From: Greegor on
Kent, Do you have any clue what the FAIR USE
exception to copyright laws really say?

Or WHY?
From: Greegor on
KBW > [Snip the remainder of Greg's latest PROOF
KBW > that he holds the delusion that he is
KBW > exempt from any and all laws.  Copyright
KBW > in this case.]

Kent, How could posting a PUBLIC RECORD of
a North Carolina state Appeals Court decision
in the remotest be subject to copyright?

It's a PUBLIC RECORD!

I thought for a moment that I had posted a
news article regarding it, which would fall
under the FAIR USE exception to copyright law.

But I didn't even do that!
I posted the NC Appeals Court DECISION itself!
That's a PUBLIC RECORD, Kent.
From: Greegor on
KBW > [Snip the remainder of Greg's latest PROOF
KBW > that he holds the delusion that he is
KBW > exempt from any and all laws. Copyright
KBW > in this case.]

G > Kent, How could posting a PUBLIC RECORD of
G > a North Carolina state Appeals Court decision
G > in the remotest be subject to copyright?
G >
G > It's a PUBLIC RECORD!

KBW > Yes it is. And I've not claimed, directly
KBW > or through implication, that it is not.

Technically, when you said that it was a
copyright violation that did imply that
it was NOT a public record.

G > I thought for a moment that I had posted a
G > news article regarding it,

KBW > But you can't remember. Got it.

The phrase "for a moment" would matter here.
Did you think that admission of a momentary
and human lapse about your total dishonesty
is an opportunity to exploit?

KBW > Is memory loss a common side effect
KBW > of the illegal drugs you admit you
KBW > use and abuse (see sig for the
KBW > VERBATIM quote of your admission).

Kent lies and refers to a non existant
VERBATIM quote that supposedly supports his lie.

It's like the broken link to the real
estate information they hoped nobody
would actually check.

Kent BLUFFs like that a lot.


G > which would fall under the FAIR USE
G > exception to copyright law.

KBW > If it where a news article, and you
KBW > [ had ] quoted the article without
KBW > source referenced, or you did
KBW > reference, but quoted IN FULL, you
KBW > would be in violation.

KBW > The FAIR USE exception makes this
KBW > vary clear.

Vary?


KBW > Excerpts are fine. Full and entire
KBW > quoting is not.

Please show where that distinction is
made in the BLACK LETTER LAW, Kent!

Or applicable caselaw!

Or is this just more of your pretend
lawyering?

KBW > No amount of your delusional rants
KBW > to the contrary will alter
KBW > this simple truth.

Post the BLACK LETTER law, Kent!

Maybe you should also explain what you
think the purpose of the Fair Use
exception is, aside from education.

If that's not too much trouble.

KBW > You did bite again though,
KBW > allowing me another opportunity
KBW > to PROVE you the fool you are.
KBW > Not very erudite of you, Greg.


> >But I didn't even do that!
>
> But you couldn't remember one way or the other, presumably the
> result of your admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs.
> Obviously you'd have trouble remembering that you violated copy
> right of news articles as well, now wouldn't you? Admit it.
> You are a fool, throwing out lies (like your lie that you can see
> someone's house at a listing that says clearly NO SUCH
> INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE) and hoping that everyone reading
> is a stone cold stupid as you.

Like this LINK you mean?

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=8250+Wills+Ct+Rogers,+AR+72756&fb=1&geocode=6811803265370174608,36.318400,-93.932496&ei=FIyJS8mbK4aMNs7VuKYB&sa=X&oi=manybox&resnum=2&ct=10&ved=0CAMQkwMwAg


G > I posted the NC Appeals Court DECISION itself!
G > That's a PUBLIC RECORD, Kent.

KBW > Yes, it is, isn't it now? Does this
KBW > reduce your violations of copyright?

Apparently in this case where you brought it up!

KBW > Please quote the Fair Use exception
KBW > from an official source, such as the
KBW > US Copyright office, and prove your claim.

KBW > Hint: this, the newsgroups, isn't an
KBW > educational source, Greg.
KBW > Not unless the owner (no one OWNS Usenet)
KBW > finds a way to establish it as such.
KBW > YOU can't just declare an educational
KBW > exception to copyright law.

