A day in the life of our Friend...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

As posted in Anthony's blog...

http://aprenta.blogspot.com/

....which is linked from his website...

http://www.atkielski.com/default.html

Thursday, November 23, 2006
This was a bit of a bad day.

I couldn't sleep in the wee hours, as usual, so I fired up the Baron and
went for a trip. Tonight (virtual time) it was from Chandler Municipal (my
home airport) to Las Vegas . McCarren International Airport. I took the east
VFR transition through the Phoenix Class B, then out towards Blythe and up
the Colorado to Boulder, then into KLAS. I usually avoid Class B airports
when flying my little plane, but this was late and it was quiet, so I could
sneak in to a Big Airport without too much problem. I did misunderstand ATC
a bit and got confused, and ended up on final for the wrong runway, but when
I heard him expressing his reservations to another pilot, I realized my
error and swerved around back towards my assigned runway. No harm done,
fortunately. Once I landed, I couldn't figure out where the GA ramp
was-turns out that KLAS has very little GA parking. I thought about looking
for the Janet terminal, but eventually just parked in a quiet spot, with a
great view of the Strip.

That was the highlight of the day.

Finally it came time to go to school. By now I was finally starting to feel
tired, but it was too late to go to sleep. I walked to a distant Métro
station because mine is closed for renovation. As I descended onto the
platform, I heard announcements of "incidents" and saw tons of people
waiting, and realized that Line 13 was again screwed up. So I left and
started walking to school. I wanted to call to say I'd be late, but I had no
more credit on my cellphone, and only 4 euro in my pocket. And my land line
is disconnected because I haven't paid my telephone bill. So I showed up
half an hour late, losing my first class, which would have paid me all of 4
euro. It rained a bit as I walked to school. I don't have an umbrella.

After that, I went to the bank, as I had seen a bit of money on my account
and I wanted to withdraw it for groceries. I had to argue with the bank for
half an hour before they would let me withdraw any cash from my own account.
Seems there had been an "incident" (more incidents!) in the previous
month-meaning that a creditor had tried to seize money-and the bank felt
that I couldn't be trusted to withdraw cash from my own account. Maybe HSBC
has cash-flow problems or something. The teller found me a supervisor who
said this was "policy" and couldn't be changed. I asked for his name, and he
refused to give it-this told me that he really didn't know if it was policy
or not, and was afraid of getting in trouble if he were wrong. So I
persisted, and insisted on seeing the bank manager (and getting the
manager's name, if he wasn't too cowardly to give it). The bank then
relented and gave me my money. HSBC used to be CCF, which used to be
something else. Every few years, my bank is swallowed by a larger bank, and
service deteriorates. If you are poor, they aren' t even willing to give you
your own money; if you are rich, they invite you to lunch.

When I got back from the bank, I discovered that I had a student waiting for
me. Seems that a class had been added to my schedule a few days before. It
wasn't on the original schedule, and although I got a call about it, I
became distracted after the call and forgot to add it to my PDA. So I didn't
know about it, and missed most of it. Not paid for that.

I was prepared for my third class, but the student cancelled at the last
minute.

My fourth class went so-so. The student appeared, but was upset that he was
being billed for classes that he had had on vacation because the school had
forgot to deschedule them. Of course, I'll probably be the one who doesn't
get paid.

Then I had a meeting for four hours in the evening, and I forgot to prepare
for classes the next day.

I had some money so I bought McDonald's on the way home. It occurred to me
that today was Thanksgiving. I'm glad it isn't celebrated in France. Today
also marks the anniversary of my arrival in France, years ago. That was a
Thanksgiving day, too. Of course, back then I had lots of money, with
accountants and lawyers on retainers, and the bank would call to ask me out
to lunch. Now I have nothing, and the bank won't even give me money out of
my own account.
posted by Aprenta at 10:52 PM

[Dudley Henriques]

Do I understand correctly that this web site and Blog site and the person
associated with these sites represent the real person who is known on these
newsgroups as Mxsmanic? Can the factual data that makes this connection be
presented please?
Dudley Henriques

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> As posted in Anthony's blog...
>
> http://aprenta.blogspot.com/
>
> ...which is linked from his website...
>
> http://www.atkielski.com/default.html
>
> Thursday, November 23, 2006
> This was a bit of a bad day.
>
> I couldn't sleep in the wee hours, as usual, so I fired up the Baron and
> went for a trip. Tonight (virtual time) it was from Chandler Municipal (my
> home airport) to Las Vegas . McCarren International Airport. I took the
> east VFR transition through the Phoenix Class B, then out towards Blythe
> and up the Colorado to Boulder, then into KLAS. I usually avoid Class B
> airports when flying my little plane, but this was late and it was quiet,
> so I could sneak in to a Big Airport without too much problem. I did
> misunderstand ATC a bit and got confused, and ended up on final for the
> wrong runway, but when I heard him expressing his reservations to another
> pilot, I realized my error and swerved around back towards my assigned
> runway. No harm done, fortunately. Once I landed, I couldn't figure out
> where the GA ramp was-turns out that KLAS has very little GA parking. I
> thought about looking for the Janet terminal, but eventually just parked
> in a quiet spot, with a great view of the Strip.
>
> That was the highlight of the day.
>
> Finally it came time to go to school. By now I was finally starting to
> feel tired, but it was too late to go to sleep. I walked to a distant
> Métro station because mine is closed for renovation. As I descended onto
> the platform, I heard announcements of "incidents" and saw tons of people
> waiting, and realized that Line 13 was again screwed up. So I left and
> started walking to school. I wanted to call to say I'd be late, but I had
> no more credit on my cellphone, and only 4 euro in my pocket. And my land
> line is disconnected because I haven't paid my telephone bill. So I showed
> up half an hour late, losing my first class, which would have paid me all
> of 4 euro. It rained a bit as I walked to school. I don't have an
> umbrella.
>
> After that, I went to the bank, as I had seen a bit of money on my account
> and I wanted to withdraw it for groceries. I had to argue with the bank
> for half an hour before they would let me withdraw any cash from my own
> account. Seems there had been an "incident" (more incidents!) in the
> previous month-meaning that a creditor had tried to seize money-and the
> bank felt that I couldn't be trusted to withdraw cash from my own account.
> Maybe HSBC has cash-flow problems or something. The teller found me a
> supervisor who said this was "policy" and couldn't be changed. I asked for
> his name, and he refused to give it-this told me that he really didn't
> know if it was policy or not, and was afraid of getting in trouble if he
> were wrong. So I persisted, and insisted on seeing the bank manager (and
> getting the manager's name, if he wasn't too cowardly to give it). The
> bank then relented and gave me my money. HSBC used to be CCF, which used
> to be something else. Every few years, my bank is swallowed by a larger
> bank, and service deteriorates. If you are poor, they aren' t even willing
> to give you your own money; if you are rich, they invite you to lunch.
>
> When I got back from the bank, I discovered that I had a student waiting
> for me. Seems that a class had been added to my schedule a few days
> before. It wasn't on the original schedule, and although I got a call
> about it, I became distracted after the call and forgot to add it to my
> PDA. So I didn't know about it, and missed most of it. Not paid for that.
>
> I was prepared for my third class, but the student cancelled at the last
> minute.
>
> My fourth class went so-so. The student appeared, but was upset that he
> was being billed for classes that he had had on vacation because the
> school had forgot to deschedule them. Of course, I'll probably be the one
> who doesn't get paid.
>
> Then I had a meeting for four hours in the evening, and I forgot to
> prepare for classes the next day.
>
> I had some money so I bought McDonald's on the way home. It occurred to me
> that today was Thanksgiving. I'm glad it isn't celebrated in France. Today
> also marks the anniversary of my arrival in France, years ago. That was a
> Thanksgiving day, too. Of course, back then I had lots of money, with
> accountants and lawyers on retainers, and the bank would call to ask me
> out to lunch. Now I have nothing, and the bank won't even give me money
> out of my own account.
> posted by Aprenta at 10:52 PM
>
>

