[Lennier]

Nope, you have no copyright to assign to anyone because
you are not the author or designer of that certificate.

<yawn>

Merely because I wasn't the author or the designer of my certificate does
not mean that I have not been granted the full ownership of my certificate
- including the right to copy it - the copyRIGHT.

This is self-evident.


Lennier

 

[Lennier]

Nope, its one copy of countless issued to every
student which just happens to have your name on it.

There are not "countless" issued with my name on them. I own the only
certificate that has been issued by that Polytechnic with my name on it.

There is ONE only in existence - and I possess it. From that original
certificate I only can produce copies - not least being because I am the
only person with access to that certificate.


Lennier

 

[Lennier]

Yes but you do not own the copyright, because you arent the author or
the designer.

Merely because I am not the author or the designer does not mean that I
was not assigned the copyright to my certificate.

If I was not assigned the copyright then I would not be able to make
copies - would not even be able legally to photocopy it.


Lennier

 

[Lennier]

Mindlessly superifical legally.

It's the reality - it's what those words mean. It's the intent of
"copyright".


Lennier

 

[Phil Allison]

"Lennier"


** Give up - Lennier.

You are endlessly repeating the same fallacy.

You are one stupid little kiwi autistic.

Baaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.......




.......... Phil

 

[Lennier]

Its actually an implied license/permission from the actual copyright owner,
just like you have when quoting material from my posts in your replys.

Bullshit!

It is *my* certificate to do what I like with. What I cannot do, and what
I do not own are the logos and various images that were used to construct
my certificate. I cannot use those in some other document for some other
purpose.

But my certificate - I can do what I like with it - I can do anything I
please with it, and I do not need anyone else's permission to do so.


Lennier

 

[Lennier]

Baaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.......

Something wrong with your keyboard?


Lennier

 

[Ken Taylor]

Umm no you don't.
I built my computer with no electrical cert.

Did it and are permitted to do it are two different things. However,
using the same logic of needing a permit because 240V is involved (and let's
face it, you shouldn't be able to come into contact with the mains in a
modern PC), would I need a permit to open up a vacuum cleaner and change the
bag?

Ken

 

[Rod Speed]

Did it and are permitted to do it are two different things. However,
using the same logic of needing a permit because 240V is involved (and let's
face it, you shouldn't be able to come into contact with the mains in a
modern PC), would I need a permit to open up a vacuum cleaner and change the
bag?

Corse you do in sheep-raper-land, stupid.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

In that case the Polytechnic is not producing a "duplicate"

Wrong. If its identical to the original, its a duplicate.

- rather, it is producing another original certificate.

Thats what the word copy means, not the word duplicate.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

No - just means I wasn't the ORIGINAL copyright owner.

You aint the author/designer. You have NO copyright legally.

Read the legislation.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

And that original certificate with my name on it is
the only certificate that I have been talking about.

Duh. What matters is that ALL you own is that particular certificate.

You do NOT own the COPYRIGHT at all, because you aint
the author or designer or creator of that particular certificate.
You are just the owner of it. A different matter entirely.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

<yawn>

Stop dozing off, child or go to your room.

Merely because I wasn't the author or the designer of my certificate does
not mean that I have not been granted the full ownership of my certificate
Correct.

- including the right to copy it - the copyRIGHT.

Thats not what the word copyright means in the copyright act.

Read the legislation. And weep.

This is self-evident.

Fraid not.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

There are not "countless" issued with my name on them.

Never said there was. I clearly said that 'its one
copy ... which just happens to have your name on it'

I own the only certificate that has been issued
by that Polytechnic with my name on it.

Correct. But you do NOT own the copyright to that particular copy.

There is ONE only in existence - and I possess it.

Completely irrelevant to who owns the copyright to it.

From that original certificate I only can produce copies

Wrong again.

- not least being because I am the only
person with access to that certificate.

Wrong again. The polytech can churn out duplicates if they want, legally.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Merely because I am not the author or the designer does not
mean that I was not assigned the copyright to my certificate.

Fraid so. Read the legislation. And weep.

If I was not assigned the copyright then I would not be able to
make copies - would not even be able legally to photocopy it.

Wrong again. You have the implied permission of the actual
copyright owner to do that. Just like you have implied permission
from me to quote what I am the copyright owner of, my text
in this post, because I have posted it in a public forum.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

It's the reality

Wrong. Its just your silly idea.

- it's what those words mean.

Wrong. Read the legislation where that is defined. And weep.

It's the intent of "copyright".

Wrong. Read the legislation where that is defined. And weep.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Bullshit!

Fraid so. Read the legislation. And weep.

It is *my* certificate to do what I like with.

Correct. But you are NOT the copyright owner. The polytech is.

What I cannot do, and what I do not own are the logos and
various images that were used to construct my certificate.

You are not the owner of the copyright either.

You only have the permission of the
copyright owner to copy your particular copy.

I cannot use those in some other document for some other purpose.

Even thats comprehensively mangled.

You're welcome to paper your walls with it if you want.

Or wipe your arse on it too.

But my certificate - I can do what I like with it - I can do anything I
please with it, and I do not need anyone else's permission to do so.

Correct. Just like with say a paperback you have bought.

But you are NOT the copyright owner.

 

[T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz]

Corse you do in sheep-raper-land, stupid.

man, australia is so backward... having to have a permit to change a
vacuum cleaner bag.

 

[T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz]

Merely because I wasn't the author or the designer of my certificate does
not mean that I have not been granted the full ownership of my certificate
- including the right to copy it - the copyRIGHT.

In the USA, although you have the right to copy music to another medium,
you most certainly have no copyright over the music.

I think your aguement is flawed here lennier, a copyright does not mean
the right to copy... well, not exactly.

 

[harry]

In the USA, although you have the right to copy music to another
medium, you most certainly have no copyright over the music.

I think your aguement is flawed here lennier, a copyright does not
mean the right to copy... well, not exactly.

The copyright holder may permit the copying with conditions ie the copy may
not be further reproduced or all the attached copyright notices must be
preserved, or the copies are not for publication.
Lennier is the owner of the original not the copyright holder.
Lennier owns the paper and ink, the copyright holder retains a property
right to the information.
Otherwise the certification authority has no control over its certificate
being issued with altered names for the purpose of counterfeiting.