From: safire@telenet.com (safire)
ronju99 wrote:
Hi Leonard,
        As usual, safire doesn't have a clue about what
he is talking about.
Hi Ron Judas,
Leonard figured it out himself, as you can see from his last post: I
knew exactly what I was talking about. What you did is a criminal
offence under federal legislation.
Medscape provides a link for anyone registered to email documents to
friends and a link to download and copy articles from there website.
You, on the other hand have no idea what you're talking about, as is
consistently demonstrated in your erroneous statements and false ad
hominem attacks. This is what Medscape's Terms of Use (which you have
accepted) provide:
"You acknowledge and agree that the Service and information, content and
software presented to you through the Service or used in connection with
the Service contain proprietary and confidential information that is
protected under U.S. and international intellectual property laws,
including copyright, trademarks, service marks, patents or other
proprietary rights and laws. Except as expressly authorized by us or our
advertisers, you agree not to sell, rewrite, modify, redistribute,
create derivative works, or rent the Service of any information
presented to you through the Service, in whole or in part."
Do you know the difference between copying and publishing in a newsgroup
(i.e. redistributing) and providing a link? Or is the distinction to
difficult for you to understand? What does your (false) claim cited
above have to do with what you actually did, i.e. copying and publishing
copyrighted, protected works, i.e. stealing?
Obviously, you have never created anything of value yourself and
therefore you think it is normal to steal other peeple's intellectual
property.
Apparently safire is off his meds again and is using the computer
without his mothers permission.
Watch out Ron Judas, the FBI will be knocking on your door and none of
your "mothers" will be able to save little ronnie boy.

===> having dealt with copywrited material and properties in my business
for over 27 years as well as wanting to get ideas copywrited at the
gov't office,  i can shed some light on this subject.

most people don't know what the difference is between a copywrite and a
copywrite pending is.

and when it comes to dealing with the physical side of things,  you may
hold the copywrite to the product that you invented.   but if someone
else makes the same item,  it is up to the inventor or the person who
holds the copywrite to tell the person who is producing the same item
for profit, that they are infringing on the copywrite - not the gov't.
if the person still continues to infringe on the copywrite,  it is the
person who holds the copywrite who has to pay for the expense of filing
any legal action against them.  most of the time,  the owner of the
copywrite is out of the money if they try to enforce their copywrites.

then, when you expand this to a global situation,  the copywrite laws
are really vague.  a copywrite in the united states may not be honored
in another country.  this very common in china and the furniture
industry.    in japan, it was so bad that when i went to the china
factories where they made the expensive brands of dishes,  no cameras
were allowed because someone could take a picture of a new design that
they were producing and even there,  they had people with perfect
memories - from other companies come in and observe their new product -
to steal their concepts.

as to written copywrited material.  it takes over 8 notes of a song to
be played in order to prove violation of a copywrite.  that is why you
see it on the TV shows where they will play the first few notes of a
song.  it gives the audience the idea of what the song is, but they
didn't break any laws when they played those first few notes.

as to copywrited material as far or movies are concern.   if you go into
just about any large store, you will see copywrite violations every day.
any time you see a movie playing on a tv set there,  that is a copywrite
violation.   right on the front of each movie or video, it states that
it is to be shown in the a home and not for public viewing.  so each
time it is shown in public,  that is an individual violation, so how
many times do corporations break copywrite laws each day?   it falls
under the heading called, "commercial consideration"   people will be
prone to shop at a store where they come drop the kids off in front of a
tv set that is showing, "finding nemo" while they do their shopping and
won't go to another store that doesn't offer the same services.   it is
a form of unfair business practices.  and i didn't even hit on knock
offs of clothing.

do you see touchstone, disney, mgm, universal studios, or sony going
after ANY of the copywrite violators?   no.   why?   they tried it back
in the 80's or 90's and couldn't stop them.  they had a hotline to call
in for violations and a staff of lawyers sending letters out to
businesses and still, they couldn't stop the practice.

and the final point on copywrite violation,  in order to collect ANY
money in a court of law.  you have to prove that you, the owner of the
copywrite, were damaged.  usually, this is proved by the loss of money
considerations ,such as lost sales of vidoes due to bootleg copies or
internet downloads.   the music industry was able to prove that against
napster.  

so, how can someone posting a reference at a newsgroup going to pose a
lose of income to the original owner?   now, if they were to use the
information from medline and put it in a book and that book became a
best seller, then, medline would have a claim for damges.

speaking of law here.  while the idea of the concept may look the same,
it is not.  for example,  look at the difference between what makes up a
legal contract and the seeking of an offer.

did you know that you in order to get a copywrite patent, you MUST have
a working model?   but you do not have to have a working model for a
patent pending.   in fact, if you were to build a working model and got
a copywrite on your model.  your blueprints and drawings  are open to
ANYONE to look at your design because you hold the patent to it.  but
"I" can look at YOUR design and and BUILD one  JUST LIKE IT and i have
not violated ANY copywrites.  why? because it is perfectly legal to use
your copywrite for my private use.

if you want to really get technical about where the law is,  anytime,
someone gives out medical advice is crossing the legal line because they
don't have a medical license to be able to tell someone to take a
certain medicine or treatment.  

one can say that it is their opinion that they should seek out a certain
treatment, such as surgery or radiation or hormone therapy or even say
that might want to look into taking lupron or casodex.  they havn't
violated any copywrite laws or medical laws.

but if you were to say that they need to eat grapes that that it will
cure prostate cancer, then if someone does what you have said and harm
comes to them - such as dying,  then you are liable.

oh,  that reminds me....   look at all the spammers.  isn't that exactly
what they are doing?  trying to sell you a worthless product or
treatment and tell you that you will be cured of cancer.   and do you
see them getting arrested?   look at M-15.   they can't even stop his
posting.

oh, for what i's worth - there are SEVEN patents on working models of
carburators at the patent office that get over 100 miles to a gallon of
gas.   you can get the prints and build one yourself if you want - just
don't sell it.

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc

Just tell 'em you're an illegal alien. They'll run for the hills.

I.P.

copy write??

Didn't you read Steve Jordan Kramer Whatever's lesson in English for the
underprivileged? It's "copyright". Write it down 50 times. That's right:
write copyright. You may retain the copyright to what you write. Right?
Sjeesh, you are really dumb.

Penalty phase? What are you talking about? Soccer?
If one was

You still don't get it, do you? You still don't understand the
distinction between civil law and criminal law, do you? Maybe you didn't
finish high school. The law, not a contract, provides the "remedy".