I got a Moxin&Kobrin email. Need info.
Francois Tremblay
OK, OK, so I saw it coming. After everything I said on Scientology on
the Internet, sure, no problem. Copyrighted material, I'm really
really evil, please remove every damn thing, bla bla bla.
However, there is this part :
"C. Unauthorized Possession of the NOTs Copyrighted Works.
You have admitted, on your web page, to possessing copies of the
NOTs works on your computer "I have my own copy of History of Man, as
well as the NOT files".
The NOTs works were originally stolen from a Scientology Church
in Europe.
RTC took immediate action to protect these works. The perpetrator of
this crime was caught, convicted and sent to prison for this crime.
Once RTC had notice that these materials had been disseminated to
others, RTC obtained numerous permanent injunctions concerning
infringements of these and similar copyrighted works. In the RTC v.
Henson case, a jury assessed damages in the amount of $75,000 against
Keith Henson for posting one of the NOTs works on the Internet, as
well as being enjoined by the court against further infringements of
the Advanced Technology works. In RTC v. Lerma, the Court found that
Mr. Lerma had infringed upon RTC's copyrighted works, enjoined him
from any further infringements in addition to awarding RTC $2,500 in
damages and the right to seek costs. There are permanent injunctions
in place prohibiting infringements of RTC's works in the RTC v.
FACTNet and RTC v. Ward cases.
Similar results have been reached in Europe. On September 14,
1998, a Swedish court enjoined a defendant who engaged in similar
infringements, in addition to finding that his actions in placing our
client's copyrighted works on the Internet violated the owner's rights
under Swedish copyright law. He was also fined for his illegal
actions and ordered to pay $161,000 in litigation costs. On June 9,
1999, a Dutch court found an individual and numerous Internet service
providers had engaged in copyright
infringement by posting, or hosting, our clients' copyrighted works on
their web sites.
The court ruled that the service providers must remove such postings
as soon as they are notified of them, subject to a penalty of $2,500
for each day on which they do not comply.
Your actions in this regard violate Canadian and United States
copyright law.
Copyright subsists in Canada in our client's materials, by virtue of
the Berne convention and Section 5 of the Canadian Copyright Act. As
to the photographs, the reproduction of a photograph in its entirety
constitutes copyright infringement. See Rogers v. Koons, 751 F.Supp.
474, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) aff'd, 960 F.2d 301 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied,
506 U.S. 934 (1992). Criminal copyright law, under United States and
Canadian law, may be implicated here as well. In the United States,
the Legislature properly foresaw a need for enforcement of the
criminal copyright statute to impinge on criminal elements. With the
advanced computer technologies available, works can be scanned rapidly
onto electronic media, put onto the Internet, and sent worldwide with
the push of a few keys. As a result, criminal penalties for
copyright infringement now consist of imprisonment up to six years for
the infringer and monetary penalties and fines into the thousands of
dollars. Under Section 42 of the Canadian Copyright Act, any person
who knowingly distributes infringing copies of any work in which
copyright subsists, either for the purposes of trade or to such an
extent as to affect, prejudicially, the owner of the copyright, is
guilty of an offense and is liable for a fine or imprisonment.
Accordingly, we request that you immediately remove the
infringements from
your web page and turn over, to our office, any and all copies of the
NOTs works that you possess on your computer."
My "actions" ? What "actions" ? All I did was say that I have the
NOTs. What the Rand are they talking about, and do I really have to
send them my copy ?
--Francois Tremblay
www.insolitology.com
www.insolitology.com/personal/ (personal page)
ptsc
> Accordingly, we request that you immediately remove the
>infringements from
>your web page and turn over, to our office, any and all copies of the
>NOTs works that you possess on your computer."
>My "actions" ? What "actions" ? All I did was say that I have the
>NOTs. What the Rand are they talking about, and do I really have to
>send them my copy ?
I normally tell people to be very careful about potential infringement
issues, and of course I Am Not A Lawyer, but in this case, I think you
can safely tell them to fuck off.
ptsc
Magoo
Make a copy and send it to them, as many others have done.
DOH!
OSA>>>>>you aint' ever gonna get um all back. Give up the ghost, and admit
you believe in space aliens...take it or leave it. Many will leave, but some
will stay, and from there on out you can party hard, with those left, and
any others you can rope in.
