Fitting title. Although you utilized often used metaphors (excluding: "fitting into you like a mold for a cake", which obviously is a rarity as far as metaphors go), they didn't read generically, which I thought was a success in and of itself. There isn't a need to comment on content seeming as there is nothing cryptic nor esoteric present. It is approachable by any reader to say the least. I appreciated the continuity as much as anything. My only criticism is in regards to both structure and punctuation. I can live without punctuation so long as the structure is relevant. Unfortunately the structure (the breaks in sentences) is very random, which detracted from it somewhat. Good stuff Ms. Paranormalgirl.
__________________ rip Chad McDaniel (USAC)
rip Scott Kalitta (NHRA)
rip Henry Surtees (F2)
rip Neal Parker (NHRA)
Now, now. I for one have learnt that things are not always as they appear to be, and everyone is entitled to a defense before being hung, drawn and quartered.
However, I hate plagiarizers with a passion, so I will be very interested to hear the story behind this mystery.
I don't believe that is png's myspace, ergo the confusion.
Jayar, I find that wrapping individual lines of poetry in quote tags works really well, as it did in this instance....and in the case of that douche T00LHEAD.
I am posting the following to confirm that the above poem is indeed a case of plagarism. The original author posted this piece on myspace, which is copyrighted, where this sorry excuse for a writer found the above poem and stole it. Please refrain from crediting Paranormalgirl with having the intelligence to write such poetry. Because she lacks the bare essentials to make it thru daily life.
Paranormalgirl did not change a word and posted the poem 3 weeks after the original post of July 6, 2008. So that is proof positive that the above is stolen material. Paranormalgirl is not creative, talented, nor intelligent. She is just a plain old hack, folks.
Paranormalgirl has 48 (10-15-2008) hours to remove this poem from her page or the original author will pursue legal - criminal - action which will result in fines, which Paranormalgirl's lazy ass cannot afford to pay.
The webmaster has been contacted and friends of the original author will continue to monitor this site to ensure that the poem has been removed and no other works have been or will be plagarized.
Paranormalgirl has 48 (10-15-2008) hours to remove this poem from her page or the original author will pursue legal - criminal - action which will result in fines, which Paranormalgirl's lazy ass cannot afford to pay.
I can't wait to see how this plays out...
__________________ "You snooze you lose, well I have snossed and lost." - M Doughty
Whoa. This got blown out of proportion. I thought I linked these when I posted them. My mistake, I didn't realize until I was pmed today. I apologize for any confusion.
Actually, come to think of it, she likely does not have edit rights to the post anymore. SadSummerSea or someone of that nature will have to remove it.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as Digital Rights Management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works and it also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users.
On May 22, 2001, the European Union passed the EU Copyright Directive or EUCD, which addresses some of the same issues as the DMCA. But the DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright, the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries (Title II of the DMCA), was separately addressed, and largely followed, in Europe by means of the separate Electronic Commerce Directive. (Unlike U.S. federal laws and regulations, the execution of European Union directives usually requires separate legislation by or within each of the Union's member states.)
I'm pretty sure those laws only apply to technological media, but aside from that, PNG has very little to gain from posting this in a heavy metal forum, so the chances of the original author getting anywhere are essentially zero.
Making her a dumb posturing bitch
In turn, making you a dumb, ill-informed bitch.
Whether or not legal action goes anywhere, what is posted on myspace becomes copyrighted (and remains under full ownership of the client who posted it) and anything copyrighted is protected by the DCMA. I don't even think the term "technological media" makes any fucking sense - if it made any sense in the context you use it, it would include material posted on the internet (a form of "technological media") and make your argument even more bunk than it already is.
We may all be arm-chair, e-lawyers here, but you're definitely the e-lawyer that faked his credentials.
This is where knowing the difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism becomes key. That and the fact that a piece of copyrighted literature that is "scraped" can be used to press criminal charges. Whether or not the charges fly is a whole different story.
...But if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as Digital Rights Management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works and it also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users.
8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don't think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do. This is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didn't charge was acquited because he didn't charge, but congress amended the law to cover that.
Well, now that you realize you were mistaken we can move on to the discussion of whether or not jaruvwhatevah is ridiculous and if the judge will spit in her mouth.
My thoughts. I don't care. A fact is a fact and the poems should be removed.
I wonder if a book of poems is forthcoming from Ms. Margaret? Not that I'd buy it, but if one was in the works while this was taking shape, it'd make for some extra drama.
