my mass which is 74 pounds lower than it was previously speaks for itself.

go away troll

I eat less. I eat better and I excercies WAY more than most people. hence my
rapid weight loss.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

was 415 now 344 and still going strong.

never said it did but you felt the need to insult me so I had this
compulsive desire to insult you back. tit for tat or whatever it is.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

Chris, here's a blurb from the U.S. Copyright office discussing the rule
that a contribution (such as a newspaper article) to a collective work (such
as a newspaper) is entitled to a separate copyright registration from the
registration of the collective work.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl104.html

Note that under the current copyright law, registration is *not* required in
order to have a valid copyright.  Copyright subsists in the work the moment
it is fixed in a tangible medium.  Registration provides certain benefits
regarding enforcement and proof.  Nevertheless, if an article is entitled to
a separate registration it certainly follows that the article is the subject
of a separate copyright.

carla

I did not start off with the insulting. you guys did.

when attacked I get defensive. its human nature. hell is anything nature.
and not only that but I see no need to impeded it.

if I am attacked I am going to rebuff the attack. if you (or anyone else if
it was not you) had responded like this in the first place none of this
would have occured. alas trolls will be trolls (not saying you are since I
do not recall who starting the crap flinging and am too lazy to look it up)

like I said. if it can be shown to me that I am wrong and I can verify it
for myself I will accept it and shut up. that is the only logical way to
handle it to me.

until then when attacked I will fight back. I don't take abuse from anyone
without dishing some back.

by all means if you find some links please forward them to me it would be
much appreciated. if I find anything (good or bad for my cause) I will also
post them for all.

if I discover that i am wrong I will admit it publically and then proceed to
fight to get it changed (agreeing that I am wrong does not mean I will
accept that that is how it should be)

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

Negative. what you describe is NOT a direct link.

second it is still irrelevant and not the primary issue.

I could care less about the rules the nytimes thinks they can impose. I DO
care about the law and "so far" my intepritation of it says I was legal in
what I did.

since nytimes rules can not trump federal law IF my interpritation is
correct then I am legal irregardless of any "rules" such as direct linking
(proven not possible in this case) are irrelevant and of no importance to
this discussion.

you say I can't use the peice. Off course that is wrong the moment you spoke
it. off course I can I can prove this by the fact that I infact DID it.

the question is not whether I can or not but whether it is legal for me to
do so.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

I most certaintly did not.

please put up or shut up.

PROVIDE A QUOTE PLEASE. note I keep every single post I have ever made back
to 1995 or so.

PLEASE show me all knowing one where I Have EVER even HINTED as such a
thing.

ALL printed works are copyright the moment they are created. THIS post is
copyright. YOUR post is copyright. that is NOT up for discussion here.

the discussion is WAS My use fair use.

I said it being a small part of the paper qualified it for fair use.

YOU sir are the ONLY one to say that individual articles are not subject to
copyright (well ok I just did not (2nd after you) in quoting you.

please show me your proof.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

That stipulation is not in their wording.

and it is also still not correct. if a user does not allow or is not able to
allow cookies it will NOT direct link even if your are registered. for
example I DO have a nytimes account it did NOT autolog me in. it gave me a
signup page.

and just because a log in page is transparent to the user does not qualify
it as a direct link.

they did not say if you can LINK to the article. they said if you can DIRECT
LINK to the article. direct is their wording not mine.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

I am saying it would be a PERMITTED violation IE covered under fair use.

fair use is like a waiver. it allows you to break the rules (if it qualified
for fair use)

by the way I again got a registration log in page when I tried to get to
this page.

and for your eyes to behold from www.nytimes.com via an indirect link

Vegetarians vs. Atkins: Diet Wars Are Almost Religious
By GINA KOLATA

Published: February 22, 2004

HE charges that his group is like the Taliban. He claims that her group's
dangerous message has "spread like a virus across North America, Europe and
elsewhere."

The issue inspiring such invectives? Not religion, but diets.

