> On Nov 5, 4:21 pm, womanGoddess <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 10:03 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 1:17 pm, TOP <T...@invalid.com> wrote:
> > > > Going for plausible deniability again, Hanson?
> > > > Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT going > > > > to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news. It > > > > says so on the google news search page.
> > > > Of course you innocently missed that, right?
> > > > But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk others. > > > > Mistake or lie. You tell us.
> > > > Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not > > > > know?"" LOL
> > > > TOP (The Other Pangborn)
> > > The best it shows is an indictment and a partner who turned states > > > evidence. > > > Why is there no story about CONVICTION? > > > You DO know that an indictment is not a conviction, right?
> > > CHARGES SAY MAN PIRATED VIDEOS > > > Illegally taped concerts sold > > > BYLINE: Wes Hills Dayton Daily News > > > DATE: August 8, 2002 > > > PUBLICATION: Dayton Daily News (OH) > > > EDITION: CITY > > > SECTION: LOCAL > > > PAGE: B1
> > > DAYTON - A Troy man was indicted Wednesday on charges he conspired to > > > sell on the Internet pirated videos of the Dave Matthews Band, Bruce > > > Springsteen and other performers.
> > > Glen Frohman of 513 W. Market St. also was charged with selling > > > unauthorized videos on Oct. 5, 2001. Frohman faces 10 years in federal > > > prison if convicted on both charges.
> > > The indictment claims Frohman, "on numerous occasions, would either > > > alone or with the assistance of other individuals, tape performances > > > of musical entertainers without the consent of said entertainers and > > > offer these videotapes for sale on the Internet through a Web site.
> > > "Customers were instructed to send payment in the form of a check or > > > money order" to a post office box in Troy controlled by Frohman, the > > > indictment claims.
> > > The "overt acts" in the conspiracy allege Frohman:
> > > * Sent through the U.S. mail Oct. 5 a videotape of a live musical > > > performance of the Dave Matthews Band.
> > > * Sent on Dec. 11 a videotape of a live musical performance of Bruce > > > Springsteen.
> > > In a sworn statement, Postal Inspector M.E. Arthur details how the > > > case developed:
> > > Arthur states that he was contacted Aug. 15 by the agent for musician > > > Eric Johnson regarding Frohman advertising a Web site offering to sell > > > concert videos from numerous musicians.
> > > On Sept. 25, Arthur states, he used an undercover name to place an > > > order through the Web site for the Dave Matthews Band's Tabernacle and > > > Austin City Limits .
> > > Arthur states that after he received the videos for $39, Wendy Yascur, > > > coordinator of evidence control and anti-piracy special projects for > > > the Recording Industry Association of America, was contacted.
> > > Yascur sent the videotapes to Coran Capshaw, manager for the Dave > > > Matthews Band, who provided a sworn statement stating the band had > > > "never licensed, consented to or otherwise authorized neither Glen > > > Frohman . . . to manufacture, distribute or offer to sell the videos > > > of the live musical performances."
> > > On Dec. 11, Arthur states, he ordered five more videos - live musical > > > performances of Tori Amos, Bruce Springsteen, Eric Clapton, Prince and > > > Phish - and received them after sending $153.
> > > Again, Yascur forwarded the tapes to the musicians' management > > > companies to confirm they had been pirated.
> > > Arthur also cites an e-mail message allegedly sent by Frohman to Jim > > > Weiss, president, The I Trade Group Inc., in which he states, "Yeah, I > > > deal in bootleg tapes . . . (video currently, but it was audio for 15 > > > years.)"
> > > Frohman also states he has "been running an online business with my > > > tapes for eight years."
> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy > > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy > > > residence on June 20. > > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
X > And the idiot once again posts something X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> > Heres a clue, Greg. Compare that with the list of MPAA convictions on > > the web site whose addie I posted some weeks ago. If you actually > > have some cognitive thought, you can easily figure out which > > conviction is his,
How could this LINK have EVER worked with http in the middle and servlet chopped off?
You said people could check for themselves.
But that's not really true, is it Maureen?
Moe > So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
I never claimed that he wasn't convicted. I claimed you stalked him for over 10 years and haven't posted online verifiable PROOF that he was CONVICTED.
I saw proof he was indicted, and one of your anonymous henchmen posted it as if proof of indictment was proof of conviction.
Did you refer to 43481-061 in any other posts online?
Is that a state or Federal number?
You DO know that an indictment is NOT a conviction, right, Moe?
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:17:04 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
[Snips for brevity]
>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy >> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy >> > > residence on June 20. >> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>X > And the idiot once again posts something >X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't >know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not allow for the copying of the entire work. I've explained this to you in the past. I even cited where in copyright law you will find this. Yes, you think you're exempt from all criminal and civil law. Your record, in addition to your current actions, proves this.
[...]
>> =A0Oh greg, here's where I posted Frohman's convict number:
Worked for me. Granted, that was many weeks ago. It could have become inactive since then. Well, whatdayaknow? The B.O.P. site is still working.
>What STATE would that be for?
Are you so stoned you think the B.O.P. is state run?
>Why no designation of state or Federal?
What do you think the B.O.P. is, stupid?
>Why is there an http in the MIDDLE of that link?
Once again you PROVE you know NOTHING of computing.
>Why is the word servlet chopped off even >way back in 2004?
You know NOTHING of computing. I think everyone accepts this. Certainly no one, not even you, has ever presented a denial. By YOUR standards, your lack of a denial is equal to an admission that the claim you know NOTHING of computing is true.
>How could this LINK have EVER worked with >http in the middle and servlet chopped off?
It worked very well. You're just too stoned to understand it.
>You said people could check for themselves.
>But that's not really true, is it Maureen?
Maybe she should have written, "People who aren't mentally retarded due to massive use and abuse of illegal drugs can check for themselves. People like Gregory Scott Hanson will need A LOT of help."? That would have been far more accurate.
>Moe > =A0So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
>I never claimed that he wasn't convicted.
Not in those words, but the context was and is there.
>I claimed you stalked him for over 10 years >and haven't posted online verifiable PROOF >that he was CONVICTED.
You've yet to offer evidence, let along proof, that she's stalked anyone for over 10 years. You mentioned someone named Bobbi, but when asked just which of the potentially millions of people named Bobbi you meant, you RAN from the posts.
>I saw proof he was indicted, and one of your >anonymous henchmen posted it as if proof >of indictment was proof of conviction.
>Did you refer to 43481-061 in any other posts online?
>Is that a state or Federal number?
Are you so stoned you don't know what the B.O.P. is?
>You DO know that an indictment is NOT a conviction, right, Moe?
I've yet to see Moe claim, directly or through implication, that it is.
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON (DOB 05/22/1959) CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996 Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996 Comments: CT 2 SPEED Disposition Status GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on the Child Abuse registry, for example." -- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser. Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825f...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would address the most pressing problems of our day. ... " April 2000, Gregory Hanson http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon, videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?" She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed triumphantly.
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:17:04 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> [Snips for brevity]
>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy >>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy >>> > > residence on June 20. >>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>X > And the idiot once again posts something >>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't >>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. > Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not > allow for the copying of the entire work.
Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous "Betamax" case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy >>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy >>>> > > residence on June 20. >>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something >>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't >>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. >> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not >> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous "Betamax" >case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
Cite?
"(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)" Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he alters the context of posts when he replies. MID FyUom.1363$Jd7.1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy >>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's >>>>> > > Troy >>>>> > > residence on June 20. >>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something >>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't >>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. >>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not >>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous >>"Betamax" >>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
> Cite?
