[CORRECTION]COPYRIGHT LAW AND LIBEL LAWS: WAS Re: The Longes

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Bill Arnold

[CORRECTION]COPYRIGHT LAW AND LIBEL LAWS: WAS Re: The Longes

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 07 des 2007 17:00:03

Will Johnson: You are confusing two issues in this discussion. If I write a
five-hundred word essay about *why* Sir Francis Drake had an illegitimate
child John Browne who then went to Virginia, that is my copy and holds
my copyright.

BA: Assuming you are correct although *not* clear in the above statement,
precisely what do you think you are saying? Do you have the *idea* protected
so that you can sue in a court of law for copyright infringement? If not the
latter, which seems to be the position of TAF, then please rephrase it. And
you write I am confusing two issue and then address only one. What is the
other?

Will Johnson: If someone else merely states in brief "Sir Francis Drake had an
illegitimate child John Browne born about 1620 of Virginia" they are not copying my
copy. Only my idea. They are not quoting me verbatim, not any part of my copy
since I never said exactly that. Are you stating that this brief statement would violate
my Copyright on my five-hundred word essay?

BA: You are suggesting something, what? Answer your own question? And be specific
to the multi-part issues in the question which should have been a statement.

[CORRECTION]Will Johnson: I am suggesting that Person A can summarize
what Person B has writen [CORRECTION; SIC]
and not be in violation of copyright law. You should know Bill, in
addition, that there was a recent case involving Dan Brown where the
suit was addressing exactly your points. A much better example.

[CORRECTION]BA: International *copyright* and *libel* laws are
not uniform, but vary from nation to nation, and
some countries, i.e., China, violate them religiously.
So: for the naifs on gen-medieval who have not the
legitimate[!] right to put *Esquire* after their name,
I suggest you seek advice of counsel, immediately:
if you persist in ad hominem attacks on others,
and if you persist in theft of other author’s
copyrighted material. There are many exceptions
to the laws of copyright and libel, and in the
former the blantant *bending of the rules* are
notorious in three areas germane to this forum:
scholarship, satire and parody. If you did not/
do not know what I am writing about, I suggest
you seek advice of counsel, immediately!

Bill, Esquire

*****




____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

John Brandon

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW AND LIBEL LAWS: WAS Re: The Longes pée par

Legg inn av John Brandon » 07 des 2007 17:31:02

do not know what I am writing about, I suggest
you seek advice of counsel, immediately!

Bill, Esquire

Why not just call yourself "Bill, F.A.S.G."? ;)~

Gjest

Re: COPYRIGHT LAW AND LIBEL LAWS: WAS Re: The Longes pée par

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2007 18:21:03

On Dec 7, 7:56 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Will Johnson: You are confusing two issues in this discussion. If I write a
five-hundred word essay about *why* Sir Francis Drake had an illegitimate
child John Browne who then went to Virginia, that is my copy and holds
my copyright.

BA: Assuming you are correct although *not* clear in the above statement,
precisely what do you think you are saying? Do you have the *idea* protected
so that you can sue in a court of law for copyright infringement? If not the
latter, which seems to be the position of TAF, then please rephrase it.

He repeats the lie.



[CORRECTION]BA: International *copyright* and *libel* laws are
not uniform, but vary from nation to nation, and
some countries, i.e., China, violate them religiously.

This is a flawed equivalence. You say the rules aren't uniform, and
then you equate this to China violating the rules. Legislation and
enforcement are distinct.

So: for the naifs on gen-medieval who have not the
legitimate[!] right to put *Esquire* after their name,

This, by the way, is the correction - he had to add the exclamation
mark to the word legitimate, because that makes it *so* much more
clear. One cannot posture nearly so well without the superfluous
punctuation.

(As to the false dichotomy of 'those who *legitimately*! use an
affectation after their name' vs "naif", well, who said 'esquires' had
to be logically sound.)


I suggest you seek advice of counsel, immediately:
if you persist in ad hominem attacks on others,

Ad hominems are not inherently libelous, just flawed logic. One can
be a complete idiot and still find the nut occasionally. For example,
the fact that someone appears to have only the vaguest indication of
the meaning of the multisyllable words they are using may be a clear
indication that they are a posturing fool, but that is not in and of
itself reason to reject the argument they are putting forward. (Oh,
and like "sycophant" yesterday, you appear to be misapplying "ad
hominem".)

and if you persist in theft of other author's
copyrighted material.

Thereby implying that this has taken place and continues to take
place. It is like saying "if you continue to beat your dog" - it is a
masked allegation of misbehavior that is thrown out with the full
understanding that some who read it will assume those with whom Mr.
Arnold disagrees have been guilty of this. Just another slimy debate
trick from the old esquire.

There are many exceptions
to the laws of copyright and libel, and in the
former the blantant *bending of the rules* are
notorious in three areas germane to this forum:
scholarship, satire and parody.

Are these examples of "blatant bending of the rules", or simply rules
that accommodate broader liberties in these areas?

If you did not/
do not know what I am writing about, I suggest
you seek advice of counsel, immediately!

He says patronizingly.

Bill, Esquire

Given that being a "professor of English" seems to equate with a stint
at a community college (nothing against community colleges - they
fulfill an important role in our educational system, but it ain't
Harvard . . . but then I remember you being distinctly and explicitly
unimpressed by the credentials of someone who actually did teach at
Harvard), and given that being a "Dickensonian scholar" means . . . ,
well, we now see from the Amazon reviews what that means, what makes
you think we will be impressed by another credential added to the long
list you have paraded out?

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»