This secret/suit crap is only killing you faster than u can imagine. Guess
what?
IT"S NOTTTTTTTTTTT Secret. The only people who believe so are those in the
Scio/Truman show, and even THEY are 'getting out'.
Go look at your empty orgs, if you don't believe me.
Tory/Magoo!
"Francois Tremblay" <mdi...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:a219ba71.0210...@posting.google.com...
Beverly Rice
> I got a Moxin&Kobrin email.
> "C. Unauthorized Possession of the NOTs Copyrighted Works.
>
> You have admitted, on your web page, to possessing copies of the
> NOTs works on your computer "I have my own copy of History of Man, as
> well as the NOT files".
>
> Accordingly, we request that you immediately remove the
> infringements from your web page and turn over, to our office,
< any and all copies of the NOTs works that you possess on your
> computer."
Are they talking about ~these~ NOTs?
http://w4u.eexi.gr/~antbos/XENU.HTM
These NOTs have been up on this web site for way over a month,
being downloaded by individuals and organizations all over the
planet.
Are they supposed to be like, you know, ~secret~ or something?
Before they were on this web site, they have been on others
for long periods of time, also being "disseminated" on a
planetary scale.
So, are ~your~ NOTs the NOTs above?
And is it then, that RTC is validating them as being ~the~ legitimate
NOTs?
Thanks,
Beverly
Xenu's Atomic Clambake
mdi...@sympatico.ca says...
> I got a Moxin&Kobrin email.
>
> OK, OK, so I saw it coming. After everything I said on Scientology on
> the Internet, sure, no problem. Copyrighted material, I'm really
> really evil, please remove every damn thing, bla bla bla.
>
> However, there is this part :
>
>
>
> "C. Unauthorized Possession of the NOTs Copyrighted Works.
>
> You have admitted, on your web page, to possessing copies of the
> NOTs works on your computer "I have my own copy of History of Man, as
> well as the NOT files".
>
Ya right a judge just might entertain this, as enough evidence for a law
suit,not in his life-time. But then again they have the next billion
years to keep trying.
If I recall a former cult member claimed to be Jesus's father. Does that
make it ture?
If the cult got rid their minimum wage lawyers and hired some real ones.
They would stop shooting themselves in the foot every time they open
their mouths.
<snip>
Phineas Fogg
If you get something certified, don't open it, return it to sender.
AFIK, its contents won't be binding if you don't open it.
But, IANAL, for sure.
Below is standard fare if an ISP is threaten by the CoS, and they
inform you that you gotta remove pages, I don't know
if there is any portion you can apply to your situation (and I
wouldn't do it unless I got something in the mail):
*****************
Courtesy of David S. Touretzky
Dear Internet Service Provider:
This letter is written in response to your notification to me of a
complaint received about my webpage(s). The pages in question are:
(insert list of URLs here).
The complainant's claim of copyright violation should be rejected
because (please see all checked items):
The material in question is not copyrighted, or the copyright has
expired. It is therefore in the public domain and may be reproduced by
anyone.
The complainant has provided no copyright registration information or
other tangible evidence that the material in question is in fact
copyrighted, and I have a good faith belief that it is not. The
allegation of copyright violation is therefore in dispute, and at
present unsupported.
The complainant does not hold the copyright to the material in
question and is not the designated representative of the copyright
holder, and therefore lacks standing to assert that my use of the
material is a violation of any of the owner's rights.
My use of the material is legally protected because it falls within
the "fair use" provision of the copyright regulations, as defined in
17 USC 107. If the complainant disagrees that this is fair use, he or
she is free to take up the matter with me directly, in the courts.
You, the ISP, are under no obligation to settle this dispute, or to
take any action to restrict my speech at the behest of this
complainant. Furthermore, siding with the complainant in a manner that
interferes with my lawful use of your facilities could constitute
breach of contract on your part.
The complaint does not follow the prescribed form for notification of
an alleged copyright violation as set forth in the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, 17 USC 512(c)(3).
