[LUAU] Re: dangers to (Software) Freedom

[Angela Kahealani]

On Monday, 2007-08-27 08:55:55 Jim Thompson wrote:
> 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 could not. That would be a lie. All lies manipulate others, and 
therefor violate their right of free dominion, and therefor constitute 
a karmic damage to them, which would create negative karma for me. All
manipulations of others contain lies, and all manipulations hurt all 
involved souls. Only truth is sustainable in 4th density, and we are 
now simultaneously experiencing both 3rd and 4th density upon Ter-Ra,
so some people play in the secrecy and lies of 3rd density, but those of 
us on the ascension path must practice honesty.
http://www.worldtrans.org/lyssa/density.html
http://www.spiritual.com.au/articles/channeled/4Drelationship_lroyal.htm

> > 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.

Nothing in law may be done retroactively.
Remember to keep your "government" accountable to that.
We have to ask if the grant was unconditional, or if it was conditional, 
what were the terms and conditions, thus by specifying an explicit 
grant above with a condition for termination, HOSEF has 30 days to 
rebut what I've said, and if they don't, they've agreed, and it's a 
contract. If they don't agree to my termination conditions and removal 
upon termination, then they have the right to remove it all NOW.

Now might be an appropriate time to query whether HOSEF's mailing list 
either now does, or easily could in the future, support X-No-Archive in 
the headers.

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

If I don't reserve my rights now, I cannot retroactively retrieve them.
I don't operate in fear. I have to be able to terminate an existing 
contract in order to replace it with a new one. It is my intent, upon 
decession of my body, to grant via my will, a change of license for all 
my material, placing it under something like a Creative Commons or GGPL 
license granting greater rights to use, so I'd better update my will 
with the chosen re-license before I leave the body. Until I leave:

1.	I want to be able to update anything I've published.
2.	All search engines should point only to my latest version,
	and there should be no copies published on any website but mine,
	other than the Internet Archive, which I control via robots.txt.

Normally, I won't publish the same material on my website that I submit 
to a mailing-list (and its' archive), therefor there is not much 
problem that the old copy on the archive website will compete in the 
search engines with a newer copy on my own website.

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

By submitting to an e-mail list, it is presumed that anyone who has a 
right to read the list or its archive has a right to read the material. 
In cyberspace, caching is standard practice, and I'm not in protest of 
that practice. You wanna cache a copy on your computer for your private 
use, either manually or via the standard operation of typical OSs and 
Browsers / e-mail clients, go right ahead. You have not been granted 
any rights to publish that copy however, therefor if you want your 
friend to view the article, you must refer them to the HOSEF archive.

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

EXCELLENT! No judge can deal with a private party.
Because I'm private and non negotiable, I would not sue,
as that would be granting jurisdiction to a judge.
I shall not voluntarily enter Federal Jurisdiction.

> > 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!

I do my best to enlighten and empower every entity I encounter.

> >> 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.

Excuse me? would you please clarify?

> > 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.

who cares?

> >> 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!

Have you READ the law? Do you understand copyright protects a specific 
expression of a concept, not the concept? Only patent protects 
concepts.

> 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.

No, I'm carrying on multiple private relationships with the others on 
the mailing list, and those who read the archives.
If you don't read Black's or Bouvier's, you cannot discuss law.
We have been enslaved through the trickery of redefinition of words,
so common meaning of many english language words has been perverted in 
law, redefined, so that typical usage means something else than legal 
usage. We are encountering problems here with your failure to 
distinguish between the common use of the term public, and the legal 
definition thereof. This is one of many subterfuges that keep us asleep 
and enslaved...

I hereby explicitly state and affidavit, sworn upon my commercial 
liability, that I have not knowingly and voluntarily involved myself in 
anything PUBLIC since I filed my UCC-1 Security Agreement and became a 
Secured Party Creditor. You have 30 days to produce proof, i.e. the 
signed contract whereby I voluntarily and knowingly entered PUBLIC,
or upon your failure to produce proof within 30 days, you have averred.

> > 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.

I hereby explicitly state and affidavit, sworn upon my commercial 
liability, that I have not knowingly and voluntarily involved myself in 
anything PUBLIC since I filed my UCC-1 Security Agreement and became a 
Secured Party Creditor. You have 30 days to produce proof, i.e. the 
signed contract whereby I voluntarily and knowingly entered PUBLIC,
or upon your failure to produce proof within 30 days, you have averred.

> >> and are non negotiable.
> >
> > None of this can ever appear before a judge or magistrate.
>
> Ah, so you *can't* sue!   hee hee.

No, but I can place a private commercial lean upon your property,
which will cause the credit issuing corporations to stop
issuing you any credit until you resolve the lien. For
most PUBLIC slaves, termination of credit is a death sentence.

...can we get back to *NIX and encryption and rights and freedoms?
Oh, we're discussing the FREEDOMS of a human vs a slave... OK.
But I think we better bring this back to FLOSS or take it off list.

Sworn as true and correct to the best of my knowledge and ability,
upon my commercial liability, this Affidavit of Truth stands as fact
unless rebutted point-by-point within 30 days, as per the UCC which 
governs U.S. 14th Amendment Citizens (i.e. YOU, not me). 
Angela Kahealani
-- 
Copyright 2007 Angela Kahealani. All rights reserve without prejudice.
All information and transactions are private between the parties, and
are non negotiable. http://www.kahealani.com/