Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers

From: James Rose (ceo_at_fat24.com)
Date: 12/06/04 

Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 04:26:59 GMT

in article 31i28bF3a85jrU14@individual.net, Kevin Gowen at
> IQ of 140? Wow, on what scale? Stanford-Binet? Cattell? Wechsler?

It was a self-reported statistic by the members themselves. Anonymous too.

> I don't think that Congress enacts legislation to make anyone view a
> given act as anything. Congress's intent is to compel the action or
> forbearance of the citizenry. They could not care less about how people
> view things. All that matters is the language of the statute, and the
> language of the statute says nothing equating copyright infringement to
> theft.

What YOU think is irrelevant - if indeed it proves in the end that you think
at all. The language of the statute is clear... and especially that it was
given an official name NO ELECTRONIC THEFT (note NOT a popular name which
will be defined below) because the act concerns itself with theft, and
wanted to make it plain and clear to shyster lawyers, and those trying to
matriculate into shyster lawyers (YOU again) that copyright infringement
shall be dealt with as theft, and is considered by the congress to be theft
(because that's exactly what it is) and will be prosecuted as a federal
felony. Your argument might have made sense if they had named the act the
Monkey Scat Act (MSA)... but they didn't.

> The law is very clear on this matter. Copyright infringement is not
> theft. I do not know why this is so hard to understand.

Well then Kevin, show us all the US law congress passed superceding NET that
you keep referring to where it says "Copyright infringement is not theft"...
the one that proves your point? I would love to see your 38 day old law
muscles flex that one out of your rear.

>> Kevin, this isn't an opinion written by a law professor on the historical
>> relevance of case law in interpreting what copyright is or isn't. This is
>> an enactment of new legislation by an overwhelming majority of your congress
>> which has deliberatly and purposely entitled with the word THEFT and
>> forever-more associated the act of copyright enfringement with THEFT...
>> Period. THE END.
>
> Really? Where did Congress make that association?

Does bone head apply here?

> It seems that your only support for your claim that copyright
> infringement is theft is the fact that certain amendments made to Titles
> 17 and 18 were collectively called the No Electronic Theft Act. That
> argument is a loser.

Certain amendments indeed. That argument just cleanly whopped your behind
and you're too arrogant to admit the obvious. (38 days of refiling books in
firm libray after all). Still hiding behind those pretentious school
debating team tactics. State the obvious loosing position you are in, and
then decry why it proves that the "argument is a loser".

>> As I pointed out to you... it is not the "POPULAR" name. It is the official
>> legal name of the act... which was part of the act when it was voted for.
>
> Actually, "popular name" is the correct terminology. See
> http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/topn/
>
> Perhaps you think that Congress has also passed a bill of attainder on
> Dale Bumpers.

You're so desperate you didn't bother to read your little URL:

"Laws acquire popular names as they make their way through Congress.
Sometimes these names say something about the substance of the law (as with
the '2002 Winter Olympic Commemorative Coin Act'). Sometimes they are a way
of recognizing or honoring the sponsor or creator of a particular law (as
with the 'Taft-Hartley Act'). And sometimes they are meant to garner
political support for a law by giving it a catchy name (as with the 'USA
Patriot Act' or the 'Take Pride in America Act') or by invoking public
outrage or sympathy (as with any number of laws named for victims of
crimes). History books, newspapers, and other sources use the popular name
to refer to these laws. Why can't these popular names easily be found in the
US Code?"

Let me answer the question for you Mr. 38 day lawyer. Because for most of
the US Code, Congress didn't go out of their collective way to give it an
official name. The No Electronic Theft Act did this explicitly in Article
1... the very first article...thus setting it aside from the category of a
popular misconception that you allude to, but is in fact an exceptional
action on the part of congress to clarify what it thinks about copyright
infringement (no doubt because of the anger certain lawyers have engendered
in their nonsensical lawyering around the law).

So your own stupid reference tells us there are only the following
circumstance in which an act acquires a popular name (and do remember, this
isn't an acquired "popular" name - this was in fact a legislated, vote for,
lobbied for name):

1: When it say something of substance of the law.

2: Honor a sponsor (i.e. a congressman's name)

3: To garner political support like in the "Patriot Act" obfuscation.

4: To acknowledge a crime victim.

Now class, which of these 4 circumstances apply to the popular (but actually
legislated) name "No Electronic Theft Act"????

If you said #1, you are correct. Numbers 2, 3, and 4 have no bearing
whatsoever...so that even if Mr. Gowen was correct in his false assumption
that this is only a "popular" name, we see that even under that
circumstance, it speaks to the substance of the law (i.e. the intent of the
law-makers - which is what courtrooms are all about) Yes Kevin, the law is
not about the opinion of lawyers... its about the opinion of the congress...
and the congress has spoken loud and clear.

> Oh, and what are the elements of "theft of copyright"?

Violate NET and you might find out.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fox News headlines For Nov 8 : Welcome Martial Law
    ... the secure control of the newly nationalized Guard units that Congress ... The President, through his spokesman, Tony Snow, has indicated that the ... Bush Moves Toward Martial Law ... Insurrection Act has historically, ...
    (rec.music.phish)
  • Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers
    ... The identities of the members of Congress are public. ... > given an official name NO ELECTRONIC THEFT (note NOT a popular name which ... Your argument might have made sense if they had named the act the ... How did Congress change the law to make it so that copyright ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers
    ... I wasted my time in law school, ... Copyright violation is a crime AS WELL AS a civil wrong. ... "No Electronic Theft Act", please don't. ... Congress elected not to use the terminology, "theft of copyright". ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Does KISS understand the USA PATRIOT Act ?
    ... The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the "Patriot" Act, is an Act of ... The act expands the authority of US law enforcement agencies for the stated ... The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was ...
    (rec.music.artists.kiss)
  • Re: Do rail magazines still depict driving controls of new traction?
    ... US law on theft is broadly the same as in the UK, ... It can't be as English Law is not the same as Scots Law. ... Damaging Trains and Endangering the Safety of Rail Users ... Railway Regulation Act 1842 deal with any unlawful act or wilful ...
    (uk.railway)