Specifically, the complainant has failed to:
Provide a complaint in written form.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)]
Include a physical or electronic signature of the complainant.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
Identify the specific copyrighted work claimed to be infringed, or, if
multiple copyrighted works are covered by a single complaint, provide
a representative list of such works.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(ii)]
Provide the URLs for the specific files on my website that are alleged
to be infringing.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(iii)]
Provide sufficient information to identify the complainant, including
full name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(iv)]
Include a written statement that the complainant has a good faith
belief that use of the disputed material is not authorized by the
copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(v)]
Include a written statement that the information in the notification
is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complainant is
authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is
allegedly infringed.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(vi)]
This communication to you is a DMCA counter-notification letter as
defined in 17 USC 512(g)(3):
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief
that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken
information, misidentification of the material in question, or
deliberate misreading of the law.
My name, address, and telephone number are as follows:
(insert your name, address and phone number here).
I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the
judicial district in which I reside (or, if my address is outside the
United States, any judicial district in which you, the ISP, may be
found).
I agree to accept service of process from the complainant.
My actual or electronic signature follows:
________________________________.
Having received this counter-notification, you are now obligated under
17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) to advise the complainant of this notice, and to
restore the material in dispute (or not take the material down in the
first place), unless the complainant files suit against me within 10
days.
David S. Touretzky is a principal scientist in the Computer Science
Department and the Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition at
Carnegie Mellon University.
Mike O'Connor
mdi...@sympatico.ca (Francois Tremblay) wrote:
> You have admitted, on your web page, to possessing copies of the
> NOTs works on your computer "I have my own copy of History of Man, as
> well as the NOT files".
[...]
I AM NOT A LAWYER.
My understanding in the US is: Suppose some guy is selling pirated
copies of an upcoming movie, the latest Harry Potter movie which isn't
even in the theaters yet! He is selling copies he made, for ten dollars
each.
It is not illegal to buy a copy from that man. It is not illegal to have
a copy of that movie in your house, or to view the movie, or to tell
your friends you have a copy of the movie.
The guy who made those copies did something illegal. He can be
prosecuted. You can't. Copyright concerns the RIGHT TO COPY. It's about
making copies. People violate copyright when they make a COPY when they
have no RIGHTS to do so. It's not about buying or posessing or viewing
things.
Corrections solicited.
And a postscript: Some thug-organization with lots of money and rage can
sue someone for anything and make the case, no matter how meritless,
last long enough to bankrupt whomever they are raging at. For some
organizations, the purpose of a lawsuit is to harass and discourage
rather than to win. The merit of a case only affects the ability to win,
and some organizations just don't care about that, illegal as that is.
--
LYING IS A SCIENTOLOGY SACRAMENT
ASK THEM ABOUT XENU
Mike O'Connor <http://www.leptonicsystems.com/>
Android Cat
news:3db4...@news2.lightlink.com...
> I believe you can safely ignore email, since it can easily be forged.
> If you get something certified, don't open it, return it to sender.
> AFIK, its contents won't be binding if you don't open it.
>
> But, IANAL, for sure.
>
>
> Below is standard fare if an ISP is threaten by the CoS, and they
> inform you that you gotta remove pages, I don't know
> if there is any portion you can apply to your situation (and I
> wouldn't do it unless I got something in the mail):
Useful in the USA, your country may vary. And since François is from
sympatico.ca-land... (I wonder if they can prove that the post came from
him?)
Anyone have a Canadian equivalent?
Ron of that ilk.
Frank Copeland
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:00:20 -0700, Phineas Fogg <do...@kneejerk.com> wrote:
> I believe you can safely ignore email, since it can easily be forged.
I believe you are mistaken; this is one of ARS's oldest urban myths and
one of the most dangerous. Paper mail can also be forged, yet it is a
perfectly valid means of delivering legal notice. If you are in doubt
about the authenticity of an email then you always have the option of
confirming it with the supposed sender. I doubt any court will give any
weight to the argument that you thought it was a forgery when you
happily accept any other email at face value.
If the email contains a valid claim then ignoring it won't prevent the
sender from sueing you.
> If you get something certified, don't open it, return it to sender.
> AFIK, its contents won't be binding if you don't open it.
None of this will save you from being sued if the claim is valid, or
even just arguable.
> But, IANAL, for sure.
For sure.
> Below is standard fare if an ISP is threaten by the CoS, and they
> inform you that you gotta remove pages, I don't know
> if there is any portion you can apply to your situation (and I
> wouldn't do it unless I got something in the mail):
The DMCA doesn't apply in Canada, although I'm sure the big media
companies are cooking up something similar just they are in Australia.