You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
Name Kent Bradley Wills [ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ] Offender Number 1155768 Sex M Birth Date 01/08/1969 Age 40 Location Offense County Of Commitment Commitment Date Duration TDD/SDD * * TDD = Tentative Discharge Date * SDD = Supervision Discharge Date Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 12/16/2008 Probation C Felony Polk 12/16/2008 Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS West's North Western Reporter Second Series A Unit of the National Reporter System Volume 696 N.W.2d
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 31 / 04-0202 Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, vs. KENT BRADLEY WILLS, Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary contending that an attached garage is a separate occupied structure from that of the living quarters of the residence. In this appeal, we must determine whether trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to move for judgment of acquittal on the basis there was insufficient evidence to convict Wills of second-degree burglary when he entered an attached garage of a residence when no persons were present in the garage, but when persons were present in the living quarters; and (2) failing to object to a jury instruction based on this same argument. Because we find there was no legal basis for the motion for judgment of acquittal or the objection to the jury instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called the local police to report that a car alarm sounded in the resident's neighborhood. The city dispatched a police officer to the location. Observing nothing unusual, the officer left the area, only to be stopped a couple of blocks later by a person who informed the officer he had witnessed someone running from the area of the car alarm. As the officer started driving back to the area of the car alarm, he noticed a person walking on the sidewalk. The officer asked the person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody running from the area. The minor answered that he had not. While the officer and another officer were speaking to the minor, another resident of the neighborhood arrived in her car and informed the officers that she had observed two people, one of whom was heavy set with a blinking light on his back pocket, walking in the area of her neighbor's residence. She observed the heavier-set individual, later identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's attached garage through an unlocked service door. She further observed a smaller individual standing by a van parked in the neighbor's driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave even though they found a large amount of coins, a flashlight, and an electronic pocket organizer in his pockets. After releasing the minor, the police officers drove to the residence where the neighbor observed the two suspicious people and woke the owner. The owner, his wife, and two daughters were in the residence sleeping at the time. After a search of his vehicles, the owner discovered change and an electronic pocket organizer were missing from the vehicles. The owner's daughter reported a diamond ring and some change were missing from her vehicle. The officers then contacted the minor's parents, who informed the officers the minor was with Wills. After the officers questioned the minor again, he admitted his involvement in the theft and implicated Wills in the burglary. Although Wills denied involvement in the burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information charging Wills with second-degree burglary. The State later amended the information to include two additional charges of burglary in the third degree and using a juvenile to commit an indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, and using a juvenile to commit an indictable offense. Wills appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93 (1984). Our review for a claim involving violations of the Constitution is de novo. State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100 (Iowa 2004). We normally preserve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for postconviction relief actions. State v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999). However, we will address such claims on direct appeal when the record is sufficient to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer, 609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The appellate record in the present case is sufficient to allow us to address Wills' ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove: (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice results when "there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378 (Iowa 1998)
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:38:12 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>X > And the idiot once again posts something >X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>G > So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't >G > know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>KBW > Fair use allows you to copy portions for >KBW > discussion. It does not allow for the >KBW > copying of the entire work.
>KBW > I've explained this to you in the past.
>Got a LINK to where you ""explained"" this in the past?
Yes. As soon as you make available the picture of David dressed as a Nazi and me on a pony, or admit you've lied about the existence of both all along, I'll post numerous links. FYI: Double quotation marks (quadruple if you use British grammar) still means nothing. I even asked an English as a Second Language teacher, just as you suggested. Double quotation marks mean nothing at all.
>KBW > I even cited where in copyright law you >KBW > will find this.
>All the better for you to LINK to same!
As soon as you make available the picture of David dressed as a Nazi and me on a pony, or admit you've lied about the existence of both all along, I'll post numerous links. As you are well aware, this has been the requirement for a long time. Once again you try to present that you don't know this. If your NEED to continue to prove you're admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs makes honesty IMPOSSIBLE for you, except by accident or force, please do so. Your dishonest presentation that you don't know the requirement has done me no harm to date. There's no reason to expect it will in the future.
>KBW > Yes, you think you're exempt from all >KBW > criminal and civil law. Your record, in >KBW > addition to your current actions, proves this.
>See further below regarding your record.
You've already admitted that the information you post isn't about me. You claimed it was about the other Kent Wills, though you've yet to state which of the many people in the world with the name Kent Wills it's supposed to be. Whereas you've made it clear the information isn't about me (unless you lied when you claimed it isn't), I have to wonder just why you are still compelled to present it as if it is.
>Kent, Please tell me what you THINK you know about >the FAIR USE exception to copyright law.
>Please describe what the background and >INTENTION of the FAIR USE exception is.
It allows one to quote portions for discussion, critical review and citing. You already know this, since I went into detail in the past. What is the SPECIFIC reason you're acting like you don't already know it?
>Is this going to be another game where you >make strong claims and then when proven >wrong you blame the statements onto OTHERS?
You see copyright law as a game. OK.
>Like when you claimed Kim is a male?
I know a Kim who is certain he's male. I've not actually done a DNA test on him, so it's possible he's really a she. Are you claiming he's not? If so, please offer the evidence you have that lead to such a conclusion. To save you some time, I know a man named Ashley as well. Again, I've not had a DNA test done, but his full beard leads me to accept he's male.
>Please make it clear what parts you personally >BELIEVE and what parts you think you >can weasel out of and blame onto other >people you are parroting.
Could you rewrite that in coherent English?
>I am still fairly amused that some anonymous >schmuck thought he had PROVED Glen >had been convicted using only proof that >Glen had been INDICTED.
What does Glen have to do with copyright law? Are you so scared of the truth that you MUST divert attention away from it? Or are you once again offering undeniable PROOF that you're obsessed with a man you've never met on-line or in real life?
>You DO know that indictment is NOT conviction, right?
Have I ever claimed it is?
>Do you think Moe does, and her idiot anonymous ""helper""?
As I asked in another thread, has she ever claimed, directly or through implication, that she does? I note you RAN from my question. You do that a lot when you're proved to be the liar you are.
>Can you find any more on 43481-061 or Glen Frohman?
Yes, if motivated to do so.
>Was that YOU who posted the anonymous idiocy, Kent?
No.
>You seem to exhibit some subtle sort of ownership >of the hollow argument on Copyright v FAIR USE.
Your use and abuse of illegal drugs may cause you to see claims of ownership where none exist, but that's your issue to address.
[snip of Greg's admitting I'm correct]
It's accepted that when I'm correct and you can no longer lie your way out of it, you post that which you KNOW isn't about me. You've already admitted, freely, that the information you post isn't about me but some other person who is named Kent Wills. Are you so stoned that you think anyone is buying it now?
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON (DOB 05/22/1959) CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996 Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996 Comments: CT 2 SPEED Disposition Status GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on the Child Abuse registry, for example." -- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser. Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825f...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would address the most pressing problems of our day. ... " April 2000, Gregory Hanson http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon, videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?" She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed triumphantly.
>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy >>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's >>>>>> > > Troy >>>>>> > > residence on June 20. >>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something >>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't >>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. >>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not >>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous >>>"Betamax" >>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>> Cite?
>You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of >individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting >does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must be.
>Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
None. Since I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior, nothing I post could be seen as idiotic. Oh wait, you're intense bigotry always overrides any common sense you may have. My bad.
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies" Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, expressing his fondness for child porn in Message-ID: <RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
>>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video >>>>>>> > > piracy >>>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's >>>>>>> > > Troy >>>>>>> > > residence on June 20. >>>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something >>>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't >>>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. >>>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not >>>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous >>>>"Betamax" >>>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>>> Cite?
>>You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>>READ you illiterate ASSHOLE; >>"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of >>individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of >>time-shifting >>does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use." > Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must > be.
I see you SNIPPED some of the links I provided. In your POLACK reasoning, you seem to believe that this PROVES some point. Such as your POLACK claim that it has NO relevance to printed materials. In the finding of the Supremes you might see it applies to ALL media. Something a STUPID POLACK can't reason. The FAIR USE DOCTRINE applies to *.*! As do its exceptions, such as reproducing a work and claiming it as your own, or in trying to commercially exploit the work, such as selling copies. Other than that, with proper attribution one can quote part or ALL of an article to educate or to make a point. The STUPID argument you are TRYING to make, Polack, is one that IDIOTS on Usenet have tried to make for years and in the end they all get humiliated. READ up on the issue.
Discussion subject changed to "Kenneth Robert Pangborn, drunk owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team proves he's incompetent. Yes, again." by Kent Wills
You need to get into rehab, Pangborn. Your alcoholism, the same alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane, is once again compelling you to claim something about me that you KNOW is not true.
>>>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video >>>>>>>> > > piracy >>>>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's >>>>>>>> > > Troy >>>>>>>> > > residence on June 20. >>>>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something >>>>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't >>>>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>>>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. >>>>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not >>>>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>>>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous >>>>>"Betamax" >>>>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>>>> Cite?
>>>You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>>>"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of >>>individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of >>>time-shifting >>>does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
>> Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must >> be.
People have the right to record programs at home for private use. Is that what you believe Greg did when he posted an entire article? What principle of Fair Use do you believe he was operating under when he did that? He is claiming that "fair use" covers copy and pasting an entire, complete piece of another's work. Surely you, with your vast experience with law in your practice of trail CONsulting and advising suckers, sorry, clients on legal matters, would easily recognize the Fair Use principle Greg likely thinks exempts him from copyright law. What is it? And how would it apply to posting an entire piece of work to a Usenet newsgroup? Proving that people can video tape TV shows for private use at home doesn't cover what Greg did.
