There was no permission granted to re-post it, but lots did.
Posting someone's e-mail is lubricious to me anyway, as it can always
be edited. Even the copies in agent can be edited. There is actually
no way to discern if what was re-posted was in fact the original.
cheers
beergut
Walter Roberson
:to be included in any of the laws.
:I think this depends on your interpretation of the law. When it comes
:to simple e-mail I'm not sure it is covered. I'd like to see when the
:law was changed to include electronic mail, most copyright laws have
:been made to protect written words not electronic mail, but if you can
:show me where it says something about electronic mail...
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/index_en.html
and find the Copyright Act under the Consolidated Statutes.
Definitions
2. In this Act,
[...]
"every original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work"
includes every original production in the literary, scientific or
artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression,
such as compilations, books, pamphlets and other writings, lectures,
dramatic or dramatico-musical works, musical works, translations,
illustrations, sketches and plastic works relative to geography,
topography, architecture or science;
{notice the bit about 'whatever may be the mode or form of its expression'.
Thus, electronic mail is covered.}
[...]
"literary work" includes tables, computer programs, and compilations
of literary works;
{this is not an exclusive list. I include it to point out that they
specifically include some items that normally exist entirely
in electronic form. Existance in printed form is NOT required by
the Copyright Act.}
[...]
Copyright in works
3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, "copyright", in relation to a
work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any
substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the
work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is
unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof, and
includes the sole right
{'any material form whatever' *includes* storage on hard disk or backup
unit. Rights to storage on disk and to make backups are explicitly addresses
in other sections of the Copyright Act. You should abandon any notion
that the Copyright Act is antiquated and applies only to more physical
objects like books: the Copyright Act has been updated a few times in
the last decade.}
[...]
(f) in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to
communicate the work to the public by telecommunication,
{Heck, it even talks about telecommunications explicitly.}
[...]
Conditions for subsistence of copyright
5. (1) Subject to this Act, copyright shall subsist in Canada, for the
term hereinafter mentioned, in every original literary, dramatic,
musical and artistic work if any one of the following conditions is
met:
(a) in the case of any work, whether published or unpublished,
including a cinematographic work, the author was, at the date of the
making of the work, a citizen or subject of, or a person ordinarily
resident in, a treaty country;
[...]
{Electronic mail is usually 'unpublished'; no matter, 5.(1)(a) includes
unpublished works.}
gutz
>In article 38728622...@news.pangea.ca, Sheila Paterson at
>shepatRE...@interlog.com wrote on 4/1/00 18:24hrs:
>
>> I just read the Copyright FAQ:
>> http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/help/faq_cp-e.html and Walter
>> appears to be right and there is no mention of giving up copyright
>> when something in unsolicited.
>
>The question is not one of whether anyone has or has given up a copyright.
>It is whether a copyright holder's permission needs to be obtained before
>publication. These are two completely different issues.
>
>Let's look at the statute itself.
>
>http://canada.justice.gc.ca/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/estats.nfo/query=c!2D42/doc
>/{@31477}?
>
>> Infringement of copyright
>>
>> 27. (1) Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed by any person
>> who, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, does anything
>> that, by this Act, only the owner of the copyright has the right to do.
This leaves much room for interpretation. I can go the Coke's website,
copy their pic of the coke sign ( actually I have budweiser on my
page) and just put it on my page as it was the intent of the owner to
have it viewed? This is not to mention *hotel California* by the
eagles have playing in the background ;)
>>
>> Acts not constituting infringement of copyright
>>
>> (2) The following acts do not constitute an infringement of copyright:
>> (a) any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of private study or
>> research;
>>
>> (a.1) any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of criticism,
>> review or newspaper summary, if
This would explain movie reviews.
>>
>> (i) the source, and
>> (ii) the author's name, if given in the source, are mentioned;
>
>So, if sending someone an e-mail does constitute a work that is copyrighted
>(and that is far from certain), re-posting it with attribution for purposes
>of criticism or review does not constitute an infringement.
Tell that to Amero
heh heh heh
>
>The FAQ above points this out quite clearly at
>
>http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/help/faq_cp-e.html#18
cheers
beergut
Greg Kopp
Walter Roberson wrote:
>
> http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/index_en.html
> and find the Copyright Act under the Consolidated Statutes.
>
> Definitions
> 2. In this Act,
> [...]
> "every original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work"
> includes every original production in the literary, scientific or
> artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression,
> such as compilations, books, pamphlets and other writings, lectures,
> dramatic or dramatico-musical works, musical works, translations,
> illustrations, sketches and plastic works relative to geography,
> topography, architecture or science;
>
> {notice the bit about 'whatever may be the mode or form of its expression'.
> Thus, electronic mail is covered.}
>
<SNIP>
So you have effectively broken a copyright law by quoting the copyright
law in here?
- Greg
*******************************************
* Kenwood, Boston Acoustics, Phoenix Gold *
*******************************************
Walter Roberson
:Geez.. it we took it as literally as it's being discussed here, you couldn't
:read a book and tell people the ending via email since you would in some
:respect be divulging it's contents.
