[LUAU] Re: dangers to (Software) Freedom

[Jim Thompson]

On Aug 27, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Angela Kahealani wrote:

> On Monday, 2007-08-27 01:12:49 Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Angela Kahealani wrote:
>>> I believe that you have practiced "fair use" of copyrighted
>>> material.
>>
>> 808blogger's use is likely fair use, given that it is comment and
>> critique.
>>
>> Likely that the archive of LUAUis not.
>
> I hereby specifically grant a revocable (with 30 days notice)  
> license to
> the LUAU archive to retain copies of my copyrighted material until 30
> days after receipt of notice of termination of license.
>
> I think it should be fairly obvious that when one publishes a work  
> in a
> given forum, that one has by that action licensed that use, but NO
> other use.  Thus, implicitly, having knowingly submitted my  
> copyrighted
> material to that which I know is an archived mailing list,
you could claim you "didn't know".
> I have obviously consented to that archiving pro tem. That does not  
> mean I
> have granted license to any other entity to make copies or publish
> them, beyond fair use.

I am smiling at the thought that you think you could retroactively  
terminate the "license" you grant above.

What, are you afraid that something you say will 'stick around' in  
the archives?

I'm smiling more while thinking about you suing if I save a copy  
(perhaps automatically) of all incoming email.

The judge would throw you out on your rear-end.

> The only murky question is really about
> termination of that grant of use, and there we require knowledge of  
> the
> PUBLISHED policies of the mailing list archive about retention of data
> in that archive. If the archive did not PRE-publish a policy that it
> would never remove material from that archive, then it must remove the
> material upon license termination.

Hee hee hee.   What an excellent morning you bring!

>> So what purpose does your notice serve?   It can only be hostile.
>
> Really? I would say that the property of hostility is that character
> practiced by those who would steal anothers' property. If you find my
> practicing maximum defense of my rights to be hostile.... then,
> YOU have a problem.
>
> Per UCC, silence constitutes consent. Specifically, 30 days of silence
> constitutes agreement. Therefore, one must continually and repeatedly
> ASSERT one's rights, as per, or specifically under, the  
> jurisdiction of
> UCC1-207. It is YOU collectively who have set up this HOSTILE system
> which forces CONTINUAL defense of rights by me. I don't agree to be
> bound by your severely dysfunctional system of humans dominating each
> other, or the insane laws you've implemented, thus I exited the  
> system.

Yet you persist in polluting the environment with your noisy bits.

> Angela Kahealani
>
> So, what's it mean?:
>
>> Copyright 2007 Angela Kahealani.
>
> I wrote this, and I control its' publication, it's my property.
> I retain control of each copy through its' copyright notice.

The hell you do.   Man, I'm giggling now.  The people in the coffee  
shop must think I'm insane.

>> All rights reserve without prejudice.
>
> Necessary to preserve my rights, as the UCC law is written that,
> if you don't CONTINUALLY defend your rights, you lose them. IF I
> was still in the system under statutes, I could alternately invoke  
> this
> concept with UCC1-207, but UCC is a private, copyrighted code, and
> therefore, since I don't have a license from the creators of UCC to  
> use
> their code, and since invoking their code also invokes their
> jurisdiction, I invoke the concept, not their copyrighted version.

Oh man, "I invoke the concept, not the copyrighted version..."  thats  
the best info-porn of the month!

Thanks!
> I  have intentionally placed the reservation of rights in the present
> rather than past tense, to emphasize the ONGOING nature of that
> reservation of rights.
>
>> All information and transactions are private between the parties,
>
> We are interacting in private space, not PUBLIC space... this is
> a private interaction between two flesh-and-blood-incarnate souls,  
> not a
> PUBLIC interaction between two cestui que trust corporations.

I claim the conversation is entirely public, and you're voluntarily  
submitting same.

> As a secured party creditor, everything about my existence is private,
> whereas, for 14th Amendment U.S. Citizens, everything is PUBLIC.
> Because I cannot step into PUBLIC jurisdiction without losing ALL  
> of my
> rights, I shall never VOLUNTARILY enter PUBLIC space, therefore, you
> have operated privately for our interactions, and I have not acted
> PUBLICLY.

horsepucky.

>> and are non negotiable.
>
> None of this can ever appear before a judge or magistrate.

Ah, so you *can't* sue!   hee hee.