"The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i. e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
If Greg has video taped the article for his own private home use, you might be able to make the drunken argument you present. As it stands, you've once again PROVED you know NOTHING about matters of law. This is not meant to imply I'm an expert, although your alcoholism will force you to claim I am. I'm simply willing and able to research applicable law whereas you whine and cry and have MASSIVE on-line tantrums.
How does Grokster not being held responsible for what its users do apply to what Greg did? You might want to sleep off your latest bender before you answer. You ALWAYS get made to look the fool you are when you post while drunk. The post to which I'm replying stands as proof of that. Maybe you should have read what was to be found. From the Washington Post article:
"If the Supreme Court upholds the previous rulings..."
*IF* the Supreme Court. Note the word if. Not that it matters. The ruling would only effect if Google and Greg's ISP could be held responsible for his willful violation of copyright law. FYI: The ruling was they can't. Only Greg can be held responsible for his willful violation of copyright law. Isn't it time for you to whine about how it's my civic duty to turn him in? It's one of your lesser used tells that you've lost, but it would fit this time. You can try to distract from the truth that Greg willfully violated copyright law by whining about my civic duty.
>>>Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
>> None. Since I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior, >> nothing I post could be seen as idiotic.
> I see you SNIPPED some of the links I provided.
If the alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane is going to compel you to lie, and it is, be sure to have it compel you to lie about that which can't be proved. Anyone with an interest may check your post by visiting:
What links did I snip? Be specific. If you'd rather admit your alcoholism has once again forced you to lie, feel free to disregard my question.
>In your POLACK
That you're a bigot is very old news. A very small sample of the established PROOF that you HATE any and all minorities, said proof consisting of your own writings, can be found at http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>reasoning, you seem to believe that this PROVES some point. Such as your >POLACK claim that it has NO relevance to printed materials.
I made no such claim. If you weren't so drunk, you would understand what I wrote. However, I will make the claim now.
One being allowed to video tape TV shows for private home use has no relevance to printed materials. An Internet service not being held responsible for its user's actions has no relevance to printed materials. Feel free to prove me wrong, unless, of course, I'm correct.
>In the finding >of the Supremes you might see it applies to ALL media. Something a STUPID >POLACK can't reason.
You've proved, again, your so drunk when you're on-line, you can't understand simple English.
>The FAIR USE DOCTRINE applies to *.*! As do its >exceptions, such as reproducing a work and claiming it as your own, or in >trying to commercially exploit the work, such as selling copies.
I don't recommend you do either. However, the choice is ultimately yours to make.
>Other than >that, with proper attribution one can quote part or ALL of an article to >educate or to make a point.
That's current copyright law, not case law from the 70's and 80's. Current law. It shows how Greg violated copyright law. But then, he believes he is exempt from any and all laws of any sort, as his criminal and civil history, in addition to current activities, proves. RUN from this Pangborn. Run as fast as your little scooter will take you (I know, you won't really be running, but I hope you get my meaning). You really have no other choice. I've once again PROVED that you're INCOMPETENT in matters of law. You know less about the topic of law than, well, anyone, except perhaps Richard the St00pid. Given how often you proudly display your ignorance of such simple concepts as copyright law, it's no wonder your CONsulting business is in the tank. You've gone out of your way to show why no one should ever hire you for anything related to legal matters. I used to think it was David's TRUTH site (http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com) that was the cause. While I'm sure it had and has its effect, your proving, almost daily, that you're extremely incompetent probably did far more damage.
>The STUPID argument you are TRYING to make, >Polack, is one that IDIOTS on Usenet have tried to make for years and in the >end they all get humiliated. READ up on the issue.
Are you aware of what is and is not allowed under current copyright law? If you're too drunk to understand, feel free to RUN from the question.
"CPS cases are legal matters. Offering advice IS practicing law without a license." Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he practices law without a license in misc.legal
>>SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS > You need to get into rehab, Pangborn. Your alcoholism, the same > alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane, is once > again compelling you to claim something about me that you KNOW is not > true.
You tend to think of yourself as a GREAT LEGAL EXPERT, Wills. You get more than a little overbearing on what you *THINK* you know. (But really DON';T!)
>>>>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video >>>>>>>>> > > piracy >>>>>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of >>>>>>>>> > > Frohman's >>>>>>>>> > > Troy >>>>>>>>> > > residence on June 20. >>>>>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>>>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something >>>>>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>>>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't >>>>>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>>>>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. >>>>>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>>>>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous >>>>>>"Betamax" >>>>>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>>>>"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of >>>>individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of >>>>time-shifting >>>>does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
>>> Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must >>> be.
>> Hey IMBECILLE try READING sometime.YOU FUKKKKKING MORON! > I read often. Unlike you, I'm not drunk, so I am able to focus on > letters and words.
Your reading is always with almost NO comprehensionand I make allowances that English is NOT your primary language. You also have a nasty habit of SELECTIVE reading and the ability to grasp anything wider than your own nose. Which I grant you is an extreme venue, BUT hardly the point.
Kunt theBetamax case was a case ENTIRELY based on the 'FAIR USE DOCTRINE." In feel for your Polack LACK of ability to grasp the significance of that and apply it as broadly as the Supreme Court said it applies. YOU "overruled" them becaus e in your tiny little POLACK mind the case was about video recording and NOTHING ELSE. Again you obviously did NOT read the decision.
> What principle of Fair Use do you believe he was operating under > when he did that? He is claiming that "fair use" covers copy and > pasting an entire, complete piece of another's work.
Kunt it is fair use to quote an article either in part or whole if your purpose is to educate and not do the two forbidden things. a. Claim it as your own. or b. Make copies to sell.
> Surely you, with your vast experience with law in your practice > of trail CONsulting and advising suckers, sorry, clients on legal > matters, would easily recognize the Fair Use principle Greg likely > thinks exempts him from copyright law. What is it? And how would it > apply to posting an entire piece of work to a Usenet newsgroup? > Proving that people can video tape TV shows for private use at > home doesn't cover what Greg did.
As long as proper attribution was given and it wasn't being done for profit, the Fair Use Doctrine prvides for it. Somebody the other day pointed out the copyright notices in newpapers etc. They are very much like the FBI warnings we see on DVD's. EVERYONE knows (except YOU, Kunt) that those "warnings" are a joke. So much so that even Hollywood has made fun of them. There was a sketch in the ultimate spoof movie, "Amazon Women on the Moon" called "Video pirates." It had a bunch of men dressed as pirates on a ship. The guy took out a video tape and read the FBI WARNING, and he looked at his mates and said; "We're SOOOOOOOOO SKKKKARED!"
Kunt there is no problem with long quotes, again so long as you stay inside the rules. You can't say it's your work and you can't sell it.
>>>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&inv... > From the site: > "The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a > significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders > who license their works for broadcast on free television would not > object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i. > e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so > that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no > likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the > potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. > The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
> If Greg has video taped the article for his own private home use, > you might be able to make the drunken argument you present. As it > stands, you've once again PROVED you know NOTHING about matters of > law.
Don't look new, Kunt but you just missed the POINT AGAIN. Every day you PROVE that you ARE a "stupid Polack!"
> This is not meant to imply I'm an expert, although your > alcoholism will force you to claim I am. I'm simply willing and able > to research applicable law whereas you whine and cry and have MASSIVE > on-line tantrums.
Your reading comprehension of conversational Eglish is marginal at best, Kunt. Your understanding of LEGAL language is near ZERO, even though you THINK you are a legal whiz. I'd have thought the dismal failure of your appealate brief in your own case would ahve taught you that understanding legal issues is NOT your strong suit.
> >>SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS > > You need to get into rehab, Pangborn. Your alcoholism, the same > > alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane, is once > > again compelling you to claim something about me that you KNOW is not > > true.
> You tend to think of yourself as a GREAT LEGAL EXPERT, Wills. You get more > than a little overbearing on what you *THINK* you know. (But really DON';T!)
> >>>>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video > >>>>>>>>> > > piracy > >>>>>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of > >>>>>>>>> > > Frohman's > >>>>>>>>> > > Troy > >>>>>>>>> > > residence on June 20. > >>>>>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
> >>>>>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
> >>>>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something > >>>>>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
> >>>>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't > >>>>>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> >>>>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. > >>>>>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does > >>>>>>> not > >>>>>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
> >>>>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous > >>>>>>"Betamax" > >>>>>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
> >>>>> Cite?
> >>>>You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
> >>>>"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of > >>>>individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of > >>>>time-shifting > >>>>does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
> >>> Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must > >>> be.