Quoting verbatim from the book might be deemed a copyright violation.
Or might not. It would depend on the amount quoted and the context.
Canadian law does not set out strong guidelines as to how much is
acceptable and when. US law is much more specific.
If you were quoting verbatim and *commenting* on the content, and only
quoted enough to establish the context necessary for your comments,
then *likely* that would be 'fair use'. But if you scan in a book
and email it off to your friends one chapter at a time without discussion/
analysis, then *likely* you could be successfully prosecuted for
copyright violation.
If you do not *quote* the book, but instead retell the ending in
your own words [e.g., the kind of plot summaries for South Park
episodes that you can find on www.beef-cake.com] then that is likely not
copyright violation. Copyright does not apply to ideas, it applies
to particular expressions of ideas.
Walter Roberson
:> http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/index_en.html
:> and find the Copyright Act under the Consolidated Statutes.
:> "every original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work"
:> includes every original production in the literary, scientific or
:So you have effectively broken a copyright law by quoting the copyright
:law in here?
No, as I posted for the purposes of research, review and criticism. I
extracted only the relevant parts for the discussion, and I commented
upon their applicability to the situation.
Walter Roberson
>In article 84u5tt$mqi$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca, Walter Roberson at
:robe...@ibd.nrc.ca wrote on 4/1/00 19:14hrs:
:> acceptable and when. US law is much more specific.
:Boy howdy are you wrong about that!
:http://www.cancopy.com/welcome.shtml
:Clear as a bell.
CANCOPY applies only to photocopying. What they have to say about Fair
Use is:
http://www.cancopy.com/copyright/exception.html
Fair dealing Under Canadian Copyright Law, copying done as fair dealing
for purposes of research or private study, for criticism or review, or
for news reporting does not generally infringe copyright. However,
there is little agreement on the scope of fair dealing and, in the
event of a dispute, the courts would have to evaluate the specific use
and determine whether or not it is fair dealing. In making this
determination, the court would consider a number of factors, but most
importantly:
o the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
use is of a commercial nature;
o the nature of the copyrighted work;
o the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation
to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
o the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value
of, the copyrighted work
Notice the bit about "there is little agreement on the scope of fair
dealing". The four bulletted points are factors that would generally
be considered, and are not written into the Copyright Act itself.
Walter Roberson
Opus- <jbu...@altavista.com> wrote:
:On 4 Jan 2000 22:56:30 GMT, robe...@ibd.nrc.ca (Walter Roberson)
:>Note: if the author of the work did not register the copyright
:>with the copyright office, the damages they can collect are extremely
:>limited -- but the work is still just as protected!
:Actually, there would be NO damages for several reasons. 1) It's not a
:case of libel or defamation of character since the e-mail was quoted
:verbatim. 2) No financial loss could be demonstrated, the "work" was
:not likely to be offered for sale. In fact, no judge could ever be
:convinced otherwise. 3) Karen can easily claim that she was asking for
:"fair comment" 4) Karen could also claim harassment, since the e-mail
:sender in question does have a reputation, in the public record, of
:unstable behavior.
I don't know if you'll be able to follow this URL by the time you
read this, but you can try.
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/estats.nfo/query=*/doc/{@32075}?
Look pretty close to the end of the Copyright Act.
- Sections 38.1 and 38.2, as enacted by 1997, c. 24, s. 20(1):
Statutory damages
38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any
time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages
and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory
damages for all infringements involved in the proceedings, with respect
to any one work or other subject-matter, for which any one infringer is
liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable
jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $500 or more than
$20,000 as the court considers just.
Where defendant unaware of infringement
(2) Where a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1)
and the defendant satisfies the court that the defendant was not aware
and had no reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant had
infringed copyright, the court may reduce the amount of the award to
less than $500, but not less than $200.
This is a change to the earlier regulations, which before this
said that when the defendant was unaware of the infringement the
remedy was limited to injunction.
Your point #4, harassment, is irrelevant. If Karen is feeling harassed,
she has the civil remedy of seeking an injunction, which action does not
require that she reproduce the email for public viewing.
Thus, if the case were to be taken to court and Karen could not establish
"fair use", then the email author could claim statuatory damages; upon
conviction, the judge would be required to award at least $200 in damages
[if the defence of innocent infringement was successful] or not less
than $500 [if it were not.]
Jim Townsend
"Norm Gall" <ga...@mts.net> wrote
> Actually, no it would not. I can go to the law library at the UM and
> photocopy the whole Consolidated Statues and give a copy to all my friends.
Do they not have the standard line that goes something like "May not be copied
in whole or in part without the express permission of the author" ?
I seem to recall reading that in quite a few books/documents I've read.
Jim.
gutz
>
>Gut....whatsa matter your snowblower down for the count??
>and we are supposed to get 9 cm.
Nope, runs great............throws snow 50 feet.........just has this
little tranny problem.......there ain't none. 9 cm huh......well Jim
can make it through that ;)
I go and switch sound cards with my daughters machine. I take her
mx300 and put my old reliable awe32 in hers.
Hers works great..........I have to change nic slots just to get the
internet.....and the fuckin' sound card isn't working yet!!