[Steve Foley]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Do I understand correctly that this web site and Blog site and the person
> associated with these sites represent the real person who is known on
> these newsgroups as Mxsmanic? Can the factual data that makes this
> connection be presented please?
> Dudley Henriques


Whois lookup for mxsmanic.com:

Registrant:
Anthony Atkielski
Anthony Atkielski
29 rue du General Bertrand
Paris, 75007
FR
Email:

Whosi lookup for atkielski.com

Registrant:
Anthony Atkielski
Anthony Atkielski
29 rue du General Bertrand
Paris, 75007
FR
Email:

The atkielski.com home page has a link (left side underf FAQs and Essays) to
http://aprenta.blogspot.com/

[Dudley Henriques]

Interesting!
DH



"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:h_voh.1664$GL.684@trndny06...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Do I understand correctly that this web site and Blog site and the person
>> associated with these sites represent the real person who is known on
>> these newsgroups as Mxsmanic? Can the factual data that makes this
>> connection be presented please?
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Whois lookup for mxsmanic.com:
>
> Registrant:
> Anthony Atkielski
> Anthony Atkielski
> 29 rue du General Bertrand
> Paris, 75007
> FR
> Email:
>
> Whosi lookup for atkielski.com
>
> Registrant:
> Anthony Atkielski
> Anthony Atkielski
> 29 rue du General Bertrand
> Paris, 75007
> FR
> Email:
>
> The atkielski.com home page has a link (left side underf FAQs and Essays)
> to http://aprenta.blogspot.com/
>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Do I understand correctly that this web site and Blog site and the
> person associated with these sites represent the real person who is
> known on these newsgroups as Mxsmanic? Can the factual data that
> makes this connection be presented please?
> Dudley Henriques
>


More than happy to.

First look up Mxsmanic.com in the Whois database and you get this...

Registrant:
Anthony Atkielski
Anthony Atkielski
29 rue du General Bertrand
Paris, 75007
FR
Email:

Registrar Name....: REGISTER.COM, INC.
Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: www.register.com

Domain Name: mxsmanic.com

Created on..............: Sat, May 10, 2003
Expires on..............: Thu, May 10, 2007
Record last updated on..: Sat, May 06, 2006

Administrative Contact:
Anthony Atkielski
Anthony Atkielski
29 rue du General Bertrand
Paris, 75007
FR
Phone: +33145671282
Email:

Technical Contact:
Register.Com
Domain Registrar
575 8th Avenue 11th Floor
New York, NY 10018
US
Phone: 1-902-7492701
Email:

DNS Servers:

dns5.register.com
dns6.register.com


Then Google Anthony Atkielski and it is the first link. The Whois search on
that domain comes back to same name.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

And his Amazon Wish List is here...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/registry.html/ref=cm_pdp_profile_full_reg/102-1284111-2036950?ie=UTF8&type=wishlist&id=1ADWAF35J648X

[Steve Foley]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> As posted in Anthony's blog...
>
> http://aprenta.blogspot.com/
>

Mosts of his entries are pretty glum. I didn't see anything positive written
about anything, except his time spent with his new joystick.

I wonder if he suffers from depression.

All in all, it's pretty sad. Almost makes me want to un-killfile him
(almost, but not quite).

[Kev]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> As posted in Anthony's blog...

Say, you wouldn't be a wee bit obsessed with him, would you ?

I'm not convinced that he's the actual blogger at that site, or if it's
his father instead, or if it's not him at all.

Sometimes, I half think he's a psych class composite, where the French
are laughing themselves silly at the egotistical foreign pilots.
Sometimes I think he _and_ some of the other posters being mean to him
are all psych class imposters.

Gotta love usenet. <g>

Kev

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Kev wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> As posted in Anthony's blog...
>
> Say, you wouldn't be a wee bit obsessed with him, would you ?
>
> I'm not convinced that he's the actual blogger at that site, or if
> it's his father instead, or if it's not him at all.
>
> Sometimes, I half think he's a psych class composite, where the French
> are laughing themselves silly at the egotistical foreign pilots.
> Sometimes I think he _and_ some of the other posters being mean to him
> are all psych class imposters.
>
> Gotta love usenet. <g>
>
> Kev

No obseesion needed. It took two searches that took about a minute. There is
nothing on the site that would lead me to belive that the person in question
has a child and the blog entry even discribes his flight simming.

As has been explained here, just a litte more searching that he has a
history of going into groups like this and being a desruptive influence.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:45:33 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>As posted in Anthony's blog...
>
>http://aprenta.blogspot.com/
>
>...which is linked from his website...
>
>http://www.atkielski.com/default.html
>
>Thursday, November 23, 2006
>This was a bit of a bad day.
>

[Snip pathetic Thanksgiving day story of a delusional sim driver]

Now don't you feel bad for taunting the "Baron pilot"? As a good
Christian, you should consider contributing some simulated cash via
the link on his web site, so that the poor fellow has adequate funds
for simulated avgas. :-)

If he hadn't left the US, he'd probably be eligible for real Food
Stamps, but perhaps he has his reasons for fleeing the USA for France
as did Ira Einhorn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Einhorn
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/einhorn/index_1.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,168382,00.html
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/08/14/einhorn/index.html
http://www.bookrags.com/Ira_Einhorn
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/10/18/einhorn/index.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/09/30/einhorn.trial/

[John T]

Steve Foley wrote:
>
> Mosts of his entries are pretty glum. I didn't see anything positive
> written about anything, except his time spent with his new joystick.

No kidding.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Kev]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> No obseesion needed. It took two searches that took about a minute. There is
> nothing on the site that would lead me to belive that the person in question
> has a child and the blog entry even discribes his flight simming.

That website was posted here weeks ago. I looked at it then.

At first I figured it was him. Then he said here recently that he
never meets anyone. For a tour guide, that's pretty odd. So now I'm
not so sure. Maybe he just wants to steer clear of some of the
nutcases here. I would.

> As has been explained here, just a litte more searching that he has a
> history of going into groups like this and being a desruptive influence.

Again, weeks ago I did some researching. Yes, he has the same lack of
social skills in each group, and there's always a few who get their
hackles up (especially when they read him out of context) and think
they're being personally insulted. At the same time, you'll find in
each of those groups, another set of calmer people who don't take such
huge offense.

Anyway, if he's not a composite psych class project, he should be.
You've got all the elements for a typical usenet drama. Elite macho
types, netcops, do-gooders, McCarthyism, liberals, conservatives, quiet
and loud people, and then there's the majority who just want it all to
go away. It's a (poorly distributed) microcosm of real life.

Oddly enough, the main theme (Mxsmanic) rarely joins in the personal
bashing or his own defense. It just swirls around him. And the huge
irony is that without the idiots who try to get rid of him, he'd be no
topic at all.

Regards, Kev

[Newps]

Kev wrote:

>
> Oddly enough, the main theme (Mxsmanic) rarely joins in the personal
> bashing or his own defense.



That's 95% of his posts.

[Kev]

Newps wrote:
> Kev wrote:

> > Oddly enough, the main theme (Mxsmanic) rarely joins in the personal
> > bashing or his own defense.
>
> That's 95% of his posts.

