On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 07:49:00PM -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote: > > Exactly what part of that post is copyright by Jeff Kinz? > > Just the email address, Dave, not the contents of the post. In that case, putting the copyright notice at the bottom of the entire email is rather useless anyway, as it clearly isn't intended to apply to the email addy. > It used to be stated more clearly but some guy named "Sven" kept busting > my chops about my sig being too long. :-) Yeah, Sven doesn't seem to exist around here, these days ;-) > However it should be obvious from the dreadful contents of > http://www.kinz.org/policy.html, cited in the sig, that the whole > thing is just another anti-spam maneuver. One that has yet to actually > be invoked. ...one that probably can't be invoked, and therefore is rather useless except for wasting people's time > I guess you forgot to actually read that part I read it, okay :-) > an instead just decided to > indulge yourself in some exceptionally useless flaming. By putting a whole bunch of unenforceable junk on the 'net and threatening to not let us read your messages without reading your "offer," you've pretty much begged us to complain about your attempts to waste our time reading about your attempts to copyright your email address (which as I noted is perfectly usable for SPAMming by "fair use" doctrine - as unfair as that use may seem - even if your addy is copyrightable, which I somewhat doubt, on the basis that there's nothing substantive in there to be copyright in the first place). > Thanks for wasting our time. Thanks for making me waste our time explaining our rights, since you clearly failed to do so when it was your turn to waste our time with your badly misleading copyright notice. - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpxOVM9tmLlv.pgp
Description: PGP signature