Frank
- --
Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/>
Not the Scientology Home Page: <URL:http://xenu.apana.org.au/ntshp/>
Keep it in Usenet. E-mail replies and 'courtesy' copies are not welcome.
If you're selling, I ain't buying.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9tLE+p2NZ0AWg2mgRAnikAJ98cDIpmHM4LX0lEmWru7i0WIRt0gCfdZFK
84+lBNVQwe5mb75EAjlJQf0=
=qqY6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Francois Tremblay
them from Operation Clambake. But NOTs are NOTs, right ?
I'm not scared of no Scientologist, I just don't want the vermins to
get a warrant and be able to get on my computer or something. I'd have
to disinfect it.
--Francois Tremblay
www.insolitology.com
www.insolitology.com/personal/ (personal page)
Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net> wrote in message news:<3DB47B...@mpinet.net>...
Android Cat
news:slrnar9c9...@wossname.apana.org.au...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:00:20 -0700, Phineas Fogg <do...@kneejerk.com>
wrote:
>
> > I believe you can safely ignore email, since it can easily be forged.
>
> I believe you are mistaken; this is one of ARS's oldest urban myths and
> one of the most dangerous. Paper mail can also be forged, yet it is a
> perfectly valid means of delivering legal notice. If you are in doubt
> about the authenticity of an email then you always have the option of
> confirming it with the supposed sender. I doubt any court will give any
> weight to the argument that you thought it was a forgery when you
> happily accept any other email at face value.
I could forge an email. It would claim to be from Moxin&Kobrin. I'd
probably do it through an open South Korean proxy server, but add an
another Received line to make it look like it came M&K initially. It
wouldn't have my IP address on it. (I once got spammed through an open
proxy on the South Korean Naval HQ firewall, oi!)
I LART spammers who forge like this all the time. I'm middling good at
it, but there's a few tricks that the best spammers use that could throw
me off. And spammers are handicapped because most have to pass you some
method of contact in order to get your money -- *And* they're doing it in
massive bulk. If I wanted to be tricky, I'd find a box that could be
0wn3d and erase the logs on that end.
Also, email isn't guaranteed. Sympatico could drop it in the bit-bucket,
and I'd never know. Some email programs do "registered" email, but that
just sends another email back when you read it, and if I got a HoGram, I'd
never directly open it. I don't even directly open attachments that claim
to be from people I know. Klez forges the from line all the time.
I admit that explaining to the court why email isn't reliable would be
hard.
> If the email contains a valid claim then ignoring it won't prevent the
> sender from sueing you.
"I never got it." Eventually they could serve me, sure. Registered mail
is valid service because they get my signature. I believe that normal
mail isn't a valid way to do it. I could be wrong.
> > If you get something certified, don't open it, return it to sender.
> > AFIK, its contents won't be binding if you don't open it.
>
> None of this will save you from being sued if the claim is valid, or
> even just arguable.
In the US, they use the DMCA to knock down pages unless the owner can
mount a fight in court against Co$. Most of the time, their letters are
scrap-paper with bogus claims that they don't even have to prove -- they
cost almost nothing for a flunky to send. (They have the copyright to
NOTS in this case, but not HoM.)
> > But, IANAL, for sure.
>
> For sure.
>
> > Below is standard fare if an ISP is threaten by the CoS, and they
> > inform you that you gotta remove pages, I don't know
> > if there is any portion you can apply to your situation (and I
> > wouldn't do it unless I got something in the mail):
>
> The DMCA doesn't apply in Canada, although I'm sure the big media
> companies are cooking up something similar just they are in Australia.
Yeah, but not yet, thank $DEITY!
Ron of that ilk.
roger gonnet
"Francois Tremblay" <mdi...@sympatico.ca> a écrit dans le message de
news: a219ba71.0210...@posting.google.com...
> I got a Moxin&Kobrin email.
>
> OK, OK, so I saw it coming. After everything I said on Scientology on
> the Internet, sure, no problem. Copyrighted material, I'm really
> really evil, please remove every damn thing, bla bla bla.
>
> However, there is this part :
>
>
>
> "C. Unauthorized Possession of the NOTs Copyrighted Works.
>
> You have admitted, on your web page, to possessing copies of the
> NOTs works on your computer "I have my own copy of History of Man, as
> well as the NOT files".