Software..............oh I love software!
cheers
beergut
gutz
>In article 387b975d...@news.rdc1.mb.home.com, gutz at gu...@nothere.com
>wrote on 4/1/00 19:07hrs:
>> Tell that to Amero
>
>> heh heh heh
>
>Forget it... you tell her. :)
Nah, she doesn't correspond with me any more since I disagreed with
her........hummmmmm
Kinda sounds familiar!
cheers
beergut
Sheila Paterson
>In article 84ttqu$j3a$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca, Walter Roberson at
>robe...@ibd.nrc.ca wrote on 4/1/00 16:56hrs:
>
>> In article <3cp47s4b6423cd9p6...@4ax.com>,
>> T. N. Johns <tjohns@*SPAM*longcoat.com> wrote:
>> :There are hundreds of reasons to post an e-mail, as for copyright,
>> :well Walter, you give up the copyright when you send an *unsolicited*
>> :e-mail to someone.
>>
>> You are incorrect, Terry. Whether the message is unsolicited or not
>> has no bearing on whether copyright is given up.
>
>But you are overlooking the portions of the Copyright Act that talk about
>fair use for commentary. There has never been a Cdn copyright case regarding
>this sort of thing.
[snip]
I had thought about fair use. I thought fair use referred to excerpts
only and not to the copying of the entire piece. If I remember
correctly, the e-mail is question was reproduced in its entirety
without any commentary attached. Therefore, it would be difficult to
claim commentary or criticism.
Sheila Paterson
Note: address transmogrififed.
Gordon Grieder
Hash: SHA1
gutz wrote:
[snip]
> Posting someone's e-mail is lubricious to me anyway, as it can
> always be edited. Even the copies in agent can be edited. There is
> actually no way to discern if what was re-posted was in fact the
> original.
Sure there is.
I'll PGP sign this message. With PGP you can verify that this is the
unedited, complete message. It's a double edged sword as the signer
cannot refute typing the message.
Gord
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOHNTGwOsL6AVW6mFEQJzqwCgr3FvVR2XN1+VJxXql4GqxGujsp0AmgPF
BHlhJL+wX3Ppw3mU+e20dreL
=LWD9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Norm Gall
Hash: SHA1
In article 38735322...@grub.net, Gordon Grieder at
gr...@grub.net wrote on 5/1/00 08:20hrs:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> gutz wrote:
> [snip]
>> Posting someone's e-mail is lubricious to me anyway, as it can
>> always be edited. Even the copies in agent can be edited. There is
>> actually no way to discern if what was re-posted was in fact the
>> original.
>
> Sure there is.
>
> I'll PGP sign this message. With PGP you can verify that this is
> the unedited, complete message. It's a double edged sword as the
> signer cannot refute typing the message.
I categorically deny writing, signing, or sending this message.
Norm Gall
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use
> <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOHNTGwOsL6AVW6mFEQJzqwCgr3FvVR2XN1+VJxXql4GqxGujsp0AmgPF
> BHlhJL+wX3Ppw3mU+e20dreL
> =LWD9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Some follow make the remark the other day that there was small
difference between the Liberal and Conservative parties. There is all
the difference in the world. One is in and the other is out.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOHNieslA2K0KPao/EQIsAgCgvOAoPkr9I1SM/Tnh7fjgbI5zumUAoKbV
ZDNs50PadWM7nReazBi+hC/b
=0Pz1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gordon Grieder
Norm Gall wrote:
[snip]
> I categorically deny writing, signing, or sending this message.
>
> Norm Gall
>
Oh bah, you know what I meant.
Norm Gall
Hash: SHA1
In article 38736361...@grub.net, Gordon Grieder at
gr...@grub.net wrote on 5/1/00 09:30hrs:
Sure. Now, refute me!!!
I didn't send this one either!
n
- --
If you see a white plane it's American, if you see a black plane,
it's RAF.
If you see no planes at all it's the Luftwaffe.
-- German solider on the Western
Front, 1944
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOHNmYclA2K0KPao/EQLVCgCgrcypb9ojMpNcMJME2VBweBX61ksAn0m4
31B+iVDOgfnxpsnofmYQzzja
=I5Nc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
gutz
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>gutz wrote:
>[snip]
>> Posting someone's e-mail is lubricious to me anyway, as it can
>> always be edited. Even the copies in agent can be edited. There is
>> actually no way to discern if what was re-posted was in fact the
>> original.
>
>Sure there is.
>
>I'll PGP sign this message. With PGP you can verify that this is the
>unedited, complete message. It's a double edged sword as the signer
>cannot refute typing the message.
>
>Gord
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
gutz
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>gutz wrote:
> No I didn't!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>[snip]
>> Posting someone's e-mail is lubricious to me anyway, as it can
>> always be edited. Even the copies in agent can be edited. There is
>> actually no way to discern if what was re-posted was in fact the
>> original.
>
>Sure there is.
>But it can still be edited! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>I'll PGP sign this message. With PGP you can verify that this is the
>unedited, complete message. It's a double edged sword as the signer
>cannot refute typing the message.
