Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers

From: Kevin Gowen (kgowenNOSPAM_at_myfastmail.com)
Date: 12/06/04 

Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:23:46 -0500

James Rose wrote:
> 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.

Anonymous? The identities of the members of Congress are public. As I
asked, what scale?

> 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.

Really? How did Congress change the law to make it so that copyright
infringement shall be dealt with as theft?

>>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.

Um, that would be all of it. No section of United States Code equates
copyright infringement with theft.

>>>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?

Well, we *are* discussing Congress.

>>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.

Yes.

> 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".

How was my behind "whooped"?

>>>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).

You place a lot of stock in the title that appeared in the title of the
bill as it was passing through Congress. However, the term "electronic
theft" appears nowhere in United States Code except for a note to 18 USC
2311.

> 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):

Does it say "only"?

> 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"????

It is not actually legislated since it does not appear in the
legislation. Here is a free, online version of USC for your convenience:
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

Cite the sections that contain the language "electronic theft".

Your obsession with NET raises a question I am sure you won't answer. Is
copyright infringement theft only if the infringement occurs through
electronic means? Why do you think Congress only thought that copyright
infringement through electronic means is theft?

> 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.

Pretend I did and that you're the US Attorney. What elements would you
have to prove? 

-- 
Kevin
"This is the best election night in history."--Democratic National 
Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Nov. 2, 2004, just before 8 p.m. EST

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers
    ... > given act as anything. ... given an official name NO ELECTRONIC THEFT (note NOT a popular name which ... shall be dealt with as theft, and is considered by the congress to be theft ... I would love to see your 38 day old law ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • 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
    ... 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)
  • Fox News headlines For Nov 8 : Welcome Martial Law
    ... 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 ... Insurrection Act has historically, ...
    (talk.politics.mideast)