>
since they recognized that you have not done anything illegal to get
them, since they can't ask for anybody to give access to his HD, since
there is nothing abnormal to read materials on the web, send them a
reply menacing them to complain for spamming and lieblous allegations.
roger
Rev Norle Enturbulata
but notify your ISP about, as to its invalidity.
"Francois Tremblay" <mdi...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:a219ba71.0210...@posting.google.com...
l.l.lipshitz
wrote in <3db4...@news2.lightlink.com>:
| Hey....
|
| Make a copy and send it to them, as many others have done.
| DOH!
doh! making a copy is definitely illegal. i
don't think simply possessing a copy is.
[...]
-elle
----------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube-at-min-net ]=----------
most people are fools, most authority is malignant,
there is no god, and everything is wrong. -tn
Dave Bird
O'Connor <mi...@leptonicsystems.com> writes:
>In article <a219ba71.0210...@posting.google.com>,
> mdi...@sympatico.ca (Francois Tremblay) wrote:
>
>> You have admitted, on your web page, to possessing copies of the
>> NOTs works on your computer "I have my own copy of History of Man, as
>> well as the NOT files".
>[...]
>
>I AM NOT A LAWYER.
>
>My understanding in the US is: Suppose some guy is selling pirated
>copies of an upcoming movie, the latest Harry Potter movie which isn't
>even in the theaters yet! He is selling copies he made, for ten dollars
>each.
>
>It is not illegal to buy a copy from that man. It is not illegal to have
>a copy of that movie in your house, or to view the movie, or to tell
>your friends you have a copy of the movie.
>
>The guy who made those copies did something illegal. He can be
>prosecuted. You can't. Copyright concerns the RIGHT TO COPY. It's about
>making copies. People violate copyright when they make a COPY when they
>have no RIGHTS to do so. It's not about buying or posessing or viewing
>things.
However, if there is material on your computer which is in breach
of copyright, surely they are going to ask "and how was that copied
onto your computer: did you make the copy? did you allow someone
else to put a copy there? how many people have access to copy
files onto this computer? do you think the tooth fairy put it there?
when you did or allowed this, did you know it was in breach of
copyright?"
>
>Corrections solicited.
>
>And a postscript: Some thug-organization with lots of money and rage can
>sue someone for anything and make the case, no matter how meritless,
>last long enough to bankrupt whomever they are raging at. For some
>organizations, the purpose of a lawsuit is to harass and discourage
>rather than to win. The merit of a case only affects the ability to win,
>and some organizations just don't care about that, illegal as that is.
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
STOP PRESS: EIGHTY SEVEN MILLION THIN DIMES FOR WOLLERSHEIM =====>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-2002May9.html
Chris Owen
> I got a Moxin&Kobrin email.
>
> OK, OK, so I saw it coming. After everything I said on Scientology on
> the Internet, sure, no problem. Copyrighted material, I'm really
> really evil, please remove every damn thing, bla bla bla.
>
> However, there is this part :
>
>
>
> "C. Unauthorized Possession of the NOTs Copyrighted Works.
>
> You have admitted, on your web page, to possessing copies of the
> NOTs works on your computer "I have my own copy of History of Man, as
> well as the NOT files".
>
> The NOTs works were originally stolen from a Scientology Church
> in Europe.
I think the key issue here is how you got the NOTs. There is (or
was), as far as I know, only one legitimate route by which you could
have got them - from the Swedish authorities under their freedom of
information act. That's where I got my own hard copy of the NOTs, in
person in Stockholm; entirely legal under Swedish law and to the best
of my knowledge, it's not illegal to import legally copied material
into another country unless the content happens to violate the laws of
the country concerned (e.g. in the case of hard core porn or material
deemed to be subversive).
Of course, if you downloaded the NOTs from the 'net that could be a
different matter altogether...
| Chris Owen - ronthe...@OISPAMNOyahoo.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| THE TRUTH ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD AND THE UNITED STATES NAVY |
| http://www.ronthewarhero.org |
Capt. Fredric L. Rice
>My "actions" ? What "actions" ? All I did was say that I have the
>NOTs. What the Rand are they talking about, and do I really have to
>send them my copy ?
These insane crooks used to _sell_ these written texts to people and,
of course, they're all available from a number of court documents
offices around the world. Anyone may retain copies of public domain
court documents so the criminals are by all external appearances
trying to scam you.