>
>Gordooooooooo<<<<<<<<<<<
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
>iQA/AwUBOHNTGwOsL6AVW6mFEQJzqwCgr3FvVR2XN1+VJxXql4GqxGujsp0AmgPF
>BHlhJL+wX3Ppw3mU+e20dreL
>=LWD9
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
gutz
gutz
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In article 38735322...@grub.net, Gordon Grieder at
>gr...@grub.net wrote on 5/1/00 08:20hrs:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>> gutz wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Posting someone's e-mail is lubricious to me anyway, as it can
>>> always be edited. Even the copies in agent can be edited. There is
>>> actually no way to discern if what was re-posted was in fact the
>>> original.
>>
>> Sure there is.
>>
>> I'll PGP sign this message. With PGP you can verify that this is
>> the unedited, complete message. It's a double edged sword as the
>> signer cannot refute typing the message.
>
>I categorically deny writing, signing, or sending this message.
> Are you quite certain?
>
>Norm Gall
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use
>> <http://www.pgp.com>
>>
>> iQA/AwUBOHNTGwOsL6AVW6mFEQJzqwCgr3FvVR2XN1+VJxXql4GqxGujsp0AmgPF
>> BHlhJL+wX3Ppw3mU+e20dreL
>> =LWD9
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>- --
>Some follow make the remark the other day that there was small
>difference between the Liberal and Conservative parties. There is all
>the difference in the world. One is in and the other is out.
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
Norm Gall
wrote on 5/1/00 10:02hrs:
>> But it can still be edited! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No. No, it cannot. I verified the edited message and it correctly flagged a
bad signature for that message.
Norm Gall
--
The truth is rarely pure, and never simple.
- Oscar Wilde
Gordon Grieder
gutz wrote:
[snip]
> >But it can still be edited! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[snip]
Of course it can, but anyone with PGP can "Verify" the message content
and prove the message's authenticity.
Changing one bit of that message alters the verification hash and the
message will NOT verify to the original signature.
mani...@home.com
wrote:
>Oh bah
Is that a sexual inuendo?...
gutz
>In article 38746a2d...@news.rdc1.mb.home.com, gutz at gu...@nothere.com
>wrote on 5/1/00 10:02hrs:
>
>>> But it can still be edited! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>No. No, it cannot. I verified the edited message and it correctly flagged a
>bad signature for that message.
For the uneducated masses like myself who do not know how to verify a
PGPkey...........It can *appear to be edited*
Basically, what I'm saying is that without PGP, You have to take the
posters word that it is authentic and complete. If Terry posts an
e-mail I am pretty much certain it hasn't been edited. I can't say the
same for other posters, like Bayomi or McChimp.
That's all I'm trying to say..............
Time for a nap.....
cheers
gutz
Norm Gall
wrote on 5/1/00 11:00hrs:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 10:19:54 -0600, Norm Gall <ga...@mts.net> wrote:
>
>> In article 38746a2d...@news.rdc1.mb.home.com, gutz at gu...@nothere.com
>> wrote on 5/1/00 10:02hrs:
>>
>>>> But it can still be edited! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>> No. No, it cannot. I verified the edited message and it correctly flagged a
>> bad signature for that message.
>
> For the uneducated masses like myself who do not know how to verify a
> PGPkey...........It can *appear to be edited*
>
> Basically, what I'm saying is that without PGP, You have to take the
> posters word that it is authentic and complete.
Well, that's the whole point.
PGP is freeware. If you *care*, get it and verify. If you don't, yahoo!
Norm Gall
--
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.
-- David Hume
n=e=v=i=n=s=@==========
>In article 38746a2d...@news.rdc1.mb.home.com, gutz at gu...@nothere.com
>wrote on 5/1/00 10:02hrs:
>
>>> But it can still be edited! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>No. No, it cannot. I verified the edited message and it correctly flagged a
>bad signature for that message.
>
>Norman the Gaul 1066 A.D.
It works for me, it must be the real.
Karen Marie
asked a question on cross-posting, and I thought I was informed that it
was okay, but not done too often. What bugged me, was when he said my
posts are hurting me.
Karen:)
"T. N. Johns" wrote:
> How ignorant and stupid are you kc...@home.com?
>
>
mani...@home.com
>I don't mind being called stupid, ignorant, a newbie or an idiot.
Just consider the source....
> I once asked a question on cross-posting, and I thought I was informed that it
>was okay, but not done too often. What bugged me, was when he said my
>posts are hurting me.
Baby, welcome to the club... I got a post that's just killing me...
Opus-
thusly:
>I don't mind being called stupid, ignorant, a newbie or an idiot. I once
>asked a question on cross-posting, and I thought I was informed that it
>was okay, but not done too often. What bugged me, was when he said my
>posts are hurting me.
>
>Karen:)
>
>
>
>"T. N. Johns" wrote:
>
>> How ignorant and stupid are you kc...@home.com?
>>
>>
After going back, I see Terry made an error by attributing the e-mail
from McSimp to Karen because there would naturally be no attribution
line other than Karen's since she posted the e-mail here.