Did you think that FAIR USE exception
is only for education, Kent?
More of your amateur lawyerin' ?

> You have repeatedly LIED about Fair Use exception, Greg. Let's
> see you prove your LIES are the truth. I double dog dare ya.
> Knowing what a limp impotent member you are let me provide you
> with a link and cite.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

> The 1961 Report of the Register of
> Copyrights on the General Revision
> of the U.S. Copyright Law cites
> examples of activities that courts
> have regarded as fair use: “quotation
> of excerpts in a review or criticism
> for purposes of illustration or
> comment; quotation of short passages
> in a scholarly or technical work,
> for illustration or clarification
> of the author’s observations; use
> in a parody of some of the content
> of the work parodied; summary of an
> address or article, with brief
> quotations, in a news report;
> reproduction by a library of a
> portion of a work to replace part
> of a damaged copy; reproduction by
> a teacher or student of a small
> part of a work to illustrate a
> lesson; reproduction of a work
> in legislative or judicial
> proceedings or reports; incidental
> and fortuitous reproduction, in a
> newsreel or broadcast, of a work
> located in the scene of an event
> being reported.”


> So, Greg, where does your full quotations qualify? Notice the
> source above? Have you a more authoritative one that supports your
> claim?
> Post it, a win for you, or admit you have been caught lying once
> again. The choice is yours to make.

Kent, While it's not a bad source, you did not
post the actual FAIR USE exception law.

Why is that?

Kent, NEWS stories are little more than
excerpts to begin with, and I claim the
FAIR USE exception for DISCUSSION purposes.

NEWS stories generally do not actually
originate the story they cover.

Good NEWS stories report Who, What, When
Where, Why and How. They do NOT create
those elements of their news stories.

Why did you bring up your worthless
bogus interpretation of the copyright
law in a thread where I posted a
North Carolina Appeals Court decision?

You really have NO STANDING to question
my claim of the FAIR USE exception to
the copyright law.

The day that somebody WITH STANDING
challenges me on the FAIR USE EXCEPTION
I will stand my ground.

This does not make me a scofflaw,
just an educated CITIZEN.
From: Greegor on
KBW > Is memory loss a common side effect
KBW > of the illegal drugs you admit you
KBW > use and abuse (see sig for the
KBW > VERBATIM quote of your admission).

G > Kent lies and refers to a non existant
G > VERBATIM quote that supposedly supports his lie.

KBW > I note your post vanished from
KBW > google's public archive.
KBW > Amazing how that happened, huh?

How could a "VERBATIM quote" in your sig
be deleted by me in Google?

This "VERBATIM quote" you claimed so many times?

Are you sure you know what a VERBATIM quote is, Kent?

But wait! You claim it was deleted from the ARCHIVE!

That's even better!





>      If, as you are trying to imply, I'm in some way libeling you,
> please take legal action.  Do keep in mind that the truth is a great
> defense against a charge of libel.  While your post is gone from
> Google's public archive, it's still available at other archives.

Please explain how users supposedly delete
things that are in an archive!

KBW > I know of three others that have it.
KBW > I presume there are more, but don't
KBW > KNOW this.

Nie mogę się doczekać!


> >It's like the broken link to the real
> >estate information they hoped nobody
> >would actually check.
>
>       That you're too stupid (unable to learn) to know how to make use
> of links in Google doesn't mean it was broken.  
>      That aside, I didn't post it.  Your dishonest implication that I
> did is noted.
>
> >Kent BLUFFs like that a lot.
>
>      You imply that I posted the link and then claim I am bluffing?
>      Are you simply confused, or expressing more of your delusions?
>
>
>
> >G > which would fall under the FAIR USE
> >G > exception to copyright law.
>
> >KBW > If it where a news article, and you
> >KBW > [ had ] quoted the article without
> >KBW > source referenced, or you did
> >KBW > reference, but quoted IN FULL, you
> >KBW > would be in violation.
>
> >KBW > The FAIR USE exception makes this
> >KBW > vary clear.
>
> >Vary?
>
>      I apologize.  I meant very.
>      More proof, if any were needed, that I shouldn't be allowed to
> proofread my own posts :)

Albo chodzić za darmo!