photography documentaries
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: sobriquet on 19 Jun 2010 14:06 On 19 jun, 19:44, Pete <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > On 2010-06-19 17:18:53 +0100, tony cooper said: > > > > > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:28:30 -0700, Savageduck > > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > > >> On 2010-06-19 03:41:54 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: > > >>> ***************************************************************************** > >>> By reading and/or replying to this usenet posting, you acknowledge > >>> that you have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions > >>> found at: > > >>>http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/eula.txt > > >>> ****************************************************************************** > > >> Nick Sprakel remains a cyber-thief, no matter how much he protests. > >> ...and he cannot find his way out of that basement. > >> <http://picasaweb.google.com/THCganja/Various#5244910721929976050> > >> <http://picasaweb.google.com/dohduhdah/Experimenteel#5282010159386521810> > > >> I await the nazi name calling so we can invoke Godwin. > > > You're pissing into the wind. Sobriquet is devoid of morals and > > ethics. Like a sociopath, he has no sense of right or wrong. > > I agree, especially after reading so many of Sobriquet's posts. > However, Sobriquet has made me realize that posting any of my images > for critique automatically invalidates them from having any personal or > commercial value because he can claim ownership of them at any time. I > haven't the money, energy, or desire to prove him wrong. Others do have > those resources so time will tell. > > -- > Pete All information belongs to the public domain. Otherwise there would be no freedom for you to publish anything in the first place and corporations could simply claim ownership of anything you publish as they have the financial means to exploit the legal system to their advantage. Well, corporations can screw you over anyway, because the pseudo- democratic government is merely shady extension of corporations, rather than a neutral organization that is supposed to guarantee human rights. So if your human rights are conflicting with corporate interests, you can't expect the government to help you protect your human rights.
From: Intentionally Left Blank on 19 Jun 2010 14:25 "sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a9eeb60a-8a5a-4494-a9e4-fc19cc0c9566(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> So call the cops, TROLL! > > The CIA and FBI have been notified and they are probably investigating > your internet connection right now. > > Soon you'll be in jail for violating intellectual property rights and > there is no internet in jail for sure. > Neither has any jurisdiction, it's not in the CIA's mandate. And as you live in the Nederland's the FBI has no jurisdiction, especially to posters outside the USA. So call Interpol, oh wait they are just bureaucrats with zero powers.
From: Pete on 19 Jun 2010 14:37 On 2010-06-19 18:59:07 +0100, sobriquet said: > On 19 jun, 19:40, "Tim Conway" <tconway_...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:ee7f5ba6-5a2c-4e0c-9f02-405b1a745b7d(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... >> >>> On 19 jun, 19:23, "/dev/null/" <d...(a)null.invalid> wrote: >>>> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >>>> news:7d98ad40-3815-4b0f-8fe6-fa8751deab6d(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... >> >>>> <PLONK> >> >>> You think you can just ignore and violate the terms and conditions of >>> my postings, but you're sadly mistaken. >> >>> My rights are protected by international agreements and you face >>> serious legal consequences when you continue to violate my >>> intellectual property rights. >> >> and, btw, by your own philosophy I can reply to your bitstring if I want. >> It's mine to do with what I want, right? > > You're free to share my postings with other collectors, but if you > read and/or > respond to my postings, that means you agree with the terms and > conditions specified at the start of this thread. If you bothered to learn the real (meaning practical and enforceable) terms and conditions of posting via Usenet, e-mail, text messaging, etc. you would've written only the first part of that reply. This is not "having a go at you for the sake of it/to make me feel better". A very unfortunate blunder was committed recently by a worker in a huge organisation that is currently under public scrutiny. The local media was not interested in dealing with it because of the time required to research into the legal ramifications. That does not mean the action, backed up by the attached terms and conditions, was acceptable. It remains acceptable until further action is taken. -- Pete
From: sobriquet on 19 Jun 2010 14:41 On 19 jun, 20:25, "Intentionally Left Blank" <anonym...(a)not-for- mail.invalid> wrote: > "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:a9eeb60a-8a5a-4494-a9e4-fc19cc0c9566(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> So call the cops, TROLL! > > > The CIA and FBI have been notified and they are probably investigating > > your internet connection right now. > > > Soon you'll be in jail for violating intellectual property rights and > > there is no internet in jail for sure. > > Neither has any jurisdiction, it's not in the CIA's mandate. And as you live > in the Nederland's the FBI has no jurisdiction, especially to posters > outside the USA. So call Interpol, oh wait they are just bureaucrats with > zero powers. Oh well.. people violate intellectual property laws on a massive scale anyway, so I don't expect much support from the legal system. Only major corporations stand a fair chance to exploit the legal system to their advantage successfully, but for individuals like me it's rather futile to specify terms and conditions regarding my intellectual property, as people can violate them as they see fit without any significant risk of legal repercussions.
From: sobriquet on 19 Jun 2010 14:51
On 19 jun, 20:37, Pete <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > On 2010-06-19 18:59:07 +0100, sobriquet said: > > > > > On 19 jun, 19:40, "Tim Conway" <tconway_...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:ee7f5ba6-5a2c-4e0c-9f02-405b1a745b7d(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > > >>> On 19 jun, 19:23, "/dev/null/" <d...(a)null.invalid> wrote: > >>>> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>>>news:7d98ad40-3815-4b0f-8fe6-fa8751deab6d(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... > > >>>> <PLONK> > > >>> You think you can just ignore and violate the terms and conditions of > >>> my postings, but you're sadly mistaken. > > >>> My rights are protected by international agreements and you face > >>> serious legal consequences when you continue to violate my > >>> intellectual property rights. > > >> and, btw, by your own philosophy I can reply to your bitstring if I want. > >> It's mine to do with what I want, right? > > > You're free to share my postings with other collectors, but if you > > read and/or > > respond to my postings, that means you agree with the terms and > > conditions specified at the start of this thread. > > If you bothered to learn the real (meaning practical and enforceable) > terms and conditions of posting via Usenet, e-mail, text messaging, > etc. you would've written only the first part of that reply. > > This is not "having a go at you for the sake of it/to make me feel > better". A very unfortunate blunder was committed recently by a worker > in a huge organisation that is currently under public scrutiny. The > local media was not interested in dealing with it because of the time > required to research into the legal ramifications. That does not mean > the action, backed up by the attached terms and conditions, was > acceptable. It remains acceptable until further action is taken. > > -- > Pete In practice there is no intellectual property and people can share information freely as if all information belongs to the public domain. Hopefully in the future we will have a government that strives to protect human rights instead of violating them, so we can expect human rights, like the freedom to share information, to be guaranteed universally, even where they conflict with corporate interests. |