> >> Hey IMBECILLE try READING sometime.YOU FUKKKKKING MORON! > > I read often. Unlike you, I'm not drunk, so I am able to focus on > > letters and words.
> Your reading is always with almost NO comprehensionand I make allowances > that English is NOT your primary language. You also have a nasty habit of > SELECTIVE reading and the ability to grasp anything wider than your own > nose. Which I grant you is an extreme venue, BUT hardly the point.
> Kunt theBetamax case was a case ENTIRELY based on the 'FAIR USE > DOCTRINE." In feel for your Polack LACK of ability to grasp the significance > of that and apply it as broadly as the Supreme Court said it applies. YOU > "overruled" them becaus e in your tiny little POLACK mind the case was about > video recording and NOTHING ELSE. Again you obviously did NOT read the > decision.
> > What principle of Fair Use do you believe he was operating under > > when he did that? He is claiming that "fair use" covers copy and > > pasting an entire, complete piece of another's work.
> Kunt it is fair use to quote an article either in part or whole if your > purpose is to educate and not do the two forbidden things. a. Claim it as > your own. or b. Make copies to sell.
> > Surely you, with your vast experience with law in your practice > > of trail CONsulting and advising suckers, sorry, clients on legal > > matters, would easily recognize the Fair Use principle Greg likely > > thinks exempts him from copyright law. What is it? And how would it > > apply to posting an entire piece of work to a Usenet newsgroup? > > Proving that people can video tape TV shows for private use at > > home doesn't cover what Greg did.
> As long as proper attribution was given and it wasn't being done for > profit, the Fair Use Doctrine prvides for it. Somebody the other day pointed > out the copyright notices in newpapers etc. They are very much like the FBI > warnings we see on DVD's. EVERYONE knows (except YOU, Kunt) that those > "warnings" are a joke. So much so that even Hollywood has made fun of them. > There was a sketch in the ultimate spoof movie, "Amazon Women on the Moon" > called "Video pirates." It had a bunch of men dressed as pirates on a ship. > The guy took out a video tape and read the FBI WARNING, and he looked at his > mates and said; "We're SOOOOOOOOO SKKKKARED!"
> Kunt there is no problem with long quotes, again so long as you stay > inside the rules. You can't say it's your work and you can't sell it.
> >>>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&inv... > > From the site: > > "The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a > > significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders > > who license their works for broadcast on free television would not > > object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i. > > e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so > > that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no > > likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the > > potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. > > The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
> > If Greg has video taped the article for his own private home use, > > you might be able to make the drunken argument you present. As it > > stands, you've once again PROVED you know NOTHING about matters of > > law.
> Don't look new, Kunt but you just missed the POINT AGAIN. Every day you > PROVE that you ARE a "stupid Polack!"
> > This is not meant to imply I'm an expert, although your > > alcoholism will force you to claim I am. I'm simply willing and able > > to research applicable law whereas you whine and cry and have MASSIVE > > on-line tantrums.
> Your reading comprehension of conversational Eglish is marginal at best, > Kunt. Your understanding of LEGAL language is near ZERO, even though you > THINK you are a legal whiz. I'd have thought the dismal failure of your > appealate brief in your own case would ahve taught you that understanding > legal issues is NOT your strong suit.
Discussion subject changed to "Kenneth Robert Pangborn, drunk owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team proves he's incompetent. Yes, again." by Kent Wills
>> You need to get into rehab, Pangborn. Your alcoholism, the same >> alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane, is once >> again compelling you to claim something about me that you KNOW is not >> true.
>You tend to think of yourself as a GREAT LEGAL EXPERT, Wills.
I've done no such thing. When compared to your extreme lack of knowledge in matters of law, I might be seen as an expert. However, when compared to people who have actually studied law, I am not.
>You get more >than a little overbearing on what you *THINK* you know. (But really DON';T!)
I consistently PROVE I know more than you. If that means I'm an expert in your drunken mind, so be it.
>>>>>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video >>>>>>>>>> > > piracy >>>>>>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of >>>>>>>>>> > > Frohman's >>>>>>>>>> > > Troy >>>>>>>>>> > > residence on June 20. >>>>>>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>>>>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something >>>>>>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>>>>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't >>>>>>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>>>>>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. >>>>>>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>>>>>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous >>>>>>>"Betamax" >>>>>>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>>>>>"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of >>>>>individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of >>>>>time-shifting >>>>>does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
>>>> Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must >>>> be.
>> I read often. Unlike you, I'm not drunk, so I am able to focus on >> letters and words.
> Your reading is always with almost NO comprehensionand I make allowances >that English is NOT your primary language.
It is, though. It's not my first language, but I speak, read and write it far more often than any other.
>You also have a nasty habit of >SELECTIVE reading and the ability to grasp anything wider than your own >nose. Which I grant you is an extreme venue, BUT hardly the point.
I am able to read the entire piece of work. Further, I can understand the context. As I have managed to PROVE, you are incapable. Now have your little tantrum, further proving me correct.
>> People have the right to record programs at home for private use. >> Is that what you believe Greg did when he posted an entire >> article?
> Kunt theBetamax case was a case ENTIRELY based on the 'FAIR USE >DOCTRINE."
As it applies to recording TV shows under then current copyright law.
>In feel for your Polack LACK of ability to grasp the significance >of that and apply it as broadly as the Supreme Court said it applies. YOU >"overruled" them becaus e in your tiny little POLACK mind the case was about >video recording and NOTHING ELSE. Again you obviously did NOT read the >decision.
SCOTUS stated it was about recording. Outside of your drunken stupors, I've not overruled anything. Further, outside of your latest PROOF that you post while drunk, I couldn't overrule SCOTUS even if I were motivated to do so.
>> What principle of Fair Use do you believe he was operating under >> when he did that? He is claiming that "fair use" covers copy and >> pasting an entire, complete piece of another's work.
> Kunt it is fair use to quote an article either in part or whole if your >purpose is to educate and not do the two forbidden things. a. Claim it as >your own. or b. Make copies to sell.
That's not what the law says, as I've already proved. So powerful was and is the proof, you had to remove it from your reply, admitting I'm correct (by the standards of Gregborn Logic™) by doing so.
>> Surely you, with your vast experience with law in your practice >> of trail CONsulting and advising suckers, sorry, clients on legal >> matters, would easily recognize the Fair Use principle Greg likely >> thinks exempts him from copyright law. What is it? And how would it >> apply to posting an entire piece of work to a Usenet newsgroup? >> Proving that people can video tape TV shows for private use at >> home doesn't cover what Greg did.
> As long as proper attribution was given and it wasn't being done for >profit, the Fair Use Doctrine prvides for it. Somebody the other day pointed >out the copyright notices in newpapers etc. They are very much like the FBI >warnings we see on DVD's. EVERYONE knows (except YOU, Kunt) that those >"warnings" are a joke. So much so that even Hollywood has made fun of them. >There was a sketch in the ultimate spoof movie, "Amazon Women on the Moon" >called "Video pirates." It had a bunch of men dressed as pirates on a ship. >The guy took out a video tape and read the FBI WARNING, and he looked at his >mates and said; "We're SOOOOOOOOO SKKKKARED!"
I have the film. It's funny. I like how the video disk wouldn't work on the guy's system. That was a major problem with video disks, IMO.
> Kunt there is no problem with long quotes, again so long as you stay >inside the rules. You can't say it's your work and you can't sell it.
Long quotes may be acceptable. There's no absolute limit on the length of a quote. However no one, other than you are Greg, see C&P of the entire work as acceptable.
>> "The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a >> significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders >> who license their works for broadcast on free television would not >> object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i. >> e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so >> that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no >> likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the >> potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. >> The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
>> If Greg has video taped the article for his own private home use, >> you might be able to make the drunken argument you present. As it >> stands, you've once again PROVED you know NOTHING about matters of >> law.
> Don't look new,
At my age, there's no way I could. :)
>Kunt but you just missed the POINT AGAIN. Every day you >PROVE that you ARE a "stupid Polack!"
I not only saw the point, I used it to prove you the drunken liar you are.
>> This is not meant to imply I'm an expert, although your >> alcoholism will force you to claim I am. I'm simply willing and able >> to research applicable law whereas you whine and cry and have MASSIVE >> on-line tantrums.
> Your reading comprehension of conversational Eglish is marginal at best,
Given that it's far better than yours, that's a frightening claim you're making.
>Kunt. Your understanding of LEGAL language is near ZERO,
Yet it's still superior to yours, as I have once again proved.
>even though you >THINK you are a legal whiz.