Defense of his opinions, yes. Personal defense, almost never. How
long would it take before you or I strongly responded, if someone
called us a moron several times a day?

Which is why I've come to the conclusion that those who complain about
him the most, actually want the least for him to leave... figure it
out:

1) Those who complain the most, are the ones who respond to him the
most... with insults.

2) Those who respond the most with insults, would surely be lost
without having someone so convenient to boost their ego. I mean, how
often do they get to bash someone who doesn't bash back?

And so it goes.
Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> As posted in Anthony's blog...
>
> http://aprenta.blogspot.com/

And copyrighted by him.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> As posted in Anthony's blog...
>>
>> http://aprenta.blogspot.com/
>
> And copyrighted by him.

I was well within the fair use criteria and I gave you full credit.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

John T wrote:
>> Mosts of his entries are pretty glum. I didn't see anything positive
>> written about anything, except his time spent with his new joystick.
>
> No kidding.


I don't feel sorry for him. He causes his own problems and then refuses to take
any responsibility for them. No wonder he's a loser.

First he "forgets" he has an appointment, then it's not his fault he didn't go
because he "didn't know"? Give me a break. A long history of "problems" with
the bank? I know exactly how you have "problems" with a bank. I also know how
you get good service out of one.

I'm a firm believer that where I am right now in time and space is a result of
every decision I've ever made. Some were good; some were bad. I live with the
consequences of both, as we all do.

He needs to grow up. I doubt he ever will. Did I mention he's a loser?
Obviously a deadbeat as well. France is welcome to him.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> I was well within the fair use criteria and I gave you full credit.

Quoting an entire entry is not fair use, nor do you satisfy the other
criteria for fair use. Additionally, a glance at the site reveals
that it contains advertising. By infringing on the copyright you
deprive the author of revenue from that advertising.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> I was well within the fair use criteria and I gave you full credit.
>
> Quoting an entire entry is not fair use, nor do you satisfy the other
> criteria for fair use. Additionally, a glance at the site reveals
> that it contains advertising. By infringing on the copyright you
> deprive the author of revenue from that advertising.
>

It should be noted that since this is a text based medium,
there was no advertising shown in the OP. So, missed revenue won't
apply to a text posting. Should the full page be reprinted graphically,
then you would have a case. But in this instant, nothing was deprived.

Layman's interpretation here; IANAL.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFou6gyBkZmuMZ8L8RAiBWAKDC4W/Phcw1dbZMXwOWZrCHdPV/GACeLELK
CAq4e8BdV9+3inIoCXRFLsk=
=v0V9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> It should be noted that since this is a text based medium,
> there was no advertising shown in the OP.

There was advertising on the original blog page from which the text
was illegally copied.

> Layman's interpretation here; IANAL.

That is obvious.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
> > I was well within the fair use criteria and I gave you full credit.
>
> Quoting an entire entry is not fair use, nor do you satisfy the other
> criteria for fair use.

That's an opinion, and not a very qualified one either... as usual.

> Additionally, a glance at the site reveals
> that it contains advertising. By infringing on the copyright you
> deprive the author of revenue from that advertising.

<spit take> Your traffic has likely quintupled. You've received a
favor, and have failed to express your gratitude.
-----

- gpsman

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Quoting an entire entry is not fair use, nor do you satisfy the other
> criteria for fair use. Additionally, a glance at the site reveals
> that it contains advertising. By infringing on the copyright you
> deprive the author of revenue from that advertising.

I'm not an attorney, but I have been involved in copyright infringement and
patent cases in the past as a witness, and have some understanding of US
Copyright law.

The OP posted your entry for the purpose of news reporting and
comment/criticism. This is EXACTLY in line with Fair Use, which I have
quoted below for clarity. Unless you could evidence that his posting
actually cost you to lose revenue (ie: reduced the market value of your
work) I don't think you would have a case.

=================

From http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

"§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair
use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

=================

1) He did not use the posting for commercial or profitable purposes.

2) Your blog is essentially a free publication, with advertising revenue
produced from affiliate ads in the sidebar. However, it would be easy to
demonstrate from your own admissions that there is little or no revenue
produced from your website. And of course, logs are easy to produce to
verify it.

3) Your blog contains many entries. He did not post the whole blog.

4) I suspect that the OPs posting here probably produced as many or more
hits on your blog since the last time it was propogandized on this forum.
This would have increased the potential value of your blog. Again, the
stats are easily quantified from the logs of the site host...


I suspect that in a court of law, it would be a clear case of Fair Use.

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> That's an opinion, and not a very qualified one either... as usual.

You cannot compensate for dishonesty and a total lack of ethics with
personal attacks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John T]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message

>
> I don't feel sorry for him. He causes his own problems and then
> refuses to take any responsibility for them. No wonder he's a loser.
>
> ... France is welcome to him.

No kidding. :)

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gpsman writes:
>
> > That's an opinion, and not a very qualified one either... as usual.
>
> You cannot compensate for dishonesty and a total lack of ethics with
> personal attacks.

Wah. There's no dishonesty; you were quoted, you were credited. My
opinion is honest; you are fond of speaking of that which you don't
know.

As far as ethics, whether your copyright has been infringed is a matter
best left to be determined in court. What damages have you sustained
that you can substantiate?
-----

- gpsman

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> There's no dishonesty; you were quoted, you were credited.

The infringer knew what he was doing, and knew it was illegal, but he
did it, anyway; and then he tried to rationalize his infringement to
protect himself when he was called on it.

He also was lacking in ethics in undertaking such an infringement to
begin with. Apparently he feels that some targets aren't entitled to
protection under the law, or that they won't pursue him legally for
his infringement, or both.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gpsman writes:
>
>
>>There's no dishonesty; you were quoted, you were credited.
>
>
> The infringer knew what he was doing, and knew it was illegal, but he
> did it, anyway; and then he tried to rationalize his infringement to
> protect himself when he was called on it.
>
> He also was lacking in ethics in undertaking such an infringement to
> begin with. Apparently he feels that some targets aren't entitled to
> protection under the law, or that they won't pursue him legally for
> his infringement, or both.
>
Wow, Anthony, you're a lawyer too?! Do you specialize in French, US, EU,
or international law?

Hit the books, Jack, and don't come here no more, no more.

Rip

[Casey Wilson]

"Judah" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Quoting an entire entry is not fair use, nor do you satisfy the other
>> criteria for fair use. Additionally, a glance at the site reveals
>> that it contains advertising. By infringing on the copyright you
>> deprive the author of revenue from that advertising.
>
> I'm not an attorney, but I have been involved in copyright infringement
> and
> patent cases in the past as a witness, and have some understanding of US
> Copyright law.

I thought about weighing into this from the perspective of a published,
professional writer who is both knowledgeable and sensitive to copyright,
trademark and other issues regarding protection of intellectual property and
derives significant income from the craft.
However, it is my observation and experience that unless you agree with
Mr. Atkielski anything you say is wrong regardless of how correct you may
be. So, regardless of how correct you and GPSMAN may be, let him spew.

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gpsman writes:
>
> > There's no dishonesty; you were quoted, you were credited.
>
> The infringer knew what he was doing, and knew it was illegal,

Spurious conclusion. You have no method of determining what he knew.

> but he
> did it, anyway; and then he tried to rationalize his infringement to
> protect himself when he was called on it.

Spurious conclusion. He has nothing from which to "protect himself".

> He also was lacking in ethics in undertaking such an infringement to
> begin with.

Spurious conclusion. No infringement has been determined, except by
unqualified opinion.