I think we can kiss and make up now. ;-)
--
jbu...@altavista.com
(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)
"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman
mani...@home.com
wrote:
>I think we can kiss and make up now. ;-)
Please note the mistletoe hanging from the back of my belt, and knock
yourself out...
Opus-
Norm Gall
chrismc...@my-deja.com wrote on 5/1/00 21:38hrs:
> yes karen this is a public place and you can post anything YOU write.
> but my email is mine, not yours. you cannot do with it as you please.
> your two postings of my messages would cost you $1000 if i filed suit,
> which is quite simple and inexpensive. the judge would have almost no
> discretion. if you were very lucky, which is unlikely due to the tone of
> this message, you might have to pay me only $400.
Nonsense. File the suit. Make some law.
> i suggest you appoligise for violating my legal rights and promise not
> to do it again. or shall we have a judge make it very clear what you can
> and cannot post. the last guy who tried to go to the line with me on
> what he could and couldn't say here ended up in jail. ask around. it's
> true.
He allegedly violated the criminal law. There is no copyright case law on
e-mail in Canada and UK cases on this point are in favour of those who
reproduce for no financial gain.
--
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-- Benjamin Franklin
chrismc...@my-deja.com
Karen Marie <kc...@home.com> wrote:
> Well Chris, here I am again, posting bad shit. Maybe even blackmail
> shit. No one will tell me what I can or can not post here. This is
> public group and I won't be bullied or threatened by you or any one.
You
> picked the wrong person to mind fuck. I was taught to respect myself
and
> I won't have you belittling me with threats and innuendoes. Plenty of
> people will stand up for my character. I may be an idiot but I'm a
NICE
> idiot, which you would have found out if you had taken the time. A
> response to your outlandish posts (elevator to the beach?) was not a
> character judgment, it was a knee jerk response to your degrading
> remarks you implied to the others on this group. Where as I have made
> friends, you seemed to make enemies. Whose posts are hurting who?
yes karen this is a public place and you can post anything YOU write.
but my email is mine, not yours. you cannot do with it as you please.
your two postings of my messages would cost you $1000 if i filed suit,
which is quite simple and inexpensive. the judge would have almost no
discretion. if you were very lucky, which is unlikely due to the tone of
this message, you might have to pay me only $400.
> BTW..I thank you for the industry buzz, but I can get a job on my
own.
>
remember karen, every post you make is out there forever. it becomes a
matter of public record. i know that you have hurt yourself because i
still maintain strong contacts in the film industry in manitoba and had
your name mentioned to me without prompting from me.
i suggest you appoligise for violating my legal rights and promise not
to do it again. or shall we have a judge make it very clear what you can
and cannot post. the last guy who tried to go to the line with me on
what he could and couldn't say here ended up in jail. ask around. it's
true.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Walter Roberson
:e-mail I posted, I am expected papers to be served on me shortly...:)
Before I could serve papers for this "offence" I would have to give
a darn what you did with the emailed copy of my public posting.
Your reposting of it might have been technically illegal, but
*I'm* not interested in complaining, at least not in this instance.
Karen Marie
chrismc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> yes karen this is a public place and you can post anything YOU write.
> but my email is mine, not yours.
I still don't understand this. It's from you but it's in my mailbox. Is
this a true statement or not?
>
> > BTW..I thank you for the industry buzz, but I can get a job on my
> own.
> >
> i know that you have hurt yourself because i
> still maintain strong contacts in the film industry in manitoba and had
> your name mentioned to me without prompting from me.
Funny. People in the film Industry remember me from when I volunteered
on a dramatic short over a year ago? Haven't been much involved in the
movie making biz since then.
>
> i suggest you appoligise for violating my legal rights and promise not
> to do it again. or shall we have a judge make it very clear what you can
> and cannot post.
I won't apologize to you here. Your judge will have to make me.
the last guy who tried to go to the line with me on
> what he could and couldn't say here ended up in jail.
Is that another threat? This is my last response to you as you might be
a dangerous person and I fear for my life.
Opus-
thusly:
>yes karen this is a public place and you can post anything YOU write.
>but my email is mine, not yours. you cannot do with it as you please.
>your two postings of my messages would cost you $1000 if i filed suit,
>which is quite simple and inexpensive. the judge would have almost no
>discretion. if you were very lucky, which is unlikely due to the tone of
>this message, you might have to pay me only $400.
Lets see you post all details about any case in Canadian legal history
when such a suit has been filed WRG e-mail posted in a newsgroup.
--
jbu...@altavista.com
(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)
"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman
Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.
Sheila Paterson
wrote:
>On 4 Jan 2000 22:56:30 GMT, robe...@ibd.nrc.ca (Walter Roberson)
>spake thusly:
>
>>Note: if the author of the work did not register the copyright
>>with the copyright office, the damages they can collect are extremely
>>limited -- but the work is still just as protected!
[snip]
>4) Karen could also claim harassment, since the e-mail
>sender in question does have a reputation, in the public record, of
>unstable behavior.
Don't you need a pattern of harassing behaviour before you can claim
harrassment? I don't think one or two e-mails would do it, especially
if the recipient hasn't asked the sender to stop sending them.