--
George W. Bush threatens to kill us all -- for oil. Read about
our Fascist American mock "President" http://www.gwbush.com/
http://www.bushwatch.net/ Get _activated_! Oppose the Bush War
...sluggishly st00pid thetan driving your bus... - Barb
Capt. Fredric L. Rice
>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:00:20 -0700, Phineas Fogg <do...@kneejerk.com> wrote:
>> If you get something certified, don't open it, return it to sender.
>> AFIK, its contents won't be binding if you don't open it.
>None of this will save you from being sued if the claim is valid, or
>even just arguable.
By the same token, nothing can save people from being sued if the
claims are totally unfounded and groundless. The Scientology company
doesn't acknowledge Fair Use extracts of their more embarrassing --
and quack medical criminal -- texts.
Capt. Fredric L. Rice
>It is not illegal to buy a copy from that man. It is not illegal to have
>a copy of that movie in your house, or to view the movie, or to tell
>your friends you have a copy of the movie.
>The guy who made those copies did something illegal. He can be
>prosecuted. You can't.
Wouldn't the purchaser be dinged for receiving stollen property?
Mike O'Connor
Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> However, if there is material on your computer which is in breach
> of copyright, surely they are going to ask "and how was that copied
> onto your computer: did you make the copy?
"Nah."
> did you allow someone else to put a copy there?
"Not really. I might have been someone who sent that copy in an EMail
attachment. My computer downloads all EMails and stores them on my disk
without me necessarily paying any attention or looking in the file. So
maybe I didn't make any copies, the sender of the EMail caused a copy to
appear on my computer."
"I see. And why is the file named 'The NOTS.txt" and placed, not in your
EMail download folder, but a folder on a different disk named 'Kult
Krap'?"
I routinely move files from the EMail folder to more appropriate places.
I don't think I ever even looked in the file."
"I see. And why is the 'last read' date on the file set to LAST
THURSDAY?"
"Well, maybe my backup program made a backup that day. I have a tape
backup that does that at 6AM in the mornings."
> how many people have access to copy
> files onto this computer? do you think the tooth fairy put it there?
> when you did or allowed this, did you know it was in breach of
> copyright?"
"Huh? Well, I don't think I made any copies, some other guy made a copy
and mailed it to me and any 'copies' made by EMail as it moves around
are transients which are not covered by copyright, and the one copy
which remains on my disk was made by some anon EMailer in an EMail I
probably routinely tossed same day it came, so no tape backup. Sorry.
Heh."
"What was that?"
"Oh, nothing."
Actually I have my doubts if this scenario would work. But perhaps there
is a concept there, that "making a copy" is kind of fuzzy when it comes
to computers...
Mike O'Connor
FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Capt. Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
> >It is not illegal to buy a copy from that man. It is not illegal to have
> >a copy of that movie in your house, or to view the movie, or to tell
> >your friends you have a copy of the movie.
>
> >The guy who made those copies did something illegal. He can be
> >prosecuted. You can't.
> Wouldn't the purchaser be dinged for receiving stollen property?
IANAL. I think it's iffy. I don't know that making a copy illegally is
technically stealing. Anyway you'd have to prove that they buyer knew he
was buying unauthorized material. Even though Harry Potter II isn't even
in theaters, that doesn't technically prove the buyer knew the copy he
bought was unauthorized. Maybe he thought it was a test prescreening or
a sneak preview or thought it was Harry Potter I or some such.
Maybe it's like if a person buys something and the bill turns out to be
counterfit, they just take away the bill, they don't always
automatically arrest the poor guy passing it. I don't think they've ever
arrested a guy buying a pirate movie off the street, they just go arrest
the seller (or the guy HE got the tapes from...)
Mike O'Connor
Mike O'Connor <mi...@leptonicsystems.com> wrote:
> "Not really. I might have been someone who sent that copy in an EMail
I meant IT might have been someone...
Rev Norle Enturbulata
"Capt. Fredric L. Rice" <FR...@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:urc1sd3...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >It is not illegal to buy a copy from that man. It is not illegal to have
> >a copy of that movie in your house, or to view the movie, or to tell
> >your friends you have a copy of the movie.
>
> >The guy who made those copies did something illegal. He can be
> >prosecuted. You can't.
>
> Wouldn't the purchaser be dinged for receiving stollen property?
