|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/08/06 01:14
"Bob Quintal" <rquintal@sPAmpatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9892C99ABF179BQuintal@66.150.105.47...
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in
> news:4tr5euF15bfbcU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> <bob.quintal@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1165512765.005456.294960@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>> Here's a paper from the University of Texas. I'm unfamiliar
>> with its author, but the analysis is both interesting and
>> accurate:
>>
>> www.utexas.edu/law/news/colloquium/papers/Brachapaper.doc
>>
> It'll take me a day or two to analyse its accuracy, but at first
> reading, it points out some things you fail to see.
Read it and then report back.
>>>
>>> Amendments and new laws dating from 40 years later have
>>> corrupted the original intent. This was by the addition of
>>> musical scores to the catalogue of copyrightable items.
>>
>> Musical scores were not added to the Copyright Act 40 years
>> ago. Music has been protected by copyright in the US since
>> 1831.
>>
> And you really need to learn to read. I never said music was
> added 40 years ago, but 40 years after the creation of the first
> American Copyright law,. 1831 -1790 equals 41 years, and I
> rounded down to the decade.
You're correct. I misread your statement. So what's your point? How does
this support your contention that the original intent of copyright was to
protect engineering drawings?
>
> I think this sums up the entire problem, in that you see what
> you want to see, not the facts.
And what facts would those be? The blanket assertions you've made, which
consist entirely of your opinion as to the meaning of the language in the
Statute of Anne and Article I, Section 8?
As I said, read the article.
>
>
>>>>
>>> I responded yesterday in a separate posting providing a link
>>> to, quotes from and rationale why I have grounds to assert
>>> that the Statute of Queen Anne was intended to apply only to
>>> information of Scientific and Technical value.
>>
>> Your "rationales" were based on your erroneous construction of
>> the meaning of the language.
>>
> Get off your high horse. You cannot read what I have written
> (see example above) correctly, so your accusations of my error
> are suspect to say the least. I might say more, but I'm not here
> to engage in ad hominem attacks on somebody who cannot even
> correctly interpret the english language.
That's good, because if you do engage in ad hominem attacks, this discussion
is over.
>>>
>> I'm not going back through this thread -- anyone who is
>> interested can do that. However, everything I've attributed
>> to you, you said.
>>
> You are mistaken, misinterpreting what I said, or a liar. It
> matters not which to me, because the result is the same, there
> is no point in continuing this discussion with you..
As I said, the thread is available in google. Anyone interested in what
you've said can read it.
>>>>
>
> --
> Bob Quintal
>
> PA is y I've altered my email address.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|