When compared to you, perhaps I am. Even so, I don't hold out that I am.
>I'd have thought the dismal failure of your >appealate brief in your own case would ahve taught you that understanding >legal issues is NOT your strong suit.
Whereas I've not had cause to file, let alone present, an appeal, your latest lie fails.
>> How does Grokster not being held responsible for what its users >>do apply to what Greg did? >> You might want to sleep off your latest bender before you answer. >>You ALWAYS get made to look the fool you are when you post while >>drunk. The post to which I'm replying stands as proof of that. >> Maybe you should have read what was to be found. >> From the Washington Post article:
>>"If the Supreme Court upholds the previous rulings..."
>> *IF* the Supreme Court. Note the word if. >> Not that it matters. The ruling would only effect if Google and >>Greg's ISP could be held responsible for his willful violation of >>copyright law. >> FYI: The ruling was they can't. Only Greg can be held >>responsible for his willful violation of copyright law. >> Isn't it time for you to whine about how it's my civic duty to >>turn him in? It's one of your lesser used tells that you've lost, but >>it would fit this time. You can try to distract from the truth that >>Greg willfully violated copyright law by whining about my civic duty.
>>>>>Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
>>>> None. Since I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior, >>>> nothing I post could be seen as idiotic.
>>> I see you SNIPPED some of the links I provided.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:34:15 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> =A0 =A0 Your reading comprehension of conversational Eglish is marginal a= >t best, >> Kunt. Your understanding of LEGAL language is near ZERO, even though you >> THINK you are a legal whiz. I'd have thought the dismal failure of your >> appealate brief in your own case would ahve taught you that understanding >> legal issues is NOT your strong suit.
>1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
>Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
No one has claimed it does. Only that, in direct contrast to the claims you've presented via implication, he was convicted. One can infer that he was convicted of the crimes for which he was investigated, but that's not an absolute guaranty.
>It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
How many people do you know that are listed in a Federal Bureau of Prisons' locator list, with or without an exit date, that were not convicted? I do hope you realize you've totaly destroyed your own implied claim that Glen wasn't convicted. It's always nice when YOU offer the proof that you were wrong. Will you be able to admit your error, or prove, once again, that by your own standards, you knew the truth and were lying all along?
>You DO know the difference between >INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
Ken and I are two different people. You replied to his post. Your latest proof that you have Fregoli (I'm being kind and presuming it's not proof that your admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs has made honesty IMPOSSIBLE for you, except by accident or force) aside, yes. Just like the last two times you've asked. You've yet to answer a question I've asked several times. Why are you so obsessed about a man you've never met on-line or in real life? Why were you so compelled to bring his name into the discussion? Until you mentioned him, I was unaware he exists. Moe had never mentioned him in any post I read until YOU brought up his name.
>Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
Just like the last two times you asked, no. Are you the idiot that wants to claim that Frohman's conviction is non-existent and that it was not for the very crimes listed in the investigation, where the evidence is presented? (hint: Yes, you are.)
>Do you have any explanation for Maureen's LINK >which was apparently broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
Do you know ANYTHING at all about the Web, Web pages, or the Internet in general? Anything at all? Have you ever used "Frontpage?" It's a WYSIWYG automated web page editor. It was crap when it was written, and it's descendents are still crap, and can do things to html formatting you would not believe unless you saw it. Ever done a C&P of a piece (LOL) and picked up stray characters, words, numbers, even a graphic or two, in your blocking, only to have to edit them out when you past? Is it possible you might have missed characters that needed removing? I'll save you some time. Yes. That you do so, frequently, seems acceptable to you, but if someone else does it, well, that's horrible. How do you rationalize this, Greg? Please answer, unless honesty is just too difficult for you.
>Why would Moe post a very broken link and >claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
With it you, or more plausibly someone else, was able to find the information. You whine about it above.
>Did you think it ever actually worked with an >http prefix buried in the middle of the link >and the word servlet chopped off?
Are you going to claim that the characters h, t, t, and p, if used in a string of characters that make up the number substitute URL will negate the address? Please show your evidence of this, using pie charts as necessary. "http" as characters, even if presented in an URL (which is NOT the real address at all; that being made up of a string of numbers) without the "://" as part of "http://" will have zero effect on the address accessibility. How often do you simply enter www. at the start of a URL? On the other hand, the URL given by Moe appears to have been either a C&P error, or outdated and replaced. Something any erudite person would have realized. If they weren't stupid as well as ignorant, as you once again prove you are, fool. If you really wanted the information, and weren't stone cold stupid, you would have worked very hard to find the BOP web site, and do that search. Yes, you FINALLY did so, or someone else did and sent you the link, but the fact is you are simply running your usual avoidance scam for the purpose of creating a "plausible deniability," just as you have done for at least the past two years. You actually believe that no one can see you behind the curtain, Whiz? Or is your motive so sick that you don't care if you are seen as the CPS shill you are? You have a long record at this game. And I doubt anyone is being fooled by it now. You likely conned some people early on, ensuring CPS would win, but you're so screwed up you actually allowed me to PROVE you're a CPS shill, and now people ignore your advice. Still you try. You consistently allow me to PROVE that you're desperate to have CPS win 100% of the time. To think that you could still be getting families torn apart if you had just let me be when I left ASCPS. But you couldn't. You HAD to follow me all over Usenet, motivating me to prove you're nothing more than a CPS shill. Now people ignore your advice and in all likelihood, prevail against your precious CPS.
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON (DOB 05/22/1959) CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996 Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996 Comments: CT 2 SPEED Disposition Status GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on the Child Abuse registry, for example." -- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser. Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825f...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would address the most pressing problems of our day. ... " April 2000, Gregory Hanson http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon, videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?" She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed triumphantly.
> > > > > Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT going > > > > > to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news. It > > > > > says so on the google news search page.
> > > > > Of course you innocently missed that, right?
> > > > > But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk others. > > > > > Mistake or lie. You tell us.
> > > > > Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not > > > > > know?"" LOL
> > > > > TOP (The Other Pangborn)
> > > > The best it shows is an indictment and a partner who turned states > > > > evidence. > > > > Why is there no story about CONVICTION? > > > > You DO know that an indictment is not a conviction, right?
> So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't > know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
You seem to be the " dumbass" Greg, which isn't surprising because you ARe incredibly stupid.
There's a reason why an online newspaper web site has the copyright notice on their stuff. Maybe you should have done some actual research on copyright laws before you in your usual stupidity posted copyrighted material. " Fair use" does not mean the whole article, numb nuts.
> > > Heres a clue, Greg. Compare that with the list of MPAA convictions on > > > the web site whose addie I posted some weeks ago. If you actually > > > have some cognitive thought, you can easily figure out which > > > conviction is his,
> Moe > I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the > post.
> The link is broken and as far as I can tell never did work.
(( rolls eyes)) The google groups link is broken?
Bullshit.
I showed clearly in the post the search at the BOP.gov web site. Do'n't tell me you are so brain dead that you didn't go directly to www.bop.gov, went through the inmate locator search, typed in Frohman's name and missed this:
> Moe > So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
> I never claimed that he wasn't convicted. > I claimed you stalked him for over 10 years > and haven't posted online verifiable PROOF > that he was CONVICTED.
I never " stalked" him, or anyone, for that matter. DIRECT proof of his conviction is in your face right now.
Any more evasion excuses Greg?
> I saw proof he was indicted, and one of your > anonymous henchmen posted it as if proof > of indictment was proof of conviction.
> Did you refer to 43481-061 in any other posts online?
I didn't need to greg. One post was enough when Frohman was claiming he never was in prison. I proved he lied about it.
> Is that a state or Federal number?
BOP is a federal prison system, dumbass.
(( rolls eyes))
> You DO know that an indictment is NOT a conviction, right, Moe?
So how come he was IN a federal prison Greg? For a vacation?
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:17:04 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> > > wrote:
> > [Snips for brevity]
> >>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy > >>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy > >>> > > residence on June 20. > >>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
> >>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
> >>X > And the idiot once again posts something > >>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
> >>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't > >>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> > Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. > > Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not > > allow for the copying of the entire work.
> Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous "Betamax" > case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
This is about an online newspaper and their use of copyright on what they actually own, not a technology, Kennie. That was a patent copyright claim, not a publisher ownership claim.
Do try to stick to the actual subject at hand rather than changing it to try to save your butt monkey's ass.
> >>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy > >>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's > >>>>> > > Troy > >>>>> > > residence on June 20. > >>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
> >>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
> >>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something > >>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
> >>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't > >>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> >>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. > >>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not > >>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
> >>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous > >>"Betamax" > >>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
> > Cite?