Assuming there is copyright, can one really say, "Yes, I violated it
because I was afraid of some guy who lives on another continent."?
Sheila Paterson
Note: address transmogrified.
Anonymous
>In article <38716AC0...@home.com>,
> Karen Marie <kc...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Well Chris, here I am again, posting bad shit. Maybe even blackmail
>> shit. No one will tell me what I can or can not post here. This is
>> public group and I won't be bullied or threatened by you or any one.
>You
>> picked the wrong person to mind fuck. I was taught to respect myself
>and
>> I won't have you belittling me with threats and innuendoes. Plenty of
>> people will stand up for my character. I may be an idiot but I'm a
>NICE
>> idiot, which you would have found out if you had taken the time. A
>> response to your outlandish posts (elevator to the beach?) was not a
>> character judgment, it was a knee jerk response to your degrading
>> remarks you implied to the others on this group. Where as I have made
>> friends, you seemed to make enemies. Whose posts are hurting who?
>
>yes karen this is a public place and you can post anything YOU write.
>but my email is mine, not yours. you cannot do with it as you please.
>your two postings of my messages would cost you $1000 if i filed suit,
>which is quite simple and inexpensive. the judge would have almost no
>discretion. if you were very lucky, which is unlikely due to the tone of
>this message, you might have to pay me only $400.
>
>
>> BTW..I thank you for the industry buzz, but I can get a job on my
>own.
>>
>
>remember karen, every post you make is out there forever. it becomes a
>matter of public record. i know that you have hurt yourself because i
>still maintain strong contacts in the film industry in manitoba and had
>your name mentioned to me without prompting from me.
>
>i suggest you appoligise for violating my legal rights and promise not
>to do it again. or shall we have a judge make it very clear what you can
>and cannot post. the last guy who tried to go to the line with me on
>what he could and couldn't say here ended up in jail. ask around. it's
>true.
>
Bull! Nobody ended up in jail, not one second of jail time and I can
prove it. I guess that would make you a liar?
What was it you said...
From: chrismc...@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: wpg.general
Subject: proof
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 01:22:42 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <850qol$rfl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 134.171.180.100
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 06 01:22:42 2000 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.08 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/889)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client
134.171.180.100
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDchrismckinstry
Xref: cyclone.mbnet.mb.ca wpg.general:66787
"it's funny how often i get called a liar here... though not one
single lie has ever been proven. i simply don't post lies. never
happened. never will. i defy anyone to prove i've lied here, even
once."
Sure.
Roger Strong
>> yes karen this is a public place and you can post anything YOU write.
>> but my email is mine, not yours. you cannot do with it as you please.
>> your two postings of my messages would cost you $1000 if i filed suit,
>> which is quite simple and inexpensive. the judge would have almost no
>> discretion. if you were very lucky, which is unlikely due to the tone of
>> this message, you might have to pay me only $400.
>
Of course it's nonsense. Take phone messages as an example: In Canada it
is legal to record a phone conversation as long as one person in the call
knows about it. You can, without the other person's knowledge or consent,
play your recorded phone call it to anyone else that you want. This has
been tested in court.
Radio DJ's play prank calls publicly on the air all the time, without the
other person's consent, and that's when the *the DJ* initiates the call.
No doubt courts would decide the same way with email: both parties have
full rights to it, but a third party would not.
It's good manners to keep private email private. Unsolicited or threatening
email does not share this privilege. Nor does an "I dare you to re-post
this" message.
....And ANY email, from someone once involved in an armed stand-off or who
ripped off his creditors and fled the country, may be considered
threatening.
chrismc...@my-deja.com
anon...@escape.ca wrote:
>
>
> Bull! Nobody ended up in jail, not one second of jail time and I can
> prove it. I guess that would make you a liar?
ok. prove it.
chrismc...@my-deja.com
Karen Marie <kc...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> chrismc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
>
> > yes karen this is a public place and you can post anything YOU
write.
> > but my email is mine, not yours.
>
Is
> this a true statement or not?
if that awful so called writer, stephen king sent you a letter, which
also whould be in your mailbox, could you sell it to the national
enquirer? no. the words are his. he created them as i created mine. nrom
has a point about making money, but the law is quite clear, though
untested in canada. which is why the minimums fines are in the act.
there are other damages that can result from violation of copyright.
>
> >
> > > BTW..I thank you for the industry buzz, but I can get a job on my
> > own.
> > >
> > i know that you have hurt yourself because i
> > still maintain strong contacts in the film industry in manitoba and
had
> > your name mentioned to me without prompting from me.
>
> Funny. People in the film Industry remember me from when I volunteered
> on a dramatic short over a year ago? Haven't been much involved in
the
> movie making biz since then.
no, but you've sent out a pile of resumes.
> > i suggest you appoligise for violating my legal rights and promise
not
> > to do it again. or shall we have a judge make it very clear what you
can
> > and cannot post.
>
> I won't apologize to you here. Your judge will have to make me.
>
> the last guy who tried to go to the line with me on
> > what he could and couldn't say here ended up in jail.