The latest spat is between Veronica Atkins, widow of Robert Atkins, the
doctor who promoted a low-carbohydrate diet, heavy on the meats, and the
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that advocates
vegetarianism.

After Dr. Atkins died last April, the vegetarian group obtained his medical
records and gave them to The Wall Street Journal, which reported this month
that he weighed 258 pounds and had signs of congestive heart failure. (Mrs.
Atkins has said her husband's high weight was the result of fluid buildup
from the accidental fall that killed him.)

The vegetarians had already formed their conclusions. "Many health
authorities have been shocked and greatly troubled by the spread of the
Atkins phenomenon," the group proclaimed on its Web site.

Obesity researchers say they know the phenomenon all too well. Weight loss
can be like a religious epiphany. Someone loses weight on a diet. They are
ecstatic and want to share the good news. "These people are believers," says
Dr. Gary D. Foster, director of the weight and eating disorders program at
the University of Pennsylvania. Diet books are written in the same spirit.
"Evangelism creeps in,'' he said. "It's a way of marketing why this diet is
different."

The arguments over diet go way back, said Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel, an obesity
researcher at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons.
"They are in fact an echo of the discredited scientific notion of vitalism,"
he said of the idea that living things are not governed by the laws of
chemistry and physics.

Although vitalism was disproved 200 years ago, he said, it is behind the
fevered search for a magic way of eating that can override the rigid
scientific formula: calories in minus calories out govern weight gain and
weight loss. Discovering a diet, Dr. Leibel says, "is almost like a
revelation."

The 19th century saw, for example, the emergence of the Rev. Sylvester
Graham, a promoter of vegetarianism for whom the Graham cracker was named.
Graham insisted that people could rise above hunger and cravings if they
would just stop being slaves to their stomachs. His followers favored fresh
fruits and vegetables, grown without fertilizers, and made bran bread. They
established "physiological boardinghouses" where people could live the
Graham way. Skeptics were scathing. Dinner at a Graham house, they said,
featured delicacies like "straggling radishes," "a soggy bunch of asparagus"
and "corpses of potatoes," washed down with "a tumbler of cold water."

Low-carbohydrate diets emerged in 1825 in "The Physiology of Taste," a book
by a French lawyer, Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, that was a sensation
across the Atlantic. He knew some would object to his prescription but, he
warned, they would suffer the consequences:

" 'Oh Heavens!' all you readers of both sexes will cry out, 'Oh Heavens
above! But what a wretch the Professor is! Here in a single word he forbids
us everything we must love, those little white rolls from Limet, and
Achard's cakes, and those cookies. He doesn't even leave us potatoes or
macaroni! Who would have thought this of a lover of good food who seemed so
pleasant?'

" 'What's this I hear?' I exclaim, putting on my severest face, which I do
perhaps once a year. 'Very well then; eat! Get fat! Become ugly and thick,
and asthmatic, finally die in your own melted grease. ' "

In 1863, the low-carbohydrate diet returned after the publication of "Letter
on Corpulence'' by a London undertaker, William Banting. At 5 feet 5 and 202
pounds, he suffered, he said, "sneers and remarks of the cruel and
injudicious." But after a doctor told him to cut back on carbohydrates, he
lost 50 pounds. "I am most thankful to Almighty Providence for mercies
received, and determined still to press the case into public notice as a
token of gratitude," he wrote.

Vegetarians vs. Atkins: Diet Wars Are Almost Religious

Published: February 22, 2004

(Page 2 of 2)

So many were converted that for decades in the United States, the word for
dieting was "banting." The term is still used in Britain, says Dr. Hillel
Schwartz, a cultural historian and visiting scholar at the University of
California at San Diego.

By the turn of the century, another diet was all the rage. It was the work
of Horace Fletcher, who was inspired by the deplored American habit of
devouring food, barely taking time to chew it. Eat only when you are hungry,
he said, eat only those foods you crave, and chew every morsel of food until
no more taste can be extracted from it. As proof, Fletcher gleefully told
how his weight had plummeted. In June 1898, he weighed 205 pounds. Four
months later he weighed 163, losing seven inches from his waist.