> Apparently he feels that some targets aren't entitled to
> protection under the law, or that they won't pursue him legally for
> his infringement, or both.

Spurious conclusion. You don't know what he feels.

You have no damages, just a very high-pitched whine.
-----

- gpsman

[Thomas Borchert]

Steve,

> Mosts of his entries are pretty glum. I didn't see anything positive written
> about anything, except his time spent with his new joystick.
>

I found amazing the capability to rationalize coming late to classes and not
caring about students as the fault of others.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tony]

In addiiton to being glum, I think he might be characterized as
'delusional'. Or, this would really be funny -- what if he's an
imposter who created this fictional Mx character as a joke, and really
flies big iron? If so, we'd have to give him a lot of credit because
the personality he created is woven of whole cloth.

But that sure wouldn't be the way to bet, would it?

Really, though, who in their mid forties would want to sit in his Paris
apartment with very little money, taking his major pleasure by
pretending to fly (and often annoying real pilots on the 'net)? I
wonder, does he have accesss to mental health professionals? Crazy does
not mean stupid.




On Jan 9, 5:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Steve,
>
> > Mosts of his entries are pretty glum. I didn't see anything positive written
> > about anything, except his time spent with his new joystick.I found amazing the capability to rationalize coming late to classes and not
> caring about students as the fault of others.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[mad8]

Kev wrote:
> Oddly enough, the main theme (Mxsmanic) rarely joins in the personal
> bashing or his own defense. It just swirls around him. And the huge
> irony is that without the idiots who try to get rid of him, he'd be no
> topic at all.

Trolling 101

[Matt Barrow]

"Tony" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> In addiiton to being glum, I think he might be characterized as
> 'delusional'. Or, this would really be funny -- what if he's an
> imposter who created this fictional Mx character as a joke, and really
> flies big iron? If so, we'd have to give him a lot of credit because
> the personality he created is woven of whole cloth.

More likely, he's proof that they left the door unlocked at the Funny Farm.

[Skylune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gpsman writes:
>
> > That's an opinion, and not a very qualified one either... as usual.
>
> You cannot compensate for dishonesty and a total lack of ethics with
> personal attacks.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

They are simply mimicking the behaviour of their esteemed leader, Phil
Boyer. (Which is why John McCain will have nothing to do with the
man.) As you have probably derived by now, many of them have egos that
are inversely proportional to their IQs.

Be glad that you are in Europe -- you probably have not received the
types of threats (and other assorted harrassment) that I have.
Fortunately, I know at least one of the characters behind one of the
incidents, and in New Hamshire USA I have the legal means to defend
myself with extreme force (read Mossberg 500), if required.

Be extremely wary of offending this flying Mafia -- many think they are
tough guys and supercitizens, above the rules of mere earthlings,
merely because they spent a few thousand bucks and put in the time to
learn to fly a little tin can. Like a long-shoreman's union, some
will go far to protect their little hobby, its tax-subsidies, and the
shielding they currently have from environmental rules. Here is one
example:

http://www.stopthenoise.org/Pilot%20Talk.htm

[BDS[_2_]]

"Skylune" > wrote in message

> his usual anti-GA tripe

Yo Loon - you can't hold a candle to Mx. You are a mere novice at this
compared to the great one, and you should tremble in his presence.

[Skylune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
> > I was well within the fair use criteria and I gave you full credit.
>
> Quoting an entire entry is not fair use, nor do you satisfy the other
> criteria for fair use. Additionally, a glance at the site reveals
> that it contains advertising. By infringing on the copyright you
> deprive the author of revenue from that advertising.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I know of at least one case where a blog site was sued by a major
publication for republishing, in its entirety, a copyrighted article.
No financial loss need be proven in copyright infringement cases --
this is irrelevant. A copyright literally means "the right to copy."

[Skylune]

BDS wrote:
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
>
> > his usual anti-GA tripe
>
> Yo Loon - you can't hold a candle to Mx. You are a mere novice at this
> compared to the great one, and you should tremble in his presence.

Agreed. I would vote MX troll of the year myself. Unlike omnipotent
spam can drivers, I know my limitations.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> I was well within the fair use criteria and I gave you full credit.
>
> Quoting an entire entry is not fair use, nor do you satisfy the other
> criteria for fair use. Additionally, a glance at the site reveals
> that it contains advertising. By infringing on the copyright you
> deprive the author of revenue from that advertising.

You may then feel free to sue me.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gpsman writes:
>
>> There's no dishonesty; you were quoted, you were credited.
>
> The infringer knew what he was doing, and knew it was illegal, but he
> did it, anyway; and then he tried to rationalize his infringement to
> protect himself when he was called on it.
>
> He also was lacking in ethics in undertaking such an infringement to
> begin with. Apparently he feels that some targets aren't entitled to
> protection under the law, or that they won't pursue him legally for
> his infringement, or both.

Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on the page I
quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't part of the site
that does have copyright notification on it. Though I sort of like the idea
of you sueing me. I can think of nothing more entertaining than to get you
into a deposition.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > gpsman writes:
> >
> >> There's no dishonesty; you were quoted, you were credited.
> >
> > The infringer knew what he was doing, and knew it was illegal, but he
> > did it, anyway; and then he tried to rationalize his infringement to
> > protect himself when he was called on it.

> Though I sort of like the idea
> of you sueing me. I can think of nothing more entertaining than to get you
> into a deposition.

Even a lawyer doesn't deserve that kind of cruel and unusual punishment!

[Casey Wilson]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I know of at least one case where a blog site was sued by a major
> publication for republishing, in its entirety, a copyrighted article.
> No financial loss need be proven in copyright infringement cases --
> this is irrelevant. A copyright literally means "the right to copy."

Please quote the case law reference. I'd like to see the judgement for that
one.

[Casey Wilson]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

>
> Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on the page
> I quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't part of the site
> that does have copyright notification on it. Though I sort of like the
> idea of you sueing me. I can think of nothing more entertaining than to
> get you into a deposition.

The copyright notice, by word or symbol, is no longer required. It is
up to the author to prove s/he did in fact create the property in question.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on the page I
> quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't part of the site
> that does have copyright notification on it.

Copyright notification isn't required. Created works are protected by
copyright by default.

> Though I sort of like the idea
> of you sueing me. I can think of nothing more entertaining than to get you
> into a deposition.

Be careful what you wish for.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> You may then feel free to sue me.

It's up to the copyright owner to sue you, or to file a criminal
complaint.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:15:26 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on the page I
>quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't part of the site
>that does have copyright notification on it.

You need to research the law (see below).


http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to
reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or
phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in
sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S.
Code)<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107>. One of the
more important limitations is the doctrine of =93fair use. Although
fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine
has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the
years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright
law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and
research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in
determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the
potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear
and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines,
or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging
the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for
obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision
of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts
have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or
criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short
passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or
clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of
the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article,
with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of
a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by
a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson;
reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or
reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or
broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself;
it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information
conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give
this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted
material should be avoided unless the doctrine of =93fair use=94 would
clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither
determine if a certain use may be considered =93fair=94 nor advise on
possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable
to consult an attorney.

L-102, Revised July 2006

U.S. Copyright Office
101 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20559-6000
(202) 707-3000


-----------------------------------------------

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-b.html#3


When can I use a work without the author's permission?

When a work becomes available for use without permission from a
copyright owner, it is said to be "in the public domain." Most works
enter the public domain because their copyrights have expired.

To determine whether a work is in the public domain and available for
use without the author's permission, you first have to find out when
it was published. Then apply the following rules to see if the
copyright has expired:

All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public
domain.