>
> Is that another threat? This is my last response to you as you might
be
> a dangerous person and I fear for my life.
your definition of a threat is quite loose. paranoid in fact.
Gordon Grieder
Karen Marie wrote:
>
> chrismc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
>
> > yes karen this is a public place and you can post anything YOU write.
> > but my email is mine, not yours.
>
> I still don't understand this. It's from you but it's in my mailbox. Is
> this a true statement or not?
Karen,
I have several pieces of legal threats from Chrith on my website that
were never executed.
http://www.grub.net/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf.html
Note that I've never had a threat for posting his email, that latest
trend must be caused by the new brand of tin foil his hat is made from.
[snip]
> Funny. People in the film Industry remember me from when I volunteered
> on a dramatic short over a year ago? Haven't been much involved in the
> movie making biz since then.
People in the business here wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole
> > i suggest you appoligise for violating my legal rights and promise not
> > to do it again. or shall we have a judge make it very clear what you can
> > and cannot post.
>
> I won't apologize to you here. Your judge will have to make me.
Excellent.
> the last guy who tried to go to the line with me on
> > what he could and couldn't say here ended up in jail.
>
> Is that another threat? This is my last response to you as you might be
> a dangerous person and I fear for my life.
Idon't know who the "last guy" is, but in my situation he threatened me
and said he'd called the police. This was not true, 2 friends in WPS
say there was no complaint lodged, but one did yank his record and
remarked "This guy's a fuckin' nut." who is prohibited from ever owning
a firearm.
Ray J
Ray
(been following along ROFLMAO)
chrismc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <38716AC0...@home.com>,
> Karen Marie <kc...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Well Chris, here I am again, posting bad shit. Maybe even blackmail
> > shit. No one will tell me what I can or can not post here. This is
> > public group and I won't be bullied or threatened by you or any one.
> You
> > picked the wrong person to mind fuck. I was taught to respect myself
> and
> > I won't have you belittling me with threats and innuendoes. Plenty of
> > people will stand up for my character. I may be an idiot but I'm a
> NICE
> > idiot, which you would have found out if you had taken the time. A
> > response to your outlandish posts (elevator to the beach?) was not a
> > character judgment, it was a knee jerk response to your degrading
> > remarks you implied to the others on this group. Where as I have made
> > friends, you seemed to make enemies. Whose posts are hurting who?
>
> yes karen this is a public place and you can post anything YOU write.
> but my email is mine, not yours. you cannot do with it as you please.
> your two postings of my messages would cost you $1000 if i filed suit,
> which is quite simple and inexpensive. the judge would have almost no
> discretion. if you were very lucky, which is unlikely due to the tone of
> this message, you might have to pay me only $400.
>
> > BTW..I thank you for the industry buzz, but I can get a job on my
> own.
> >
>
> remember karen, every post you make is out there forever. it becomes a
> matter of public record. i know that you have hurt yourself because i
> still maintain strong contacts in the film industry in manitoba and had
> your name mentioned to me without prompting from me.
>
> i suggest you appoligise for violating my legal rights and promise not
> to do it again. or shall we have a judge make it very clear what you can
> and cannot post. the last guy who tried to go to the line with me on
> what he could and couldn't say here ended up in jail. ask around. it's
> true.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Irreverent hardware reviews and other fun stuff -> http://www.yaktam.com
Norm Gall
on 6/1/00 07:57hrs:
> Karen Marie wrote:
>> McK said:
>>> the last guy who tried to go to the line with me on
>>> what he could and couldn't say here ended up in jail.
>> Is that another threat? This is my last response to you as you might be
>> a dangerous person and I fear for my life.
> I don't know who the "last guy" is,
I do.
Norm Gall
--
Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not
having been at sea.
Jim Townsend
"Karen Marie" <kc...@home.com> wrote
> > yes karen this is a public place and you can post anything YOU write.
> > but my email is mine, not yours.
>
> I still don't understand this. It's from you but it's in my mailbox. Is
> this a true statement or not?
If he SENT it to you, then he GAVE it to you. It's yours by virtue of him
giving it to you... Ignore this whacko Karen. Things must be getting awfully
boring in Chile.
Jim.
Sheila Paterson
wrote:
>Karen Marie wrote:
>>
>> chrismc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > yes karen this is a public place and you can post anything YOU write.
>> > but my email is mine, not yours.
[snip]
>Karen,
>I have several pieces of legal threats from Chrith on my website that
>were never executed.
>http://www.grub.net/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf.html
>
>Note that I've never had a threat for posting his email, that latest
>trend must be caused by the new brand of tin foil his hat is made from.
[snip]
It's interesting to note that your website contains e-mail from Chris
that says he can quote anything he wants to quote and that e-mail is
exempt from copyright laws.
I presume his change of mind comes from studying the matter and not
merely because it's expedient.
Norm Gall
chrismc...@my-deja.com wrote on 6/1/00 14:44hrs:
> In article <Qzp0ODytGj01HW...@4ax.com>,
> anon...@escape.ca wrote:
>> Bull! Nobody ended up in jail, not one second of jail time and I can
>> prove it. I guess that would make you a liar?
