Shack statements

On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:56:32 -0700 (PDT), ilan
wrote:

On May 21, 8:49*pm, Scott wrote:
interesting reading, take a look at the email trail.

http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/

Yeah, Landis seems credible alright.

They seem like a violation of copyright, you can't publish someone
else's e-mail without their permission.

-ilan

Probably - just as half of rbr is guilty of a copyright violation when
they alter/edit another person's post in a way that changes the
meaning of the post. In this case, FL would have to set up another
legal fund and spend a million to win, oh, maybe a thousand or so.

Of course, the average post on rbr is of significantly less value.
We're probably all safe from the results of any suit as long as there
is change in the lining of the couch. I don't know if anyone has ever
been sued and the court found that the alteration improved the value
of the post, but perhaps BL would like to sue someone to find out.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On May 22, 12:58*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:


All Floyd can prove beyond reasonable doubt is that he's a low-quality
con-man who is much better at wrecking other people's lives than enriching
his own. That's pretty pathetic.

dumbass,

yes, this sums up my feelings as well.

In article
,
ilan wrote:

On May 21, 8:49Â*pm, Scott wrote:
interesting reading, take a look at the email trail.

http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/

Yeah, Landis seems credible alright.

They seem like a violation of copyright, you can't publish someone
else's e-mail without their permission.

Personal mail is the property of the recipient in the USA.

--
Michael Press

On May 21, 9:38*pm, "F. Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message

news


Amit,

You've got that 100% wrong. *Blackmailing - even when it's the truth
is still an illegal act that has criminal and civil liabilities.

Yeah, but that's not going to make the facts go away, right ?

Dumbass -

Flandis doesn't have any actual evidence.

Fingerpointing doesn't constitute evidence.

Regardless, even if he did, it's still blackmail. Flandis is seriously dumb.
I kinda feel sorry for him. He has dug himself a deep, deep hole.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.

It's not blackmail

On May 23, 10:35*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,

*ilan wrote:
On May 21, 8:49*pm, Scott wrote:
interesting reading, take a look at the email trail.

http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/

Yeah, Landis seems credible alright.

They seem like a violation of copyright, you can't publish someone
else's e-mail without their permission.

Personal mail is the property of the recipient in the USA.

--
Michael Press

Yes, the recipient owns it, but the person who wrote it keeps the
copyright. Reposting personal mail without permission is a violation
of copyright.

-ilan

wrote:
Probably - just as half of rbr is guilty of a copyright violation when
they alter/edit another person's post in a way that changes the
meaning of the post. In this case, FL would have to set up another
legal fund and spend a million to win, oh, maybe a thousand or so.

Of course, the average post on rbr is of significantly less value.
We're probably all safe from the results of any suit as long as there
is change in the lining of the couch. I don't know if anyone has ever
been sued and the court found that the alteration improved the value
of the post, but perhaps BL would like to sue someone to find out.

Editing bruce's posts is a service to humanity. The UN or a NGO should
take over.

In article
,
ilan wrote:

On May 23, 10:35Â*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,

Â*ilan wrote:
On May 21, 8:49Â*pm, Scott wrote:
interesting reading, take a look at the email trail.

http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/

Yeah, Landis seems credible alright.

They seem like a violation of copyright, you can't publish someone
else's e-mail without their permission.

Personal mail is the property of the recipient in the USA.

Yes, the recipient owns it, but the person who wrote it keeps the
copyright. Reposting personal mail without permission is a violation
of copyright.

Okay. The owner can make public fair user paraphrases,
which is not what happened in this case.

--
Michael Press

On May 23, 2:16*pm, ilan wrote:
On May 23, 10:35*pm, Michael Press wrote:





In article
,

*ilan wrote:
On May 21, 8:49*pm, Scott wrote:
interesting reading, take a look at the email trail.

http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/

Yeah, Landis seems credible alright.

They seem like a violation of copyright, you can't publish someone
else's e-mail without their permission.

Personal mail is the property of the recipient in the USA.

--
Michael Press

Yes, the recipient owns it, but the person who wrote it keeps the
copyright. Reposting personal mail without permission is a violation
of copyright.

-ilan

Nobody gives a crap about this when the email or
letters contain threats, extortion, or publishing the
email is needed to prove a fact. For example, if
I deny ever having emailed you permission to
borrow my red 1961 Ferrari GT while you played
hooky from teaching, and you produce the email
as proof that I did in fact give you permission, I would
have a fairly pathetic case for copyright infringement.

Lafferty might represent me, though.

Fredmaster Ben

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
For example, if I deny ever having emailed you permission to
borrow my red 1961 Ferrari GT while you played
hooky from teaching, and you produce the email
as proof that I did in fact give you permission, I would
have a fairly pathetic case for copyright infringement.

Lafferty might represent me, though.

Lafferty would only be interested if it was LANCE and a Ferrari (the
vintage wouldn't matter though).