|
|
Copyright explained in simple terms :-) (General Discussion)
Copyright explained in simple terms :-) // General Discussion
Oct 14, 2003, 8:35pm
When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you write, if
the copy is right. If however, your copy falls over, you must right your
copy. If you write religious services you write rite, and have the right to
copyright the rite you write.
Very conservative people write right copy, and have the right to copyright
the right copy they write. A right wing cleric would write right rite, and
has the right to copyright the right rite he has the right to write. His
editor has the job of making the right rite copy right before the copyright
can be right.
Should Jim Wright decide to write right rite, then Wright would write right
rite, which Wright has the right to copyright. Duplicating that rite would
copy Wright right rite, and violate copyright, which Wright would have the
right to right.
Right?
Copyright 1991 Shelley Herman (saherman at pacbell.net)
Share and Enjoy
Oct 14, 2003, 8:45pm
[View Quote]
> When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you write, if
> the copy is right. If however, your copy falls over, you must right your
> copy. If you write religious services you write rite, and have the right to
> copyright the rite you write.
>
> Very conservative people write right copy, and have the right to copyright
> the right copy they write. A right wing cleric would write right rite, and
> has the right to copyright the right rite he has the right to write. His
> editor has the job of making the right rite copy right before the copyright
> can be right.
>
> Should Jim Wright decide to write right rite, then Wright would write right
> rite, which Wright has the right to copyright. Duplicating that rite would
> copy Wright right rite, and violate copyright, which Wright would have the
> right to right.
>
> Right?
>
> Copyright 1991 Shelley Herman (saherman at pacbell.net)
>
>
>
> Share and Enjoy
>
>
right :)
--
Andras
"It's MY computer" (tm Steve Gibson)
Oct 14, 2003, 8:49pm
hahahahaha, that's great. :D Left me a bit confused, but, excellent
none-the-less. ;)
-Joe
[View Quote]"wizard myrddin" <wiz at nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3f8c7a2a$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you write, if
> the copy is right. If however, your copy falls over, you must right your
> copy. If you write religious services you write rite, and have the right
to
> copyright the rite you write.
>
> Very conservative people write right copy, and have the right to copyright
> the right copy they write. A right wing cleric would write right rite, and
> has the right to copyright the right rite he has the right to write. His
> editor has the job of making the right rite copy right before the
copyright
> can be right.
>
> Should Jim Wright decide to write right rite, then Wright would write
right
> rite, which Wright has the right to copyright. Duplicating that rite would
> copy Wright right rite, and violate copyright, which Wright would have the
> right to right.
>
> Right?
>
> Copyright 1991 Shelley Herman (saherman at pacbell.net)
>
>
>
> Share and Enjoy
>
>
|
Oct 14, 2003, 11:37pm
Give that to insanity and maybe he would shut up in the community newsgroups
:)
-M
[View Quote]"wizard myrddin" <wiz at nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3f8c7a2a$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you write, if
> the copy is right. If however, your copy falls over, you must right your
> copy. If you write religious services you write rite, and have the right
to
> copyright the rite you write.
>
> Very conservative people write right copy, and have the right to copyright
> the right copy they write. A right wing cleric would write right rite, and
> has the right to copyright the right rite he has the right to write. His
> editor has the job of making the right rite copy right before the
copyright
> can be right.
>
> Should Jim Wright decide to write right rite, then Wright would write
right
> rite, which Wright has the right to copyright. Duplicating that rite would
> copy Wright right rite, and violate copyright, which Wright would have the
> right to right.
>
> Right?
>
> Copyright 1991 Shelley Herman (saherman at pacbell.net)
>
>
>
> Share and Enjoy
>
>
|
Oct 14, 2003, 11:42pm
And to think you did all that WITHOUT typos!! (applauds) hehehe ;-"D
[View Quote]"wizard myrddin" <wiz at nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3f8c7a2a$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you write, if
> the copy is right. If however, your copy falls over, you must right your
> copy. If you write religious services you write rite, and have the right
to
> copyright the rite you write.
>
> Very conservative people write right copy, and have the right to copyright
> the right copy they write. A right wing cleric would write right rite, and
> has the right to copyright the right rite he has the right to write. His
> editor has the job of making the right rite copy right before the
copyright
> can be right.
>
> Should Jim Wright decide to write right rite, then Wright would write
right
> rite, which Wright has the right to copyright. Duplicating that rite would
> copy Wright right rite, and violate copyright, which Wright would have the
> right to right.
>
> Right?
>
> Copyright 1991 Shelley Herman (saherman at pacbell.net)
>
>
>
> Share and Enjoy
>
>
|
Oct 15, 2003, 4:46am
*mubling* right copy... rite.... write..... *all confuzled*
~Confuzled Scuz
[View Quote]"wizard myrddin" <wiz at nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3f8c7a2a$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you write, if
> the copy is right. If however, your copy falls over, you must right your
> copy. If you write religious services you write rite, and have the right
to
> copyright the rite you write.
>
> Very conservative people write right copy, and have the right to copyright
> the right copy they write. A right wing cleric would write right rite, and
> has the right to copyright the right rite he has the right to write. His
> editor has the job of making the right rite copy right before the
copyright
> can be right.
>
> Should Jim Wright decide to write right rite, then Wright would write
right
> rite, which Wright has the right to copyright. Duplicating that rite would
> copy Wright right rite, and violate copyright, which Wright would have the
> right to right.
>
> Right?
>
> Copyright 1991 Shelley Herman (saherman at pacbell.net)
>
>
>
> Share and Enjoy
>
>
|
Oct 15, 2003, 11:58am
na, he'll just make a bad quality version of it, and put it on his website
:)
-SWE
[View Quote]"mod" <mod at darkbirdie.com> wrote in message
news:3f8ca4c2$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Give that to insanity and maybe he would shut up in the community
newsgroups
> :)
>
> -M
> "wizard myrddin" <wiz at nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f8c7a2a$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
if
> to
copyright
and
> copyright
> right
would
the
>
>
|
|