> ok. prove it.
Careful, Chris. It might be Doerksen; and he can prove it.
So can I, I might add.
Norm Gall
--
I do not resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it parts for
the time with reality. -- Winston Churchill
Opus-
(Sheila Paterson) spake thusly:
>Don't you need a pattern of harassing behaviour before you can claim
>harrassment? I don't think one or two e-mails would do it, especially
>if the recipient hasn't asked the sender to stop sending them.
>
>Assuming there is copyright, can one really say, "Yes, I violated it
>because I was afraid of some guy who lives on another continent."?
In today's world, a continent is only a few hours away. And McSimp has
already demonstrated that he is prying into Karens life, has already
attempted to threaten her career goals and he is e-mailing her
specifically against her wishes.
As for the copyright laws, the closest description, written in the
law, to any kind of mail would be the term "literary work" or
something along those lines. I highly doubt anybody could convince a
judge that an e-mail paragraph could be construed as "literary work"
Norm Gall
my_...@escape.ca wrote on 6/1/00 17:53hrs:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 14:56:29 -0600, Norm Gall
> <ga...@mts.net> wrote:
>> In article 852us5$dan$1...@nnrp1.deja.com, chrismc...@my-deja.com at
>> chrismc...@my-deja.com wrote on 6/1/00 14:44hrs:
>>> In article <Qzp0ODytGj01HW...@4ax.com>,
>>> anon...@escape.ca wrote:
>>>> Bull! Nobody ended up in jail, not one second of jail time and I can
>>>> prove it. I guess that would make you a liar?
>>> ok. prove it.
>> Careful, Chris. It might be Doerksen; and he can prove it.
>> So can I, I might add.
> and as well it can be proven that Chris was taken to the hospital for
> psychiatric observation can it not?
Sure. No troubles.
Norm Gall
--
If you see a white plane it's American, if you see a black plane, it's RAF.
If you see no planes at all it's the Luftwaffe.
-- German solider on the Western Front, 1944
wtsh...@mb.sympatico.ca
>
>"Karen Marie" <kc...@home.com> wrote
>
>> > yes karen this is a public place and you can post anything YOU write.
>> > but my email is mine, not yours.
>>
>> this a true statement or not?
>
>If he SENT it to you, then he GAVE it to you. It's yours by virtue of him
>giving it to you... Ignore this whacko Karen. Things must be getting awfully
>boring in Chile.
>
>Jim.
>
Actually, the alleged McKinstry doesn't even need to be really posting from Chile.
It doesn't matter if it's "really" him posting or not; there's no new information and
all the reactions the alleged McKinstry is getting would be the same no matter if
it's a troll or the original article.
Bill
Walter Roberson
:Of course it can, but anyone with PGP can "Verify" the message content
:and prove the message's authenticity.
:Changing one bit of that message alters the verification hash and the
:message will NOT verify to the original signature.
Right -- if you literally change only a single bit, then the verification
hash will change.
However, as long as the signature is shorter than the original message,
it is possible to change a set of characters together in such a
way that the same signature would be obtained. Finding the right set
of characters and new values might be time consuming and expensive! And
doing it in such a way that the total message still seems to make sense
could take an awfully long time (!!) -- but it is *possible*.
[If it were not *possible*, then infinite compression would be possible:
you could "compress" every dataset down to it's cryptographic signature.]
Walter Roberson
Opus- <jbu...@altavista.com> wrote:
:As for the copyright laws, the closest description, written in the
:law, to any kind of mail would be the term "literary work" or
:something along those lines. I highly doubt anybody could convince a
:judge that an e-mail paragraph could be construed as "literary work"
[Original] letters in traditional physical paper form or reproduced in
a magazine or book are considered "literary work", and copyright law is
concerned with the expression of ideas not with the physical format.
A judge wouldn't have much choice but to rule that it is the content
and not the medium that is the key, and thus that a "sufficiently
original" email "Hi, Mom!" paragraph deserves just as much copyright
protection as a handwritten opening paragraph for Rushdie essay.
If the case were ever to come to court, then, the real question would
centre not on whether it was email, but whether what was emailed
was "sufficiently original" to qualify for copyright.
Karen Marie
Karen:)
mani...@home.com
>Could you explain the phrase " sufficiently original", please?
Whatever the court says it is...
Craig
> Could you explain the phrase " sufficiently original", please?
Sort of like "kinda dead".
Craig
--
**To reply remove NOSPAM from my address**
cp...@my-deja.com
"Roger Strong" <rst...@nospam.yetmans.mb.ca> wrote:
> Take phone messages as an example: In Canada it
> is legal to record a phone conversation as long as one person in the
call
> knows about it. You can, without the other person's knowledge or
consent,
> play your recorded phone call it to anyone else that you want. This
has
> been tested in court.
Do you have a link to where I could find info on the court case? My
company's program Veritape (available free here:
http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10061-100-1502406.html) records
phone calls onto your computer - we have a list of legal links on our
website and I would like to include this.
Thanks,
Cam Ross
www.veritape.com