Mountain Bikers Really HATE Hearing the Truth!

You lied when you said you didn't know who the author is. You lied when you
said that you are allowed to use it because of "fair use". Now, you've
removed the photograph from your website, and you've asked the author for
permission to use it.

Do you have any more lies, Mister "virgin, pristine forest"?

You are a liar. QED.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:36:06 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:49:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Once again, you are lying, and more than once. Do you ever quit?

I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
it.

You do not know if is copyrighted? Talk about a blatant lie.

You yourself said look up the "fair use", yet it is obvious that you
have
not done so.

It IS copyrighted because that is what the law states. Read the law of
your
land. Not the law that you make up in your head, but the law that
everyone
else in your country follows.

Where did you get the material? Did you take the photographs? If you
didn't, then you have to consider that using the photos could be
infringing
on someone else's rights.

How about the watermarks on the photos. Doesn't that give you even the
slightest clue that the photographs are copyrighted?

It's not proof.

Yes, it is proof. Either you know that (in which case you are lying), or
you have not read your laws with regards to copyrights and photographs.


I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.

Again, another lie. I looked it up, and found it right where you stole
the
photographs from:
http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?t=80573&page=11

So PROVE who is the owner.

Read post #103. This is the opinion of a lawyer (LeeLau).

Read post #105. The person who took one or more of the photos
(thebigchin).
He clearly states that he e-mailed you.

That doesn't PROVE that he is the owner.

Read post #108: thebigchin posts the response you sent to him.

Read post #114: thebigchin states that he has e-mailed the ISP that is
hosting your site.


Looks like you might get a chance to show a judge how well you lie.

Nope, protected by "fair use". I'm able to quote copyrighted work in
order to criticize it. QED

Let me see. A person submits a photograph to a publication. He states in
that publication that the photograph is his. Even within the publication,
you can determine that it is his since the publication displays who the
owner of the photograph is. But you want to use the photograph for you
own
personal gain, so you refute the ownership of the photograph to accomplish
this goal. How convenient. Do you use this type of ill-logic in all of
your thinking?

Here's a quote from a lawyer:
1. Your copyright on the pictures. You never gave him permission to use
your pictures. He's not engaging in "fair dealing" ie saving a copy of
your
pictures for his own personal use; he's actually broadcasting your pics.
Unlike me, you actually watermarked your pictures so he can't claim
ignorance.

2. Your "moral rights". This has nothing to do with morality or anything
of that sort. It's your right to have your pictures shown in a certain
context ie trailbuilding or trail work and not in another context. You
would probably object to your pictures shown in the context of his
website.


Perhaps you could post the law, in full, that states you have the right to
display the pictures on your webite? Or are you going to post your usual
"nah nah nah nah nah" response?

It's called "fair use" in the USA.

And Mr. Vandeman, you wrote this to the owner of the photograph:

"I have an absolute right to put your photo on my web site, as I said. But
what happened is that ISPs didn't want to get involved in making decisions
about copyright law, so they got the legislature to pass a law giving them
an easy way to make decisions."


Can you be any more delusional?

"Roberto Baggio" wrote in message
news:T47dh.425900$R63.189249@pd7urf1no...
You lied when you said you didn't know who the author is. You lied when
you said that you are allowed to use it because of "fair use". Now,
you've removed the photograph from your website, and you've asked the
author for permission to use it.

Do you have any more lies, Mister "virgin, pristine forest"?

You are a liar. QED.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:36:06 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:49:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Once again, you are lying, and more than once. Do you ever quit?

I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
it.

You do not know if is copyrighted? Talk about a blatant lie.

You yourself said look up the "fair use", yet it is obvious that you
have
not done so.

It IS copyrighted because that is what the law states. Read the law of
your
land. Not the law that you make up in your head, but the law that
everyone
else in your country follows.

Where did you get the material? Did you take the photographs? If you
didn't, then you have to consider that using the photos could be
infringing
on someone else's rights.

How about the watermarks on the photos. Doesn't that give you even the
slightest clue that the photographs are copyrighted?

It's not proof.

Yes, it is proof. Either you know that (in which case you are lying), or
you have not read your laws with regards to copyrights and photographs.


I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.