It'd have to be proven that you knew the goods were stolen when you received
them.
--
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
* Insert Xenu pamphlets into $cientology
* books being sold everywhere! It's fun!
l.l.lipshitz
<FR...@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in <urc1gs5...@corp.supernews.com>:
| Xenu allowed mdi...@sympatico.ca (Francois Tremblay) to write:
|
| >My "actions" ? What "actions" ? All I did was say that I have the
| >NOTs. What the Rand are they talking about, and do I really have to
| >send them my copy ?
|
| These insane crooks used to _sell_ these written texts to people and,
i'm not sure the 'insane crooks' used to sell
the nots. iirc, there were only a few hard copies
that scn kept in secure storage, brought out only
for a parishioner to read in a private room and
then immediately returned to storage. one of these
copies was stolen...and i assume it is the source
for all the copies floating around the net today.
i don't think individual scnists owned their own
copies, and therefore could not pass them on to
friends or donate them to libraries or sell them
on ebay. perhpas i am misremembering and have the
nots mixed up with other scn documents??
| of course, they're all available from a number of court documents
| offices around the world.
i think they have only been available from one
court, the one in sweden. if they were part of
other cases, co$ successfully sealed those records.
|Anyone may retain copies of public domain
| court documents so the criminals are by all external appearances
| trying to scam you.
i think francois should get competent legal
advice....
Dave Bird
<FR...@SkepticTank.ORG> writes:
>>It is not illegal to buy a copy from that man. It is not illegal to have
>>a copy of that movie in your house, or to view the movie, or to tell
>>your friends you have a copy of the movie.
>
>>The guy who made those copies did something illegal. He can be
>>prosecuted. You can't.
>
>Wouldn't the purchaser be dinged for receiving stollen property?
Is this a trollllllll with the mis-spelling? No, because it is
not what is exactly meant by stolen. That law would apply if he
received a copy which had been stolen from the bookshop, knowing
it had been stolen. It would not apply to receiving a copy
made without the publisher's authorisation. There is not a crime
called "receiving a copy made without the publisher's authorisation."
The biggest danger is if he could be prosecuted for a crime
(or more likely sued for a civil wrong) of making the unauthorised
copy himself, because of the way it was transferred.
In article<mike-E947FE.0...@rcache2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mike
O'Connor <mi...@leptonicsystems.com> writes:
>
>IANAL. I think it's iffy. I don't know that making a copy illegally is
>technically stealing.
No, it isn't. The law very carefully defines stealing (theft) to
be something along the lines of "taking a physical object which
belongs to someone else, without their permission," with specific
variants called robbery if you took it from their person by force
and burglary if it is taken from a building by forced entry.
Even such things as "obtaining money by deception" or "obtaining
money by threat" are specific other crimes. Making an unauthorised
copy is usually a civil wrong, can sometimes be a crime, and is
not the same thing as stealing (theft) when speaking accurately.
To be even more exact... the clams are lying / exaggerating when
they say that one copy of the NOTs was stolen. Someone walked
into a CofS location and obtained the material by guile (in Denmark).
Th exact crime alleged was that those persons had "obtained papers
by deceit." A small penalty like 3 days in jail and/or a $70
dollar fine was imposed then the perpetrators, being foreigners,
were deported. I am not sure that if you recieved that
particular copy knowing it had been obtained by deception that
this would constitute receiving STOLEN property in the Danish
courts, and you too could be fined $70 then deported.
But, again, receiving an unauthorised copy of something is
not the same as receiving that thing. So it wouldn't be
receiving STOLEN property.
--
Dave Bird, an official ARS HakeMonger ><_'> <_"
(licensed to mung pelagic fish and clams of all kinds upon the Internet)
"If turbot be the food of hate, Lay on MacErrel and, by damn,
Cry HADDOCK and let loose the cods of war!" Wm Skatesfin
Phil Scott
wrote:
>In article <wZSOD5Bf...@xemu.demon.co.uk>,
Its also not a breach of copyright to have copy righted copies of material for
your own or others study...if its used to make profit, in a way that hurts the
copyright holders income from sale of the material, THEN its a copy right
violation. That is my understanding of the issue from reading many posts by
attorneys on this NG regarding copyright.
You are free to copy, just not copy and sell or use in a profit making
enterprise other than for study of the work.
IANAL
Phil Scott