> You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
> "Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of > individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting > does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
> Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
The issue was Greg's violation of an online copyrighted story. Different matter Kennie, and you damn well know it.
Unlike Greg, you are just smart enough to figure out Greg might be in some legal trouble over this repeated copyright violation if he was reported to the proper copyright owners about it.
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:38:12 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >X > And the idiot once again posts something > >X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
> >G > So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't > >G > know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> >KBW > Fair use allows you to copy portions for > >KBW > discussion. It does not allow for the > >KBW > copying of the entire work.
> >KBW > I've explained this to you in the past.
> >Got a LINK to where you ""explained"" this in the past?
> Yes. As soon as you make available the picture of David dressed as > a Nazi and me on a pony, or admit you've lied about the existence of > both all along, I'll post numerous links. > FYI: Double quotation marks (quadruple if you use British > grammar) still means nothing. I even asked an English as a Second > Language teacher, just as you suggested. Double quotation marks mean > nothing at all.
> >KBW > I even cited where in copyright law you > >KBW > will find this.
> >All the better for you to LINK to same!
> As soon as you make available the picture of David dressed as a > Nazi and me on a pony, or admit you've lied about the existence of > both all along, I'll post numerous links. > As you are well aware, this has been the requirement for a long > time. Once again you try to present that you don't know this. > If your NEED to continue to prove you're admitted use and abuse > of illegal drugs makes honesty IMPOSSIBLE for you, except by accident > or force, please do so. Your dishonest presentation that you don't > know the requirement has done me no harm to date. There's no reason > to expect it will in the future.
> >KBW > Yes, you think you're exempt from all > >KBW > criminal and civil law. Your record, in > >KBW > addition to your current actions, proves this.
> >See further below regarding your record.
> You've already admitted that the information you post isn't about > me. You claimed it was about the other Kent Wills, though you've yet > to state which of the many people in the world with the name Kent > Wills it's supposed to be. > Whereas you've made it clear the information isn't about me > (unless you lied when you claimed it isn't), I have to wonder just why > you are still compelled to present it as if it is.
> >Kent, Please tell me what you THINK you know about > >the FAIR USE exception to copyright law.
> >Please describe what the background and > >INTENTION of the FAIR USE exception is.
> It allows one to quote portions for discussion, critical review > and citing. > You already know this, since I went into detail in the past. > What is the SPECIFIC reason you're acting like you don't already > know it?
> >Is this going to be another game where you > >make strong claims and then when proven > >wrong you blame the statements onto OTHERS?
> You see copyright law as a game. OK.
> >Like when you claimed Kim is a male?
> I know a Kim who is certain he's male. I've not actually done a > DNA test on him, so it's possible he's really a she. > Are you claiming he's not? If so, please offer the evidence you > have that lead to such a conclusion. > To save you some time, I know a man named Ashley as well. Again, > I've not had a DNA test done, but his full beard leads me to accept > he's male.
> >Please make it clear what parts you personally > >BELIEVE and what parts you think you > >can weasel out of and blame onto other > >people you are parroting.
> Could you rewrite that in coherent English?
> >I am still fairly amused that some anonymous > >schmuck thought he had PROVED Glen > >had been convicted using only proof that > >Glen had been INDICTED.
> What does Glen have to do with copyright law? Are you so scared > of the truth that you MUST divert attention away from it? Or are you > once again offering undeniable PROOF that you're obsessed with a man > you've never met on-line or in real life?
Actually when Frohman was indicted and convicted of was two counts of conspiracy to commit video piracy.
If Greg wants to obsess about Frohman, I say to him go ahead. It'd be one more of his handful of cyberstalking targets he seems to waste so much time on. ((Shrugs)) I had personal reasons to be in Frohman's case, reasons I mentioned numerous times in old posts about the subject, and when he was finally arrested, I pretty much closed his file. After Greg tried getting on my case with his usual cowardly references to the EBay thief, including his usual bad spelling of a name, I went back and did some basic updating out of curiosity and found where Frohman claimed his precious cardboard boxed were stolen, among other things. :-D
> >You DO know that indictment is NOT conviction, right?
> Have I ever claimed it is?
Only Greg claims that.
In order have an indictment, there must be proof of criminal activity presented.
Is Greg now claiming that Frohman WASN'T pirating tapes and selling them illegally?
> >Do you think Moe does, and her idiot anonymous ""helper""?
> As I asked in another thread, has she ever claimed, directly or > through implication, that she does? > I note you RAN from my question. You do that a lot when you're > proved to be the liar you are.
Or when he can't continue with that red herring. By now Greg reeks of dead fish.
> >Can you find any more on 43481-061 or Glen Frohman?
> Yes, if motivated to do so.
(( rolls eyes)) As a BOP number pretty much anyone can use it to actually find the details of his conviction, where he was incarcerated and so forth.
Except for mentally deficient people like Greg Hanson, OC.
> >Was that YOU who posted the anonymous idiocy, Kent?
> No.
> >You seem to exhibit some subtle sort of ownership > >of the hollow argument on Copyright v FAIR USE.
> Your use and abuse of illegal drugs may cause you to see claims > of ownership where none exist, but that's your issue to address.
> [snip of Greg's admitting I'm correct]
> It's accepted that when I'm correct and you can no longer lie > your way out of it, you post that which you KNOW isn't about me. > You've already admitted, freely, that the information you post > isn't about me but some other person who is named Kent Wills. Are you > so stoned that you think anyone is buying it now?
> Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON > (DOB 05/22/1959) > CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996 > Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST > OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996 > Comments: CT 2 SPEED > Disposition Status > GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
> Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal > drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of > alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
> Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
> "My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated > in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on > the Child Abuse registry, for example." > -- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser. > Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825f...@posting.google.com>
> " ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb > minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more > minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of > the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would > address the most pressing problems of our day. ... " > April 2000, Gregory Hansonhttp://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
> With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching > into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon, > videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I > was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with > water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out > a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she > gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you > were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?" > She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I > prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
> "Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed > triumphantly.
> >>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video > >>>>>>> > > piracy > >>>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's > >>>>>>> > > Troy > >>>>>>> > > residence on June 20. > >>>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
> >>>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
> >>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something > >>>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
> >>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't > >>>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> >>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. > >>>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not > >>>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
> >>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous > >>>>"Betamax" > >>>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
> >>> Cite?
> >>You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
> >>READ you illiterate ASSHOLE; > >>"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of > >>individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of > >>time-shifting > >>does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use." > > Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must > > be.
> I see you SNIPPED some of the links I provided. In your POLACK > reasoning, you seem to believe that this PROVES some point. Such as your > POLACK claim that it has NO relevance to printed materials. In the finding > of the Supremes you might see it applies to ALL media. Something a STUPID > POLACK can't reason. The FAIR USE DOCTRINE applies to *.*! As do its > exceptions, such as reproducing a work and claiming it as your own, or in > trying to commercially exploit the work, such as selling copies. Other than > that, with proper attribution one can quote part or ALL of an article to > educate or to make a point. The STUPID argument you are TRYING to make, > Polack, is one that IDIOTS on Usenet have tried to make for years and in the > end they all get humiliated. READ up on the issue.
Tell that to Michael Savage and how his lawsiut against CAIR fared out Kennie.
> > >>SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS > > > You need to get into rehab, Pangborn. Your alcoholism, the same > > > alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane, is once > > > again compelling you to claim something about me that you KNOW is not > > > true.
> > You tend to think of yourself as a GREAT LEGAL EXPERT, Wills. You get more > > than a little overbearing on what you *THINK* you know. (But really DON';T!)
> > >>>>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video > > >>>>>>>>> > > piracy > > >>>>>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of > > >>>>>>>>> > > Frohman's > > >>>>>>>>> > > Troy > > >>>>>>>>> > > residence on June 20. > > >>>>>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
> > >>>>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something > > >>>>>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
> > >>>>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't > > >>>>>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> > >>>>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. > > >>>>>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does > > >>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
> > >>>>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous > > >>>>>>"Betamax" > > >>>>>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
> > >>>>> Cite?
> > >>>>You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
> > >>>>"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of > > >>>>individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of > > >>>>time-shifting > > >>>>does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
> > >>> Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must > > >>> be.
> > >> Hey IMBECILLE try READING sometime.YOU FUKKKKKING MORON! > > > I read often. Unlike you, I'm not drunk, so I am able to focus on > > > letters and words.
> > Your reading is always with almost NO comprehensionand I make allowances > > that English is NOT your primary language. You also have a nasty habit of > > SELECTIVE reading and the ability to grasp anything wider than your own > > nose. Which I grant you is an extreme venue, BUT hardly the point.