He gained celebrity endorsements. Upton Sinclair chanced upon a magazine
article about Fletcher. It was "one of the great discoveries of my life," he
wrote. John D. Rockefeller Sr. was Fletcherizing. "Don't gobble your food,"
he wrote. "Fletcherize or chew very slowly when you eat."

But some became disillusioned. Henry James began with great enthusiasm,
giving Fletcher's book "The New Glutton" to his neighbors and claiming it
changed his life. He wrote to Edith Wharton about "the divine Fletcher" and
to his friend Mrs. Humphrey Ward: "Am I a convert, you ask? A fanatic." But
after five years, he was having stomach troubles his doctor attributed to
Fletcherism. James found himself "more and more sickishly loathing food."

Over the next century, diet evangelism continued, with diet books and gurus
extolling one program after another. Yet, notes Dr. Schwartz, "We keep
coming back to the same kinds of diets recycled under different names." With
the emergence of each new trend, he said, "there is a different explanation
of why it is effective."

Today, more than ever, those who want to lose weight find themselves pushed
and pulled by diet converts.

Jerry Gordon, a Philadelphia record producer, says that, at 5 feet 4 and 227
pounds, he is an obvious target for proselytizers, including his slender
wife, who lives on a low-calorie diet. "She has been trying to get me to eat
and behave like her for the last 22 years," he says.

On the other hand, it seems as if everywhere he looks, people are dropping
pounds and telling him they are doing it not by restricting calories, but
with a low-carbohydrate diet. Mr. Gordon enrolled in a research study,
conducted by Dr. Foster, that randomly assigns people to the Atkins diet or
a low-calorie one. He confesses that he was hoping for the Atkins diet. But
he got the low-calorie one. "My wife is real excited," he said.

Chris Taylor

http://www.nerys.com/

Bob (this one) wrote:

Forget the excuses, whiner. You violated copyright by copying *one*
song out of a collection. Each song is copyrighted separately and the
total performance (tape, CD, vinyl or whatever permanent medium) is
also copyrighted. You took one piece out of a whole and that's a
violation, just like you say. Same thing as a newspaper.

End of story.

Written by someone who has created no works for sale. Only a fool who
has no stake in selling intellectual effort would say this.

Copying for free...? Great way to make sure you get what you're paying
for.

Um, it *stays* in the hands of the copyright owner where it belongs.

Chris, you're desperately over your head with this subject. When you
create a work, it is automatically copyrighted and the owners rights
are elaborated from that. When the artist sells the CD or the book or
whatever, you're not buying any rights to the work, you're merely
buying a copy of it. It has never been that ownership of copyright
passed with the purchase of a copy.

Your money has purchased a copy. Not the rights of ownership of the
work; only the ownership of that copy. You may sell, give away,
destroy or otherwise deal with *that copy* but you have no further
rights to it.

Pastorio

Bob is right Chris, you are way in over your head.  You think the
money you earned somehow has rights that superceed those of legitimate
owners of copyrighted material.

And I really like this one:

"When you create a work the laws should be created such that YOUR
rights come
first. When you SELL your work the laws should be such that MY rights
comes
first since its MY MONEY that is paying for it.

It used to be that this was how things worked (legally and in
practice)
sadly that is changing."

When was this ever established in law or practice?  What rights of an
author, say 50 years ago, were given up or diminished by selling a
copy of his book?  And if you examine your wording, "the laws should
be created...", it looks like you already know this never existed.

You think that because you earned money, that the money now gives you
some special rights to take someone elses work without their
permission?  Most of us earn money and want things, get over it.  No
one has to have a CD, no one is forcing you to buy anything if you
don't like the price or terms of sale.  As adults, we make these
decisions everyday.

Following your logic, we would all be stealing cable TV, sat TV,
copying books....How about stealing gas because I don't like the
price?  I suspect your tune would change quickly if someone took your
photo material and started using it for free.

Um, did you forget your meds today...?

Pastorio