Works published after 1922, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years
from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not
published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author
plus 70 years. However, even if the author died over 70 years ago, the
copyright in an unpublished work lasts until December 31, 2002.
For works published after 1977, the copyright lasts for the life of
the author plus 70 years. However, if the work is a work for hire
(that is, the work is done in the course of employment or has been
specifically commissioned) or is published anonymously or under a
pseudonym, the copyright lasts between 95 and 120 years, depending on
the date the work is published.

Lastly, if the work was published between 1923 and 1963, you must
check with the U.S. Copyright Office to see whether the copyright was
properly renewed. If the author failed to renew the copyright, the
work has fallen into the public domain and you may use it.
The Copyright Office will check renewal information for you, at a
charge of $20 per hour. (Call the Reference & Bibliography Section at
202-707-6850.) You can also hire a private copyright search firm to
see if a renewal was filed. Finally, you may be able to conduct a
renewal search yourself. The renewal records for works published from
1950 to the present are available online at
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright. Renewal searches for earlier works can
be conducted at the Copyright Office in Washington D.C. or by visiting
one of the many government depository libraries throughout the
country. Call the Copyright Office for more information.

With one important exception, you should assume that every work is
protected by copyright unless you can establish that it is not. As
mentioned above, you can't rely on the presence or absence of a
copyright notice (©) to make this determination, because a notice is
not required for works published after March 1, 1989. And even for
works published before 1989, the absence of a copyright notice may not
affect the validity of the copyright -- for example, if the author
made diligent attempts to correct the situation.

The exception is for materials put to work under the "fair use rule."
This rule recognizes that society can often benefit from the
unauthorized use of copyrighted materials when the purpose of the use
serves the ends of scholarship, education or an informed public. For
example, scholars must be free to quote from their research resources
in order to comment on the material. To strike a balance between the
needs of a public to be well-informed and the rights of copyright
owners to profit from their creativity, Congress passed a law
authorizing the use of copyrighted materials in certain circumstances
deemed to be "fair" -- even if the copyright owner doesn't give
permission.

Often, it's difficult to know whether a court will consider a proposed
use to be fair. The fair use statute requires the courts to consider
the following questions in deciding this issue:

Is it a competitive use? (In other words, if the use potentially
affects the sales of the copied material, it's usually not fair.)
How much material was taken compared to the entire work of which the
material was a part? (The more someone takes, the less likely it is
that the use is fair.)

How was the material used? Is it a transformative use? (If the
material was used to help create something new it is more likely to be
considered a fair use that if it is merely copied verbatim into
another work. Criticism, comment, news reporting, research,
scholarship and non-profit educational uses are most likely to be
judged fair uses. Uses motivated primarily by a desire for a
commercial gain are less likely to be fair use).

As a general rule, if you are using a small portion of somebody else's
work in a non-competitive way and the purpose for your use is to
benefit the public, you're on pretty safe ground. On the other hand,
if you take large portions of someone else's expression for your own
purely commercial reasons, the rule usually won't apply.

If You Want to Use Material on the Internet
Each day, people post vast quantities of creative material on the
Internet -- material that is available for downloading by anyone who
has the right computer equipment. Because the information is stored
somewhere on an Internet server, it is fixed in a tangible medium and
potentially qualifies for copyright protection. Whether it does, in
fact, qualify depends on other factors that you would have no way of
knowing about, such as when the work was first published (which
affects the need for a copyright notice), whether the copyright in the
work has been renewed (for works published before 1978), whether the
work is a work made for hire (which affects the length of the
copyright) and whether the copyright owner intends to dedicate the
work to the public domain. If you want to download the material for
use in your own work, you should be cautious. It's best to track down
the author of the material and ask for permission. The only exception
to this advice is for situations where you want to use only a very
small portion of text for educational or non-profit purposes. (For
more information, see Getting Permission to Publish: Ten Tips for
Webmasters in the Internet Law area of Nolo's Legal Encyclopedia.)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on the page I
> quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't part of the site
> that does have copyright notification on it. Though I sort of like the idea
> of you sueing me. I can think of nothing more entertaining than to get you
> into a deposition.


Depositions can be entertaining in and of themselves. I was sued once. My
lawyer told me there were three proper answers to any question: "yes", "no", and
"I don't remember". I followed his instructions and I was out in less than an
hour. Not the bitch that sued me though... she couldn't miss the opportunity to
embroider her testimony. Her deposition took her over 11.5 hours! God knows
what it cost her in legal fees.

We didn't pay her a damned dime and I didn't have to lay out a penny in personal
funds to defend myself. So sad, too bad. She's probably still flipping burgers
at McDonald's trying to pay off her shyster.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:15:26 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on the page I
>> quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't part of the site
>> that does have copyright notification on it.
>
> You need to research the law (see below).



Wouldn't that require me to give a **** first? Jeez... everybody's a lawyer
around here. Here's the bottom line of this whole subthread: when all is said
and done, when every line has been written and read, nobody's going to do diddly
squat. It's all a massive flapping of the lips. You can choose which lips I
mean.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Steve Foley]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S.
> Code)<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107>.

Does this cover something written in France?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:15:26 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on
>> the page I quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't
>> part of the site that does have copyright notification on it.
>
> You need to research the law (see below).
>

Acctually no I don't. I had forgotten that no copyright notification had to
be posted. I knew it but it slipped my mind. But that isn't the reason I
don't need to research the law on the issue. The reason is Anthony couldn't
get a lawyer to take the case in a million years. It would require two
things he doesn't have. Money and the ability to interact with real people.

[Tom Conner]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:15:26 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on
>> the page I quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't
>> part of the site that does have copyright notification on it.
>
> You need to research the law (see below).
>
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
> ....big snip....
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-b.html#3
>
> .....big snip.....

That was interesting. Also, I could have sworn that I read in the past that
using material for political purposes was also considered fair use, but I
didn't notice that in the snipped text. Of course, if all copyright
violations were ever enforced then the courts, and society, would grind to a
halt.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Does this cover something written in France?

Reciprocity applies; and French copyright law is even more
restrictive.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tom Conner writes:

> Of course, if all copyright
> violations were ever enforced then the courts, and society, would grind to a
> halt.

That time may come. Just look at Microsoft Vista, or talk to the RIAA
or AMPAAS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:04:46 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote in <iHRoh.3852$V91.601@trndny05>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S.
>> Code)<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107>.
>
>Does this cover something written in France?
>

I have no idea what court(s?) would have legal jurisdiction. Perhaps
international law would apply. Someone is going to have to resort to
expending the effort to do their own research.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:13:10 GMT, "Tom Conner" >
wrote in et>:

>Of course, if all copyright violations were ever enforced then the courts,
>and society, would grind to a halt.

Not to mention the software and movie pirates in the orient.

[Steve Foley]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:04:46 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> > wrote in <iHRoh.3852$V91.601@trndny05>:
>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S.
>>> Code)<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107>.
>>
>>Does this cover something written in France?
>>
>
> I have no idea what court(s?) would have legal jurisdiction. Perhaps
> international law would apply. Someone is going to have to resort to
> expending the effort to do their own research.
>

Interesting dilemma.

A US court could claim that no US copyright was violated. A French court
could claim the violation did not occur in France.

[Peter Dohm]

> >> Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on the
page I
> >> quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't part of the
site
> >> that does have copyright notification on it.
> >
> > You need to research the law (see below).
>
>
>
> Wouldn't that require me to give a **** first? Jeez... everybody's a
lawyer
> around here. Here's the bottom line of this whole subthread: when all is
said
> and done, when every line has been written and read, nobody's going to do
diddly
> squat. It's all a massive flapping of the lips. You can choose which
lips I
> mean.
>
>
Exactly !!!

Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> A US court could claim that no US copyright was violated.

The U.S. is obliged by treaty to honor French copyrights, and vice
versa. Reciprocity.

> A French court could claim the violation did not occur in France.

French courts tend to be quite draconian and very favorable towards
copyright holders, which can be either good or bad, depending on which
side of the lawsuit or criminal case you are on.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> You may then feel free to sue me.
>
> It's up to the copyright owner to sue you, or to file a criminal
> complaint.

This implies you are *not* the copyright owner.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFo/s7yBkZmuMZ8L8RAq65AJ45vgSrPWvWI14CIGTi0DzJEuYO7wCd FQVk
8qCbBKjPQkH0ehmWLMP9Lfs=
=Ogw0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:52:58 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>:

>hen all is said and done, when every line has been written and read,
>nobody's going to do diddly squat.

Given that nearly 800 of Anthony's photographic art has been copied by
Google
<http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=+site:www.atkielski.com+Atkielski>.
it would seem that Mr. Atkielski certainly isn't going to enforce his
copyrights, even when the infringer has deep-pockets.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> A US court could claim that no US copyright was violated.
>
> The U.S. is obliged by treaty to honor French copyrights, and vice
> versa. Reciprocity.
>
>> A French court could claim the violation did not occur in France.
>
> French courts tend to be quite draconian and very favorable towards
> copyright holders, which can be either good or bad, depending on which
> side of the lawsuit or criminal case you are on.

Oh oh, You quoted Steve's copyrighted post in your post. I'm sure you will
be hearing from his lawyers.

[Dan Youngquist]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Do I understand correctly that this web site and Blog site and the
> person associated with these sites represent the real person who is
> known on these newsgroups as Mxsmanic?

Apparently that's the case. After a look at his website & blog, seems
like a pretty decent guy. I bet most of us would like him in person.

-Dan

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Given that nearly 800 of Anthony's photographic art has been copied by
> Google
> <http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=+site:www.atkielski.com+Atkielski>.
> it would seem that Mr. Atkielski certainly isn't going to enforce his
> copyrights, even when the infringer has deep-pockets.

Unlike patents and trademarks, a copyright need not be actively
defended against all infringers in order to remain valid. Anyone can
be sued or prosecuted at any time.

Infringement actions generally require that the copyright holder have
deep pockets, as the cost of any legal action is extremely high.
Often the copyright holders who are the most vigorous in their pursuit
of infringers are exactly those whom the law wasn't really designed to
protect, such as large media companies. Individual artists of modest
means who may depend on copyright protection to help them support
themselves often do not have the resources to sue or prosecute for
infringement.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Oh oh, You quoted Steve's copyrighted post in your post. I'm sure you will
> be hearing from his lawyers.

Jurisprudence has not been established for backquoting. In most
jurisdictions it is probably a permissible use, as long as entire
posts are not reproduced wholesale with a one-line rejoinder.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> This implies you are *not* the copyright owner.

It implies nothing about me at all.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Richard Riley wrote:

> Do you happen to know what he teaches?

Ground School, he's just got to keep one lesson ahead of the class.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> After a look at his website & blog, seems
> like a pretty decent guy.
>

Uhm, well... No, I won't go there.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Richard,

> Do you happen to know what he teaches?
>

English.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steve Foley]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Richard,
>
>> Do you happen to know what he teaches?
>>
>
> English.
>

Is that Wall Street English? (I saw ads for "Wall Street English" when I was
in Paris).

When I was there, it was very hot, so when my family and I went into Paris
(we stayed just outside Paris - near a train station) we filled empty soda
bottles with water and froze them the night before. Throughout the day we
would drink whatever had melted.

I read on his blog that during the same time period he complained of the
high cost of soda from street vendors.

I guess it's all priorities. I won't buy a bottle of soda at $1.00 (or 1
euro) but I own a plane.

He buys soda and fast food all the time, but won't take an intro flight.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Acctually no I don't. I had forgotten that no copyright notification had
> to be posted. I knew it but it slipped my mind. But that isn't the reason
> I don't need to research the law on the issue. The reason is Anthony
> couldn't get a lawyer to take the case in a million years. It would
> require two things he doesn't have. Money and the ability to interact with
> real people.
He might get a simulated lawyer. MSLS beta0.1.

He might need the International Version.

[Matt Barrow]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
news:3zOoh.2460$%Q4.28@trnddc06...
>
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> I know of at least one case where a blog site was sued by a major
>> publication for republishing, in its entirety, a copyrighted article.
>> No financial loss need be proven in copyright infringement cases --
>> this is irrelevant. A copyright literally means "the right to copy."
>
> Please quote the case law reference. I'd like to see the judgement for
> that one.
I don't know the case but it was Little Green Footballs that was sued.

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> Do you happen to know what he teaches?
>
> Ground School, he's just got to keep one lesson ahead of the class.

Except it's apparent he's one lesson BEHIND the class.
>
> Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Me neither.

[Doug Spencer]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:28:41 +0100
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Unlike patents and trademarks, a copyright need not be actively
> defended against all infringers in order to remain valid. Anyone can
> be sued or prosecuted at any time.

You do realize that photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night are generally verboten due to copyright issues, right? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower for information on the issues and http://www.atkielski.com/PhotoGallery/Paris/Eiffel/EiffelNightLarge.html for a nice example.

It seems odd that a photographing a publicly viewable building or structure can be prohibited due to copyright, but apparently it has come to that.

Anyway, what is this group about? Oh yeah, piloting. How about I tie this in with piloting by saying some nice photographs of places can be taken from an airplane. It gives a perspective that isn't available from other vantage points.

Doug


--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Spencer writes:

> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:28:41 +0100
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Unlike patents and trademarks, a copyright need not be actively
> > defended against all infringers in order to remain valid. Anyone can
> > be sued or prosecuted at any time.
>
> You do realize that photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night are generally verboten due to copyright issues, right? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower for information on the issues and http://www.atkielski.com/PhotoGallery/Paris/Eiffel/EiffelNightLarge.html for a nice example.
>
> It seems odd that a photographing a publicly viewable building or structure can be prohibited due to copyright, but apparently it has come to that.
>
> Anyway, what is this group about? Oh yeah, piloting. How about I tie this in with piloting by saying some nice photographs of places can be taken from an airplane. It gives a perspective that isn't available from other vantage points.
>
> Doug


--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Doug Spencer" > wrote

> It seems odd that a photographing a publicly viewable building or
> structure can be prohibited due to copyright, but apparently it has come
> to that.

If you read further on the Wippy page, you will find that pictures with part
of the city in it has been found by a judge to be legal. It was still legal
in the US and Germany, to name a couple, before that
--
Jim in NC.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:22:12 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Doug Spencer writes:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:28:41 +0100
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > Unlike patents and trademarks, a copyright need not be actively
>> > defended against all infringers in order to remain valid. Anyone can
>> > be sued or prosecuted at any time.
>>
>> You do realize that photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night are generally verboten due to copyright issues, right? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower for information on the issues and http://www.atkielski.com/PhotoGallery/Paris/Eiffel/EiffelNightLarge.html for a nice example.
>>
>> It seems odd that a photographing a publicly viewable building or structure can be prohibited due to copyright, but apparently it has come to that.
>>
>> Anyway, what is this group about? Oh yeah, piloting. How about I tie this in with piloting by saying some nice photographs of places can be taken from an airplane. It gives a perspective that isn't available from other vantage points.
>>
>> Doug


Finally, you left Mr. Atkielski speechless. :-)

[Tony]

You know, pictures of P aris are more or less a simulation of that
city, without having to deal with the French.