Again, another lie. I looked it up, and found it right where you stole
the
photographs from:
http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?t=80573&page=11

So PROVE who is the owner.

Read post #103. This is the opinion of a lawyer (LeeLau).

Read post #105. The person who took one or more of the photos
(thebigchin).
He clearly states that he e-mailed you.

That doesn't PROVE that he is the owner.

Read post #108: thebigchin posts the response you sent to him.

Read post #114: thebigchin states that he has e-mailed the ISP that is
hosting your site.


Looks like you might get a chance to show a judge how well you lie.

Nope, protected by "fair use". I'm able to quote copyrighted work in
order to criticize it. QED

Let me see. A person submits a photograph to a publication. He states
in
that publication that the photograph is his. Even within the
publication,
you can determine that it is his since the publication displays who the
owner of the photograph is. But you want to use the photograph for you
own
personal gain, so you refute the ownership of the photograph to
accomplish
this goal. How convenient. Do you use this type of ill-logic in all of
your thinking?

Here's a quote from a lawyer:
1. Your copyright on the pictures. You never gave him permission to use
your pictures. He's not engaging in "fair dealing" ie saving a copy of
your
pictures for his own personal use; he's actually broadcasting your pics.
Unlike me, you actually watermarked your pictures so he can't claim
ignorance.

2. Your "moral rights". This has nothing to do with morality or
anything
of that sort. It's your right to have your pictures shown in a certain
context ie trailbuilding or trail work and not in another context. You
would probably object to your pictures shown in the context of his
website.


Perhaps you could post the law, in full, that states you have the right
to
display the pictures on your webite? Or are you going to post your usual
"nah nah nah nah nah" response?

It's called "fair use" in the USA.

Roberto Baggio wrote:
And Mr. Vandeman, you wrote this to the owner of the photograph:

"I have an absolute right to put your photo on my web site, as I said. But
what happened is that ISPs didn't want to get involved in making decisions
about copyright law, so they got the legislature to pass a law giving them
an easy way to make decisions."


Can you be any more delusional?

"Roberto Baggio" wrote in message
news:T47dh.425900$R63.189249@pd7urf1no...
You lied when you said you didn't know who the author is. You lied when
you said that you are allowed to use it because of "fair use". Now,
you've removed the photograph from your website, and you've asked the
author for permission to use it.

Do you have any more lies, Mister "virgin, pristine forest"?

You are a liar. QED.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:36:06 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:49:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Once again, you are lying, and more than once. Do you ever quit?

I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
it.
You do not know if is copyrighted? Talk about a blatant lie.

You yourself said look up the "fair use", yet it is obvious that you
have
not done so.

It IS copyrighted because that is what the law states. Read the law of
your
land. Not the law that you make up in your head, but the law that
everyone
else in your country follows.

Where did you get the material? Did you take the photographs? If you
didn't, then you have to consider that using the photos could be
infringing
on someone else's rights.

How about the watermarks on the photos. Doesn't that give you even the
slightest clue that the photographs are copyrighted?
It's not proof.
Yes, it is proof. Either you know that (in which case you are lying), or
you have not read your laws with regards to copyrights and photographs.

I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.
Again, another lie. I looked it up, and found it right where you stole
the
photographs from:
http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?t=80573&page=11
So PROVE who is the owner.

Read post #103. This is the opinion of a lawyer (LeeLau).

Read post #105. The person who took one or more of the photos
(thebigchin).
He clearly states that he e-mailed you.
That doesn't PROVE that he is the owner.

Read post #108: thebigchin posts the response you sent to him.

Read post #114: thebigchin states that he has e-mailed the ISP that is
hosting your site.


Looks like you might get a chance to show a judge how well you lie.
Nope, protected by "fair use". I'm able to quote copyrighted work in
order to criticize it. QED
Let me see. A person submits a photograph to a publication. He states
in
that publication that the photograph is his. Even within the
publication,
you can determine that it is his since the publication displays who the
owner of the photograph is. But you want to use the photograph for you
own
personal gain, so you refute the ownership of the photograph to
accomplish
this goal. How convenient. Do you use this type of ill-logic in all of
your thinking?

Here's a quote from a lawyer:
1. Your copyright on the pictures. You never gave him permission to use
your pictures. He's not engaging in "fair dealing" ie saving a copy of
your
pictures for his own personal use; he's actually broadcasting your pics.
Unlike me, you actually watermarked your pictures so he can't claim
ignorance.

