IP, forwarded posts, and copyright infringement

[Mike Holmes]

I'm not sure if anyone has made a canonical list of what features define
a crank, but one of them has just got to be a complete inability to
admit a simple mistake.

Go back through the archives and you'll see lots of examples where Choate
makes an error.  I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on many of them
and assume that he exaggerates to make a point.  When someone calls him
on it, rather than admitting that he overstated his case, he makes it
worse.  The quoted material at the bottom of this message is a good
example of the start of one of these.

If you read the archives, you'll find examples of pretty much every
frequent poster to this list over the years posting a retraction or
correction for some minor detail.  You won't find any from Choate.

In the past, I've plonked him, but I found that I missed the entertainment
value.  He's interesting, in the same way a car accident is: you have
no real desire for the victims to be involved, but if it's going to
happen right in front of you, you might as well observe it!



At 11:36 AM 1/10/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> > (Hint: U.S. copyright law does not make mere possession or archiving
> > an offense. Try distribution, performance, etc.)
>
>Hint: WRONG.
>
>Simply possessing a paperback book that has had its cover removed as a
>sign of 'destroyed' status is in fact a crime. Used book stores that have
>them in stock can be charged accordingly.
>
>The primary distinction USED TO BE whether there was intent to make money
>off the act. Now the simple desire to want to make copies and perhaps even
>share them is under review. It's not the copy of the book anymore but
>rather simple access to the ideas (which is what copyright isn't about).