> > Kunt theBetamax case was a case ENTIRELY based on the 'FAIR USE > > DOCTRINE." In feel for your Polack LACK of ability to grasp the significance > > of that and apply it as broadly as the Supreme Court said it applies. YOU > > "overruled" them becaus e in your tiny little POLACK mind the case was about > > video recording and NOTHING ELSE. Again you obviously did NOT read the > > decision.
> > > What principle of Fair Use do you believe he was operating under > > > when he did that? He is claiming that "fair use" covers copy and > > > pasting an entire, complete piece of another's work.
> > Kunt it is fair use to quote an article either in part or whole if your > > purpose is to educate and not do the two forbidden things. a. Claim it as > > your own. or b. Make copies to sell.
> > > Surely you, with your vast experience with law in your practice > > > of trail CONsulting and advising suckers, sorry, clients on legal > > > matters, would easily recognize the Fair Use principle Greg likely > > > thinks exempts him from copyright law. What is it? And how would it > > > apply to posting an entire piece of work to a Usenet newsgroup? > > > Proving that people can video tape TV shows for private use at > > > home doesn't cover what Greg did.
> > As long as proper attribution was given and it wasn't being done for > > profit, the Fair Use Doctrine prvides for it. Somebody the other day pointed > > out the copyright notices in newpapers etc. They are very much like the FBI > > warnings we see on DVD's. EVERYONE knows (except YOU, Kunt) that those > > "warnings" are a joke. So much so that even Hollywood has made fun of them. > > There was a sketch in the ultimate spoof movie, "Amazon Women on the Moon" > > called "Video pirates." It had a bunch of men dressed as pirates on a ship. > > The guy took out a video tape and read the FBI WARNING, and he looked at his > > mates and said; "We're SOOOOOOOOO SKKKKARED!"
> > Kunt there is no problem with long quotes, again so long as you stay > > inside the rules. You can't say it's your work and you can't sell it.
> > >>>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&inv... > > > From the site: > > > "The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a > > > significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders > > > who license their works for broadcast on free television would not > > > object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i. > > > e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so > > > that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no > > > likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the > > > potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. > > > The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
> > > If Greg has video taped the article for his own private home use, > > > you might be able to make the drunken argument you present. As it > > > stands, you've once again PROVED you know NOTHING about matters of > > > law.
> > Don't look new, Kunt but you just missed the POINT AGAIN. Every day you > > PROVE that you ARE a "stupid Polack!"
> > > This is not meant to imply I'm an expert, although your > > > alcoholism will force you to claim I am. I'm simply willing and able > > > to research applicable law whereas you whine and cry and have MASSIVE > > > on-line tantrums.
> > Your reading comprehension of conversational Eglish is marginal at best, > > Kunt. Your understanding of LEGAL language is near ZERO, even though you > > THINK you are a legal whiz. I'd have thought the dismal failure of your > > appealate brief in your own case would ahve taught you that understanding > > legal issues is NOT your strong suit.
> > > > > > Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT going > > > > > > to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news. It > > > > > > says so on the google news search page.
> > > > > > Of course you innocently missed that, right?
> > > > > > But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk others. > > > > > > Mistake or lie. You tell us.
> > > > > > Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not > > > > > > know?"" LOL
> > > > > > TOP (The Other Pangborn)
> > > > > The best it shows is an indictment and a partner who turned states > > > > > evidence. > > > > > Why is there no story about CONVICTION? > > > > > You DO know that an indictment is not a conviction, right?
> > So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't > > know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> You seem to be the " dumbass" Greg, which isn't surprising because > you ARe incredibly stupid.
> There's a reason why an online newspaper web site has the copyright > notice on their stuff. Maybe you should have done some actual research > on copyright laws before you in your usual stupidity posted > copyrighted material. " Fair use" does not mean the whole article, > numb nuts.
> > > > Heres a clue, Greg. Compare that with the list of MPAA convictions on > > > > the web site whose addie I posted some weeks ago. If you actually > > > > have some cognitive thought, you can easily figure out which > > > > conviction is his,
> > Moe > I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the > > post.
> > The link is broken and as far as I can tell never did work.
> (( rolls eyes)) The google groups link is broken?
> Bullshit.
> I showed clearly in the post the search at the BOP.gov web site. > Do'n't tell me you are so brain dead that you didn't go directly towww.bop.gov, went through the inmate locator search, typed in > Frohman's name and missed this:
> > Moe > So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
> > I never claimed that he wasn't convicted. > > I claimed you stalked him for over 10 years > > and haven't posted online verifiable PROOF > > that he was CONVICTED.
> I never " stalked" him, or anyone, for that matter. > DIRECT proof of his conviction is in your face right now.
> Any more evasion excuses Greg?
> > I saw proof he was indicted, and one of your > > anonymous henchmen posted it as if proof > > of indictment was proof of conviction.
> > Did you refer to 43481-061 in any other posts online?
> I didn't need to greg. One post was enough when Frohman was claiming > he never was in prison. I proved he lied about it.
> > Is that a state or Federal number?
> BOP is a federal prison system, dumbass.
> (( rolls eyes))
> > You DO know that an indictment is NOT a conviction, right, Moe?
> So how come he was IN a federal prison Greg? For a vacation?
Since you like to claim that anyone who shares the same name as your stalking target IS that person, I thought your own standards of " proof" would be used on you.
> >>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy > >>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's > >>> > > Troy > >>> > > residence on June 20. > >>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
> >>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
> >>X > And the idiot once again posts something > >>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
> >>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't > >>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> > Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. > > Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not > > allow for the copying of the entire work.
> Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous > "Betamax" > case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
MAUREEN MCALLISTER> This is about an online newspaper and their use of copyright on what MAUREEN MCALLISTER> they actually own, not a technology, Kennie. That was a patent MAUREEN MCALLISTER> copyright claim, not a publisher ownership claim.
They still own it, Maureen. BUT the "Fair Use Doctrine" allows for the articles to be quoted in part or in whole so long as proper attribution is given and you are not selling the materials as your own. Maybe if you weren't such an ignorant feminazi bith, you could understand what the Supreme Court actually said in the case. I know that because SONY makes electronic ger the issue throws you. Forget that the court mentioned PRINT MEDIA in its long recitation. It sails right over the point on your little heasd. WHOOOOSH!
> > >>SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS > > > You need to get into rehab, Pangborn. Your alcoholism, the same > > > alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane, is once > > > again compelling you to claim something about me that you KNOW is not > > > true.
> > You tend to think of yourself as a GREAT LEGAL EXPERT, Wills. You get > > more > > than a little overbearing on what you *THINK* you know. (But really > > DON';T!)
> > >>>>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's > > >>>>>>>>> > > video > > >>>>>>>>> > > piracy > > >>>>>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of > > >>>>>>>>> > > Frohman's > > >>>>>>>>> > > Troy > > >>>>>>>>> > > residence on June 20. > > >>>>>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
> > >>>>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something > > >>>>>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
> > >>>>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't > > >>>>>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> > >>>>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. > > >>>>>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does > > >>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
> > >>>>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous > > >>>>>>"Betamax" > > >>>>>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
> > >>>>> Cite?
> > >>>>You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
> > >>>>"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of > > >>>>individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of > > >>>>time-shifting > > >>>>does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
> > >>> Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must > > >>> be.
> > >> Hey IMBECILLE try READING sometime.YOU FUKKKKKING MORON! > > > I read often. Unlike you, I'm not drunk, so I am able to focus on > > > letters and words.
> > Your reading is always with almost NO comprehensionand I make allowances > > that English is NOT your primary language. You also have a nasty habit > > of > > SELECTIVE reading and the ability to grasp anything wider than your own > > nose. Which I grant you is an extreme venue, BUT hardly the point.
> > Kunt theBetamax case was a case ENTIRELY based on the 'FAIR USE > > DOCTRINE." In feel for your Polack LACK of ability to grasp the > > significance > > of that and apply it as broadly as the Supreme Court said it applies. > > YOU > > "overruled" them becaus e in your tiny little POLACK mind the case was > > about > > video recording and NOTHING ELSE. Again you obviously did NOT read the > > decision.
> > > What principle of Fair Use do you believe he was operating under > > > when he did that? He is claiming that "fair use" covers copy and > > > pasting an entire, complete piece of another's work.
> > Kunt it is fair use to quote an article either in part or whole if your > > purpose is to educate and not do the two forbidden things. a. Claim it > > as > > your own. or b. Make copies to sell.
