[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on July 22, 1998 at 16:49:08:

In Reply to: Re: VULTURES WITH PATRIOT FEATHERS posted by Amanda Hugandkiss on July 22, 1998 at 15:38:48:


Excuse me, politely. Not hardly. Politely would be "Excuse me, but you are hosting copyrighted materials on your site, please ask the user to remove them". You send out a bogus lawsuit.

We have not yet initiated any court proceedings
in this matter, so we did not "send out a bogus
lawsuit" [sic]. That phrase is a gross
misrepresentation of the current status of
the investigation we are now conducting.

We did begin with a lawful NOTICE AND DEMAND,
with the material evidence included in same.
Many just ignored these NOTICES, despite the
proof we exhibited of the copyright violations.
Others gave us stupid, irresponsible excuses.

Those notified included, but were not limited
to, the contacts named in the InterNIC WHOIS
database. Evidently, some people do NOT want
to be at all responsible for what happens on
the computer systems associated with their
names, in the WHOIS database.

We are not in any way at fault for the fact
that not a single NOTICE AND DEMAND was answered
with certified proof of this author's permission
to post "The Federal Zone" on the Internet,
within the stated ten-day deadlines.

This was the case because no one ever bothered
to get this Author's prior permission to host
the book on the Internet.

When those deadlines passed, we decided to

I am happy to report that a few people have
now removed the offending files, but we have
a long way to go. No one has yet offered
to pay the $25 fee originally charged for
the electronic editions.

If people refuse to honor my copyrights,
for whatever reason, they can expect to be
prosecuted for that decision, at least
civilly, if not criminally.

I regret that it has been necessary for me
to be so blunt with many people, but we
tried the "polite route" many months ago,
when we broadcasted polite notices on the
several email lists of which I was a member
at that time. America Online, Inc., for
example, did nothing about the ongoing
violation on their file servers.

Those polite notices were routinely ignored,
I believe because the offenders preferred
to play a dangerous, criminal "game" with
this intellectual property. There are
criminal sanctions in the federal copyright
laws, in case you haven't noticed.

That was their regrettable decision, I am

It's just too bad that so many were just too
cheap to honor the $25 fee, always displayed
clearly and conspicuously in the Preface
(original, authorized versions).

This whole mess has become a classic case of
mass selective perception.

I am all the more incensed by this group think
because of the great expense to which we went
to make free documentation available on the
Internet, by loading it into the Supreme Law

Why most of you now conveniently ignore or forget
this body of work, will always be a question
that weighs heavily in my own mind.

Thankless generation, many of you!

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Author (under a pen name)

I do not consider that polite. And "Triply redundant", what you consider 3 email messages triple redundancy?

No, the triple redundancy had to do with the
number of Internet search engines we used,
and the number and content of keywords we
utilized, with periodic measurements spread
over a period beginning in the Fall of 1997,
and continuing up to the present time
(June/July 1998).

So, you have misunderstood completely.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Author (under a pen name)

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]