photography documentaries
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 19 Jun 2010 19:30 On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:59:46 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)gmail.com> wrote: >You are obviously a hypocrite nazi cockroach who thinks he can ignore >the intellectual property claims by others like me, while proclaiming >me to be an immoral thief for ignoring the intellectual property >claims of others in a similar fashion. For you to have intellectual property rights to defend you must first show some sign of what you are writing is the writing of someone with intellect. Nothing in sight yet. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: sobriquet on 19 Jun 2010 19:41 ***************************************************************************** By reading and/or replying to this usenet posting, you acknowledge that you have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions found at: http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/eula.txt ****************************************************************************** On 20 jun, 01:25, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On 19 jun, 18:47, George Kerby <ghost_top...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/19/10 11:03 AM, in article > >> 173014e9-e635-46ed-95db-c2107518c...(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, > >> > On 19 jun, 16:29, John Navas <jn...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 03:41:54 -0700 (PDT), in > >> >> <22cf2de5-c6d6-4c72-a8f1-af0b865b3...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >>> By reading and/or replying to this usenet posting, you acknowledge > >> >>> that you have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions > >> >>> found at: > > >> >>>http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/eula.txt > > >> >> Nope. > > >> > If you don't agree to my terms and conditions, you shouldn't reply to > >> > my postings. > >> > If you do reply to my postings, that means you acknowledge that you > >> > agree to my terms and conditions. > > >> > I've created my usenet postings, so I get to decide under what terms > >> > and conditions people are allowed to read them and/or reply to them. > > >> A tough 'kookie' you are, squirt? > > Nobody is forcing you to read or reply to my usenet postings, but if > > you do, please have the decency to respect my terms and conditions. > > If you are participating in this thread, you have to respect the terms > > and conditions I've specified in my original posting, because I have > > the right to impose terms and conditions of my preference on the use > > of my intellectual property. > > Where use constitutes reading and replying to your posts, only if the > reader grants you the extra rights you seek above those legally > inherent in a newsgroup posting. I certainly don't. > > -- > Chris Malcolm > Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact. You are acknowledging my intellectual property rights if you read and/ or reply to my usenet postings. So if you first agree with my terms and conditions and subsequently you violate them, you're obviously contradicting yourself. If you disagree with the terms and conditions of my usenet postings, you have the right to ignore them. Nobody is forced to reply to my usenet postings, but if you do read and/or reply to my usenet postings, that means you agree with the terms and conditions specified. Intellectual property laws apply to usenet postings in the same fashion as they apply to photos or photography documentaries, as these all constitute forms of information to which article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights applies.
From: sobriquet on 19 Jun 2010 19:51 ***************************************************************************** By reading and/or replying to this usenet posting, you acknowledge that you have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions found at: http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/eula.txt ****************************************************************************** On 20 jun, 01:30, tony cooper <tony_cooper...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:59:46 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet > > <dohduh...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >You are obviously a hypocrite nazi cockroach who thinks he can ignore > >the intellectual property claims by others like me, while proclaiming > >me to be an immoral thief for ignoring the intellectual property > >claims of others in a similar fashion. > > For you to have intellectual property rights to defend you must first > show some sign of what you are writing is the writing of someone with > intellect. Nothing in sight yet. > > -- > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida Ah ok, so in order to enjoy intellectual property rights, I must submit my creations to some kind of commission that is going to assess the intellectual value of my creative output in order to evaluate whether or not I can enjoy the protection of intellectual property laws? So, where do I submit my creative output in order to guarantee my rights?
From: sobriquet on 19 Jun 2010 19:56 ***************************************************************************** By reading and/or replying to this usenet posting, you acknowledge that you have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions found at: http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/eula.txt ****************************************************************************** On 20 jun, 01:19, John McWilliams <jp...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Your reasoning is so convoluted that I, and I hope others, will no > longer attempt to educate you. > > -- > lsmft > > Remember: Opinions are like buttocks; only those which are well-formed > should be shown in public. Fine, so if you just have the decency to respect the terms and conditions of my usenet postings, we can all just get along fine here in rec.photo.digital. If you disagree with my point of view on spurious intellectual property claims and the freedom to share information as specified in the universal declaration of human rights, you should simply ignore my postings and that way we can both enjoy human rights like freedom of expression and the freedom to share information without infringing or encroaching on each others rights.
From: John McWilliams on 19 Jun 2010 20:48
Tim Conway wrote: > > "sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > Except that article 29 isn't supposed to detract from article 19 in > any way. > This has been specifically stipulated in article 30. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > and I suppose that says that thievery isn't thievery. right? > BS > You are arguing with a mission poster. Reason, cites, qoutes, links, nada: Nothing matters, except he'll post more. And more, and.... -- john mcwilliams |