One could argue by analogy that a simulated visit is as good as the
real thing.

We could ask questions of the real residents and -- oh, now the MX
experience becomes more obvious -- not be surprised when they are rude.







On Jan 11, 6:52 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:22:12 +0100, Mxsmanic >
> wrote in >:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Doug Spencer writes:
>
> >> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:28:41 +0100
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >> > Unlike patents and trademarks, a copyright need not be actively
> >> > defended against all infringers in order to remain valid. Anyone can
> >> > be sued or prosecuted at any time.
>
> >> You do realize that photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night are generally verboten due to copyright issues, right? Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Towerfor information on the issues andhttp://www.atkielski.com/PhotoGallery/Paris/Eiffel/EiffelNightLarge.htmlfor a nice example.
>
> >> It seems odd that a photographing a publicly viewable building or structure can be prohibited due to copyright, but apparently it has come to that.
>
> >> Anyway, what is this group about? Oh yeah, piloting. How about I tie this in with piloting by saying some nice photographs of places can be taken from an airplane. It gives a perspective that isn't available from other vantage points.
>
> >> DougFinally, you left Mr. Atkielski speechless. :-)- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[george]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:04:46 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> > wrote in <iHRoh.3852$V91.601@trndny05>:
>
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S.
> >> Code)<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107>.
> >
> >Does this cover something written in France?
> >
>
> I have no idea what court(s?) would have legal jurisdiction. Perhaps
> international law would apply. Someone is going to have to resort to
> expending the effort to do their own research.

no doubt the tower is in Mxsmanics flight sim.
every time he takes his 'pax' on a 'scenic' he's breaking copyright :-)

[Blanche Cohen]

I hate what I'm about to do... I really hate it. But .....

The Berne Convention of 1986, ratified in the USA as the Berne Treaty,
does not require an explicit notice of copyright for original material.
A blog can be interpreted as original, creative material.
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" with a
"modicum of creativity"

ref: Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service, 499 US 340,359-60,
(rejecting the argument that effort expended on creating a publication,
in this cas a directory, can translated into copyright protection)

ref: West Pub v Mead Data Central 799 F.2d 1219, 8th Cir 1986, cert
dennied 479 US 1070 (1987) (West's arrangement of legal decisions
entails enough intellectual labor and originality to receive
copyright protection)

It is common practice, altho no longer required, to include the explicit
coyright notice. The case "Religious Technology Center v Netcom"
(907 F.Supp 1361 1995) is a Federal ruling that states the copyright
notice may be sufficient to support ... copyright infringement. In
fact the ruling states "Where works contain copyright notices
within them, it is hard to argue that a defendant did not know the
works were copyrighted".

I would also point out that the issue of profit is irrelevant.
ref: 17 U.S.C. 506(a). However, I've never heard/known of a case that
went to court that *didn't* involve substantial profit issues.

BTW - copyright infringement can be considered criminal law, but all
actions I know of (in the US) are only civil.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Blanche Cohen" > wrote in message
...
>I hate what I'm about to do... I really hate it. But .....

It does not change the fact that copyright is not widely enforced when fair
use is applicable, and when there are no deep pockets to go after.

Both apply, here.
--
Jim in NC
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> It does not change the fact that copyright is not widely enforced when fair
> use is applicable, and when there are no deep pockets to go after.

If fair use is applicable, there is no infringement. However, fair use
is almost never applicable, contrary to what many infringers would
like to believe. Most people who claim fair use are actually
infringing, and the fact that the copyright holder may not choose to
sue or prosecute (or may not have the resources to do so) does not
eliminate the reality of the infringement.

Thus, your statement is an oxymoron. If it is truly fair use (which
it almost never is), it's not an infringement. And if it's an
infringement (which it usually is), there is no fair use.

Even copyright holders with deep pockets may not pursue infringements
that have only a low dollar value, although some organizations in the
music and entertainment trades irrationally pursue minor infringements
in an attempt to set examples (not realizing that they do more harm
than good by ruining their own reputations).

Some jurisdictions have no notion of fair use, also, and in those
jurisdictions, every unauthorized use is an infringement.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kev]

Morgans wrote:
> "Blanche Cohen" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I hate what I'm about to do... I really hate it. But .....
>
> It does not change the fact that copyright is not widely enforced when fair
> use is applicable, and when there are no deep pockets to go after.

Fair use? A simple link would've made more sense.

Back in the 80's, I was an early software seller. Piracy was a
constant problem. Copyright protection is, as you say, often not
enforced.... instead it usually depends on a person's sense of honor..

Kev

[george]

BDS wrote:

> "Skylune" > wrote in message
>
> > his usual anti-GA tripe
>
> Yo Loon - you can't hold a candle to Mx. You are a mere novice at this
> compared to the great one, and you should tremble in his presence.

I saw the loon part of his nick and am treating him accordingly

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Richard Riley wrote:
> He has GOT to get another job.
>
> I'm not saying he isn't capable of teaching English. But it's not
> giving him enough work or income.


That's because he "forgets" to show up and actually teach. It's really not his
fault.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:33:22 -0500, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>Interesting!
>DH

People are taking the blog as real when it's just as likely its as
real as the flight of fantasy at the beginning. However there is no
way of knowing at least for most of us.

RH
>
>
>
>"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>news:h_voh.1664$GL.684@trndny06...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Do I understand correctly that this web site and Blog site and the person
>>> associated with these sites represent the real person who is known on
>>> these newsgroups as Mxsmanic? Can the factual data that makes this
>>> connection be presented please?
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> Whois lookup for mxsmanic.com:
>>
>> Registrant:
>> Anthony Atkielski
>> Anthony Atkielski
>> 29 rue du General Bertrand
>> Paris, 75007
>> FR
>> Email:
>>
>> Whosi lookup for atkielski.com
>>
>> Registrant:
>> Anthony Atkielski
>> Anthony Atkielski
>> 29 rue du General Bertrand
>> Paris, 75007
>> FR
>> Email:
>>
>> The atkielski.com home page has a link (left side underf FAQs and Essays)
>> to http://aprenta.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Kev]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Richard Riley wrote:
> > I'm not saying he isn't capable of teaching English. But it's not
> > giving him enough work or income.
>
> That's because he "forgets" to show up and actually teach. It's really not his
> fault.

It must be great to never forget something because you got distracted.
We're all in awe of your perfect memory.

Really, thanks for the chuckle,
Kev

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Kev" > wrote:

> > That's because he "forgets" to show up and actually teach. It's really not
> > his fault.
>
> It must be great to never forget something because you got distracted.
> We're all in awe of your perfect memory.

It takes a "perfect memory" to remember to go to work?
wow! I must have a perfect memory.

> Really, thanks for the chuckle,

indeed.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Kev]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Kev" > wrote:
>
> > > That's because he "forgets" to show up and actually teach. It's really not
> > > his fault.
> >
> > It must be great to never forget something because you got distracted.
> > We're all in awe of your perfect memory.
>
> It takes a "perfect memory" to remember to go to work?
> wow! I must have a perfect memory.

You must. Heck, I've even forgotten it was a work day at times :-)

The part of the blog that people seem to refer to, is when he gets a
call that he has an extra appointment. At the same moment, something
else happens and he forgets to write it down. I would be surprised if
this hasn't happened to everyone at some time or another. Unless no
one ever calls you, of course ;-)

Kev

[Dave Stadt]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>> Richard Riley wrote:
>> > I'm not saying he isn't capable of teaching English. But it's not
>> > giving him enough work or income.
>>
>> That's because he "forgets" to show up and actually teach. It's really
>> not his
>> fault.
>
> It must be great to never forget something because you got distracted.
> We're all in awe of your perfect memory.

