Posted by Amanda Hugandkiss on July 22, 1998 at 23:05:09:
In Reply to: VULTURES WITH PATRIOT FEATHERS posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on July 22, 1998 at 16:49:08:
:
: :
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.OK, I stand corrected. I meant to say that you sent out bogus notices to the wrong people about a big mistake that you are about to make
: 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.Did it ever ocurr to you that these "DEMANDS" were ignored because you sent them to the wrong people?
: 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.But you are at fault for harassing people and threatening people with bogus litigation
: 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
: escalate.The only thing that you managed to escalate successfully is the tempers of the people that you are harassing
: 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.I'd say that it's because the majority (from what I've seen in this forum) of the people that you threatened *DO* *NOT* *HAVE* an electronic copy of this document. I know the user in question at my site does not, but that has not stopped you from harassing me yet.
: 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.and if you continue to harass people, you should expect the same.
: 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.replace "blunt" with "rude" and it's a bit closer. funny how you claim to have been pursuing this matter for over a year, yet I never received a mailing last year. And the user at my site says that (s)he has not had the link to your information for over a year now. So what is your point in harassing people who should not meet your criteria for harassment any longer?
: 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.I never receive a "polite notice". And yes, I am aware that the United State has copyright laws. It also has harassment laws, maybe you should start reading those. You speak of "freedom" here, all I ask is freedom from your illegitimate harassment. As another poster is aiming for, a public apology to all parties would be nice, but I'll settle for you just leaving me alone.
: That was their regrettable decision, I am
: afraid.: 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
: Library.: 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.And you you continue to ignore time and time and time again, is the fact that you are harassing people illegally. If you were indeed serious about copyright infringement, there would be certified letters arriving at the sites in question, not SPAM mail.
: Thankless generation, many of you!A clueless generation, especially those running for the House of Representatives
:
: 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).If your issue is that these pointers are still located in 3 search engines, then that is an issue that you need to take up with the search engines, not me. As I said above, the user in question at my site has not has a pointer to the location(s) in question for over a year now. So you have wasted my time, your time and this forum's time for no good reason.
: So, you have misunderstood completely.No, you have not communcated clearly. You stated that you used triply redundant methods to contact the individuals involved, when you meant that you used 3 search engines to find them.
:
: Sincerely yours,: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
: Author (under a pen name)