|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/22/06 04:16
"Bob Quintal" <rquintal@sPAmpatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A0EBB8D92C7BQuintal@66.150.105.47...
> ptravel@travelersvideo.com wrote in
> news:1166680794.543053.52710@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> Bob Quintal wrote:
>>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in
>>> news:4us040F19nhtvU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > "Larry in AZ" <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in
>>> > message news:Xns989ED5713E1B7thefrogprince@69.28.173.184...
>>> >> Waiving the right to remain silent, Bob Quintal
>>> >> <rquintal@sPAmpatico.ca> said:
>>
>> My god, but you're an idiot.
> Well it takes a bigger one to know one.
>
>
>>
>> 1. Fair use is an equitable doctrine, meaning it is decided
>> by judges who use the four statutory factors as a mere
>> framework. You don't have the slightest clue of any of the
>> niche doctrines that government fair use.
>
> I know nothing in your book, but I know enough to get by.
No, you don't -- know when it comes to law.
> I also
> know that you regularly use a similar but incorrect word for the
> term you mean.
>>
>> 2. Incidental reproduction is a very difficult and unsettled
>> doctrine that, obviously, you know absolutely nothing about.
>
> Yes it's unsettled, in the sense that there is loads of conflicting
> jurisprudence.
Still wrong. There isn't "loads." There's very, very little, which is one
of the reasons its unsettled.
> That is because there is a strong move by the
> moneyed powers in publishing to push for one interpretation, which
> some of the judicary succumb to.
Not even close.
> Other judges have ruled based on
> the
>
>> I've explained it before, here, and in some detail, including
>> case cites. I'd suggest you spend some time on google before
>> you shoot your mouth off.
>>
> I've posted citations from Findlaw and other sites that rebut your
> citations.
You've done nothing of the sort.
> So?
> You hold an opinion based on your learned interpretation of the
> law. I'll hold my interpretation based on my learned interpretation
> of the law.
The only difference is that one of us has actually studied the law.
>
>> <Naive and totally incorrect "analysis" deleted.>
>>
> Not naive, but since you cannot refute it, you slander.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm completely correct.The law that allows copyright of
>>> fiction and public performance has never been challenged on
>>> the grounds that it violates the Constitution, but I think
>>> such a challenge would have a fair chance of winning.
>>
>> Who cares what you think? You don't know anything about the
>> law.
>
> That's a baseless opinion.
It's the opinion of one who is licensed to give opinions on law.
>>
>>>
>>> Besides the law is an ass.
>>> -- Charles Dickens
>>
>> No, it's Bob Quintal whose an ass. Try reading the Dickens
>> quote in context -- you didn't even get that right.
>>
> Gee, you really think that the quote is out of context?
Yes, it is.
> The context, Mr Bumble, is that Copyright Law assumes that nobody
> can use copyright material without permission: but Reality is very
> different.
>
>>> What does that make lawyers?
>>
>> Educated and knowledgable.
>
> You've got one hell of an inflated ego.
No, I have an education and a license to practice law. You have internet
access and an attitude.
> In every case that comes before a judge, one litigant's lawyer
> loses. All lawyers lose sometimes. Now's your turn.
I haven't yet.
>
> What does that make you?
>
> Educated and knowledgable.
Exactly right.
>
> --
> 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]
|