> > > Surely you, with your vast experience with law in your practice > > > of trail CONsulting and advising suckers, sorry, clients on legal > > > matters, would easily recognize the Fair Use principle Greg likely > > > thinks exempts him from copyright law. What is it? And how would it > > > apply to posting an entire piece of work to a Usenet newsgroup? > > > Proving that people can video tape TV shows for private use at > > > home doesn't cover what Greg did.
> > As long as proper attribution was given and it wasn't being done for > > profit, the Fair Use Doctrine prvides for it. Somebody the other day > > pointed > > out the copyright notices in newpapers etc. They are very much like the > > FBI > > warnings we see on DVD's. EVERYONE knows (except YOU, Kunt) that those > > "warnings" are a joke. So much so that even Hollywood has made fun of > > them. > > There was a sketch in the ultimate spoof movie, "Amazon Women on the > > Moon" > > called "Video pirates." It had a bunch of men dressed as pirates on a > > ship. > > The guy took out a video tape and read the FBI WARNING, and he looked at > > his > > mates and said; "We're SOOOOOOOOO SKKKKARED!"
> > Kunt there is no problem with long quotes, again so long as you stay > > inside the rules. You can't say it's your work and you can't sell it.
> > >>>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&inv... > > > From the site: > > > "The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a > > > significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders > > > who license their works for broadcast on free television would not > > > object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i. > > > e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so > > > that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no > > > likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the > > > potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. > > > The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
> > > If Greg has video taped the article for his own private home use, > > > you might be able to make the drunken argument you present. As it > > > stands, you've once again PROVED you know NOTHING about matters of > > > law.
> > Don't look new, Kunt but you just missed the POINT AGAIN. Every day you > > PROVE that you ARE a "stupid Polack!"
> > > This is not meant to imply I'm an expert, although your > > > alcoholism will force you to claim I am. I'm simply willing and able > > > to research applicable law whereas you whine and cry and have MASSIVE > > > on-line tantrums.
> > Your reading comprehension of conversational Eglish is marginal at best, > > Kunt. Your understanding of LEGAL language is near ZERO, even though you > > THINK you are a legal whiz. I'd have thought the dismal failure of your > > appealate brief in your own case would ahve taught you that > > understanding > > legal issues is NOT your strong suit.
> > >>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy > > >>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's > > >>> > > Troy > > >>> > > residence on June 20. > > >>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
> > >>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
> > >>X > And the idiot once again posts something > > >>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
> > >>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't > > >>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> > > Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. > > > Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not > > > allow for the copying of the entire work.
> > Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous > > "Betamax" > > case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
> MAUREEN MCALLISTER> This is about an online newspaper and their use of > copyright on what > MAUREEN MCALLISTER> they actually own, not a technology, Kennie. That was a > patent > MAUREEN MCALLISTER> copyright claim, not a publisher ownership claim.
> They still own it, Maureen. BUT the "Fair Use Doctrine" allows for the > articles to be quoted in part or in whole so long as proper attribution is > given and you are not selling the materials as your own. Maybe if you > weren't such an ignorant feminazi bith, you could understand what the > Supreme Court actually said in the case. I know that because SONY makes > electronic ger the issue throws you. Forget that the court mentioned PRINT > MEDIA in its long recitation. It sails right over the point on your little > heasd. WHOOOOSH!
Again the SONY case is not the same issue as what Greg did. Greg copied the WHOLE article and posted it without the consent of the copyright owner.
Are you now claiming to be a legal expert on copyright law Kennie?
Do elucidate how you are such a LEGAL EXPERT on the matter that you can say definitely that your shill, your patsy Greg Hanson can not possibly be in trouble for posting a copyrighted article in its entirety without the consent of the copyright owner.
The Sony Betamax case deals with personal use copying of on air material. it does NOT cover anyone who makes copies of that taped copy and sells them, as Frohman and so many others found out.
> > > >>SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS > > > > You need to get into rehab, Pangborn. Your alcoholism, the same > > > > alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane, is once > > > > again compelling you to claim something about me that you KNOW is not > > > > true.
> > > You tend to think of yourself as a GREAT LEGAL EXPERT, Wills. You get > > > more > > > than a little overbearing on what you *THINK* you know. (But really > > > DON';T!)
> > > >>>>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's > > > >>>>>>>>> > > video > > > >>>>>>>>> > > piracy > > > >>>>>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of > > > >>>>>>>>> > > Frohman's > > > >>>>>>>>> > > Troy > > > >>>>>>>>> > > residence on June 20. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
> > > >>>>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something > > > >>>>>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
> > > >>>>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't > > > >>>>>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> > > >>>>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously. > > > >>>>>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does > > > >>>>>>> not > > > >>>>>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
> > > >>>>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous > > > >>>>>>"Betamax" > > > >>>>>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
> > > >>>>> Cite?
> > > >>>>You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
> > > >>>>"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of > > > >>>>individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of > > > >>>>time-shifting > > > >>>>does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
> > > >>> Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must > > > >>> be.
> > > >> Hey IMBECILLE try READING sometime.YOU FUKKKKKING MORON! > > > > I read often. Unlike you, I'm not drunk, so I am able to focus on > > > > letters and words.
> > > Your reading is always with almost NO comprehensionand I make allowances > > > that English is NOT your primary language. You also have a nasty habit > > > of > > > SELECTIVE reading and the ability to grasp anything wider than your own > > > nose. Which I grant you is an extreme venue, BUT hardly the point.
> > > Kunt theBetamax case was a case ENTIRELY based on the 'FAIR USE > > > DOCTRINE." In feel for your Polack LACK of ability to grasp the > > > significance > > > of that and apply it as broadly as the Supreme Court said it applies. > > > YOU > > > "overruled" them becaus e in your tiny little POLACK mind the case was > > > about > > > video recording and NOTHING ELSE. Again you obviously did NOT read the > > > decision.
> > > > What principle of Fair Use do you believe he was operating under > > > > when he did that? He is claiming that "fair use" covers copy and > > > > pasting an entire, complete piece of another's work.
> > > Kunt it is fair use to quote an article either in part or whole if your > > > purpose is to educate and not do the two forbidden things. a. Claim it > > > as > > > your own. or b. Make copies to sell.
> > > > Surely you, with your vast experience with law in your practice > > > > of trail CONsulting and advising suckers, sorry, clients on legal > > > > matters, would easily recognize the Fair Use principle Greg likely > > > > thinks exempts him from copyright law. What is it? And how would it > > > > apply to posting an entire piece of work to a Usenet newsgroup? > > > > Proving that people can video tape TV shows for private use at > > > > home doesn't cover what Greg did.
> > > As long as proper attribution was given and it wasn't being done for > > > profit, the Fair Use Doctrine prvides for it. Somebody the other day > > > pointed > > > out the copyright notices in newpapers etc. They are very much like the > > > FBI > > > warnings we see on DVD's. EVERYONE knows (except YOU, Kunt) that those > > > "warnings" are a joke. So much so that even Hollywood has made fun of > > > them. > > > There was a sketch in the ultimate spoof movie, "Amazon Women on the > > > Moon" > > > called "Video pirates." It had a bunch of men dressed as pirates on a > > > ship. > > > The guy took out a video tape and read the FBI WARNING, and he looked at > > > his > > > mates and said; "We're SOOOOOOOOO SKKKKARED!"
> > > Kunt there is no problem with long quotes, again so long as you stay > > > inside the rules. You can't say it's your work and you can't sell it.
> > > >>>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&inv... > > > > From the site: > > > > "The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a > > > > significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders > > > > who license their works for broadcast on free television would not > > > > object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i. > > > > e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so > > > > that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no > > > > likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the > > > > potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. > > > > The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
> > > > If Greg has video taped the article for his own private home use, > > > > you might be able to make the drunken argument you present. As it > > > > stands, you've once again PROVED you know NOTHING about matters of > > > > law.
> > > Don't look new, Kunt but you just missed the POINT AGAIN. Every day you > > > PROVE that you ARE a "stupid Polack!"
> > > > This is not meant to imply I'm an expert, although your > > > > alcoholism will force you to claim I am. I'm simply willing and able > > > > to research applicable law whereas you whine and cry and have MASSIVE > > > > on-line tantrums.
> > > Your reading comprehension of conversational Eglish is marginal at best, > > > Kunt. Your understanding of LEGAL language is near ZERO, even though you > > > THINK you are a legal whiz. I'd have thought the dismal failure of your > > > appealate brief in your own case would ahve taught you that > > > understanding > > > legal issues is NOT your strong suit.
|