2. Your "moral rights". This has nothing to do with morality or
anything
of that sort. It's your right to have your pictures shown in a certain
context ie trailbuilding or trail work and not in another context. You
would probably object to your pictures shown in the context of his
website.


Perhaps you could post the law, in full, that states you have the right
to
display the pictures on your webite? Or are you going to post your usual
"nah nah nah nah nah" response?
It's called "fair use" in the USA.




haahaaa . . .

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 05:03:47 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

You lied when you said you didn't know who the author is.

I STILL don't know who the author is. I only know who CLAIMS to be the
author.

You lied when you
said that you are allowed to use it because of "fair use".

No, it's still true. But enforcing my right may take some effort, and
maybe a lawyer.

Now, you've
removed the photograph from your website, and you've asked the author for
permission to use it.

That would make it a lot easier, even though I already have the right
to use it.

Do you have any more lies, Mister "virgin, pristine forest"?

NONE.

You are a liar. QED.

No, you are lying. I don't need to lie, because the truth is on my
side.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:36:06 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:49:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Once again, you are lying, and more than once. Do you ever quit?

I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
it.

You do not know if is copyrighted? Talk about a blatant lie.

You yourself said look up the "fair use", yet it is obvious that you
have
not done so.

It IS copyrighted because that is what the law states. Read the law of
your
land. Not the law that you make up in your head, but the law that
everyone
else in your country follows.

Where did you get the material? Did you take the photographs? If you
didn't, then you have to consider that using the photos could be
infringing
on someone else's rights.

How about the watermarks on the photos. Doesn't that give you even the
slightest clue that the photographs are copyrighted?

It's not proof.

Yes, it is proof. Either you know that (in which case you are lying), or
you have not read your laws with regards to copyrights and photographs.


I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.

Again, another lie. I looked it up, and found it right where you stole
the
photographs from:
http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?t=80573&page=11

So PROVE who is the owner.

Read post #103. This is the opinion of a lawyer (LeeLau).

Read post #105. The person who took one or more of the photos
(thebigchin).
He clearly states that he e-mailed you.

That doesn't PROVE that he is the owner.

Read post #108: thebigchin posts the response you sent to him.

Read post #114: thebigchin states that he has e-mailed the ISP that is
hosting your site.


Looks like you might get a chance to show a judge how well you lie.

Nope, protected by "fair use". I'm able to quote copyrighted work in
order to criticize it. QED

Let me see. A person submits a photograph to a publication. He states in
that publication that the photograph is his. Even within the publication,
you can determine that it is his since the publication displays who the
owner of the photograph is. But you want to use the photograph for you
own
personal gain, so you refute the ownership of the photograph to accomplish
this goal. How convenient. Do you use this type of ill-logic in all of
your thinking?

Here's a quote from a lawyer:
1. Your copyright on the pictures. You never gave him permission to use
your pictures. He's not engaging in "fair dealing" ie saving a copy of
your
pictures for his own personal use; he's actually broadcasting your pics.
Unlike me, you actually watermarked your pictures so he can't claim
ignorance.

2. Your "moral rights". This has nothing to do with morality or anything
of that sort. It's your right to have your pictures shown in a certain
context ie trailbuilding or trail work and not in another context. You
would probably object to your pictures shown in the context of his
website.


Perhaps you could post the law, in full, that states you have the right to
display the pictures on your webite? Or are you going to post your usual
"nah nah nah nah nah" response?

It's called "fair use" in the USA.

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 05:03:47 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

You lied when you said you didn't know who the author is.

I STILL don't know who the author is. I only know who CLAIMS to be the
author.

You lied when you
said that you are allowed to use it because of "fair use".

No, it's still true. But enforcing my right may take some effort, and
maybe a lawyer.

Now, you've
removed the photograph from your website, and you've asked the author for
permission to use it.

That would make it a lot easier, even though I already have the right
to use it.

Do you have any more lies, Mister "virgin, pristine forest"?

NONE.

You are a liar. QED.

No, you are lying. I don't need to lie, because the truth is on my
side.


Again you reveal your
misunderstanding of "truth",
as it is on noones side.