I have been working since 1969 and never once did I forget to go to work. I
don't think that is unusual.

>
> Really, thanks for the chuckle,
> Kev
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Kev" > wrote:
>
>>> That's because he "forgets" to show up and actually teach. It's really not
>>> his fault.
>>
>> It must be great to never forget something because you got distracted.
>> We're all in awe of your perfect memory.
>
> It takes a "perfect memory" to remember to go to work?
> wow! I must have a perfect memory.


Me, too. I remembered to go both yesterday and today. That's probably why
they're going to pay me next Friday, though I can't be sure. It may be just
because they like me.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Kev" > wrote:

> The part of the blog that people seem to refer to, is when he gets a
> call that he has an extra appointment. At the same moment, something
> else happens and he forgets to write it down. I would be surprised if
> this hasn't happened to everyone at some time or another. Unless no
> one ever calls you, of course ;-)

Then prepare to be surprised. Come on, get real. The service industry
handles this all the time. How many times has a plumber or electrician
or contractor failed to show up for you because they "forgot"? When I
was tuning pianos for a living or just for extra income (e.g., in college or
as a side job), I NEVER forgot to write down the appointment and NEVER
forgot to go to the call. My father rebuilt player pianos for decades and
NEVER forgot a call. Not once, not even one time, has someone forgotten
a service call at my house.

If someone doesn't have the discipline to write down appointments, then
they have no business (no pun) doing service-like work.

And finally, there is a world of difference between forgotting once and
having a habit of "forgetting".

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Barrow]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
>
> Me, too. I remembered to go both yesterday and today. That's probably
> why they're going to pay me next Friday, though I can't be sure. It may
> be just because they like me.
>
Yup! That's why you get the BIG BUCKS, Mort! :~)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:29:56 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>My father rebuilt player pianos for decades

Then he must have heard of Carty Piano who rose from humble beginnings
in the early '60s to probability become the largest player piano
restorer on the west coast. Ah, it brings back fond memories of
rabbit-skin glue in a thermal jacketed pot, disassembling a thousand
wooden parts, ironing-off old pneumatic cloth, re-tubing the tracker
bar, vacuuming out a century's worth of dust, regulating the action
and leveling the keyboard.... Dick Carty is still alive and well in
Ventura, California. Would I recognize the name of your father's
business?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >My father rebuilt player pianos for decades
>
> Then he must have heard of Carty Piano who rose from humble beginnings
> in the early '60s to probability become the largest player piano
> restorer on the west coast. Ah, it brings back fond memories of
> rabbit-skin glue in a thermal jacketed pot, disassembling a thousand
> wooden parts, ironing-off old pneumatic cloth, re-tubing the tracker
> bar, vacuuming out a century's worth of dust, regulating the action
> and leveling the keyboard.... Dick Carty is still alive and well in
> Ventura, California. Would I recognize the name of your father's
> business?

Maybe not, since we were (are) on the east coast, and you didn't
make the connection between Noel and Noel's Piano Supply.

You ironed the cloth off? ugh. Lightly burn it and it comes off
easily. Sure, there are bellows that can't be easily burned, but
ironing-off the old cloth is sooooo slow.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:59:57 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>Maybe not, since we were (are) on the east coast, and you didn't
>make the connection between Noel and Noel's Piano Supply.

I was only an amateur who restored a couple of pianos, so I wasn't so
intimately involved in the business. But I'll bet Dick would
recognize the name.

>You ironed the cloth off? ugh. Lightly burn it and it comes off
>easily. Sure, there are bellows that can't be easily burned, but
>ironing-off the old cloth is sooooo slow.

It wasn't too slow if the iron was hot. The glue readily re-melted,
and the old pneumatic cloth slid right off. Didn't burning the cloth
cause a lot of noxious fumes and char scaring of the wood? You didn't
use a torch to remove the pneumatic bellows from the stack did you;
you used an iron right?

Today, of course, the popularity of mechanical pianos is in rapid
decline in favor of smaller, less expensive electronic keyboards, but
I still thrill at the sounds of a real grand piano lilting through the
house even if it is being played by a PianoDisc system:
http://www.pianodisc.com/

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >Maybe not, since we were (are) on the east coast, and you didn't
> >make the connection between Noel and Noel's Piano Supply.
>
> I was only an amateur who restored a couple of pianos, so I wasn't so
> intimately involved in the business. But I'll bet Dick would
> recognize the name.

Later today I'll try to remember to ask my father if he remembers the
name

> >You ironed the cloth off? ugh. Lightly burn it and it comes off
> >easily. Sure, there are bellows that can't be easily burned, but
> >ironing-off the old cloth is sooooo slow.
>
> It wasn't too slow if the iron was hot. The glue readily re-melted,
> and the old pneumatic cloth slid right off.

Way quicker to put 10 or so into a C-clamp, lightly burn it, open the
clamp, use a floor-standing 6" belt-sander to clean off the pneumatics
(in groups of 3), being very careful of the hinged end.

> Didn't burning the cloth
> cause a lot of noxious fumes and char scaring of the wood?

fumes, yes. Noxious? I hope not. :-)

if you burned the wood, you burned it too much. Use a propane torch
to just get the cloth/glue to char/bubble just a little.

>You didn't
> use a torch to remove the pneumatic bellows from the stack did you;
> you used an iron right?

For the pneumatics, the only time you need to use an iron is when chiseling
doesn't work. We had (and still have) a slightly dull wood chisel that was
perfect (if the chisel can cut pine, it's way too sharp). Start the pneumatic
with a hit or two underneath along the entire row, a hit or two on the side
and hinged end of each pneumatic, and they pop right off, usually. Sometimes
the glue is so old/dried that you can knock them off with one hit if you did it
just right - took practice.

The beauty of chiseling was that often they wouldn't come off clean and smooth,
which helped in positioning the pneumatic when we glued them back on.

If we broke one, we simply made a new one.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:19:34 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>The beauty of chiseling was that often they wouldn't come off clean and smooth,
>which helped in positioning the pneumatic when we glued them back on.

I was taught to drill shallow holes through the pneumatic into the
stack, and put short pieces of steel rod (cut 3d nails worked) into
the holes, so that they could be keyed back into their exact original
position.

Those were the days. I'm better for the experience, but I'm happy
they are behind me.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >My father rebuilt player pianos for decades
>
> Then he must have heard of Carty Piano who rose from humble beginnings

Nope. My father doesn't remember him.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >The beauty of chiseling was that often they wouldn't come off clean and
> >smooth,
> >which helped in positioning the pneumatic when we glued them back on.
>
> I was taught to drill shallow holes through the pneumatic into the
> stack, and put short pieces of steel rod (cut 3d nails worked) into
> the holes, so that they could be keyed back into their exact original
> position.

wow. ohmygawd, wow. That is so labor intensive. Obviously
it works, but it's a bit more than necessary.

If you use a pencil, you can draw a line across the hinged end. This
shows how far back to have the pneumatic. For left/right, there is always
some marking left on the stack which shows where the pneumatic was.
And the pencil line has a little dip in-between the pneumatics as extra
information.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:35:46 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> >My father rebuilt player pianos for decades
>>
>> Then he must have heard of Carty Piano who rose from humble beginnings
>
>Nope. My father doesn't remember him.


Oh well. Thanks.