This weekend, my copy of Fredrik Colting's "60 Years Later: Coming Through The Rye" arrived in the mail. I had to order it from Europe, because its currently banned here in the U.S.

The courts are still considering the question of keeping the ban in place, but for now, it remains banned, and the Appeals Court has strongly hinted that a fair use defense will likely fail.

Background here [PDF link]:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ef45934b-3434-4217-9dd1-52d6d97736b6/1/doc/09-2878-cv_opn.pdf

I have added this to my growing collection of books that have been banned in the U.S. When I read them, I feel like the way Guy Montag must have felt while secretly reading his banned books in "Farenheit 451".

My collection also includes Alice Randall's "The Wind Done Gone", which subsequently became available in the U.S., though I had acquired my copy during a time when it was still banned under court order.

Herbert W. Armstrong's "Mystery of the Ages" remains banned in the U.S. The background as to how that came to be can be found here:

http://www.authorslawyer.com/case/227F3d1110.html

It still seems surreal for me to have to come to grips with the fact that courts are in the regular habit of banning works of literature in the U.S., and the notion that there are places in the world more free than my own country in terms of allowing people to read what they want to. I had always equated book banning with fascist regimes, not my dear grand U.S. of A. But alas, these lines have now been blurred. Such is the natural result of the extreme copyright regime that the legal system has imposed upon us.

I have never understood people who become justifiably apoplectic when the government bans books at the behest of a political party in power, but then remain silent (or even offer their support) when the same government power bans books at the behest of private corporate interests. The end result is the same. A free mind who wishes to explore creative works and form artistic judgments on them is prevented from doing so by force of law.

Rather than openly exercise my free mind in a free society, I am forced to become Guy Montag - effectively having to find Underground Railroad societies in order to obtain books I want to read, and hoping that the Firemen do not come knocking on the door to take away my possessions and burn them at the behest of authors who have long since perished.

UPDATE: As the comments section has revealed, the copyright owner of "Mystery of the Ages" eventually sold its rights, allowing the work to be distributed again after being banned for more than a year. Again, this is another instance of my acquiring a copy of it while it was banned. More details of how they tried to keep it banned for some time are revealed here:

http://www.raisingtheruins.com/index.php?page=synopsis

http://www.pcog.org/battle.php

The key point is that distribution became available again not as a matter of right, but only because the prevailing plaintiff in the case changed its mind in allowing distribution to go forward (in accordance with the wishes of the author who actually wrote it).

People are tacitly complicit in support of copyright because it is a foundation of their indoctrination. They will unconsciously recognise when any hint of unassailable argument approaches their consideration and blot it out (before it finds any loose thread to unravel).

It is of the same order as heliocentricity vs geocentricity. If you have grown up with the latter you cannot afford to consider the former as anything except preposterous nonsense spouted by lunatics. Few can withstand the cognitive stress of paradigm inversion and so pre-emptively deny any thoughts that erode the current paradigm.

There's also the ethical stress. If your ideas of commerce are founded upon the exploitation of slaves, as something your family has done for generations and as a tradition you expect to continue, then you can also not afford to entertain any suggestion that slavery might be fundamentally unethical.

Copyright is dogma, and for some people akin to a deep seated religion. It is a priori right, good, and holy.

When copyright proponents refuse to publish otherwise polite and considerate comments, simply because they risk undermining the sanctity of copyright, then you know that the argument for copyright depends on more than amoral utilitarianism.

Copyright abolitionism is the modern heresy, and those recognised as heretics are shunned.

So we must see youngsters sued for millions, books banned, people's home videos deleted from YouTube, and many more injustices. And yet the worst thing about it all is the mindless support for it, by people participating in a colossal Milgram experiment "Well, it's illegal and so this is why we have to make people's lives a misery, ramping up the punishment until they learn not to share music and movies with each other".

We could abolish copyright tomorrow, debrief its former proponents and find that on reflection yes, they realised that copyright was an instrument of injustice and that people shouldn't have been bankrupted as an educational lesson, that cultural liberty is a natural right of the individual.

It's a pity though that argument doesn't cut it - we have to wait for inhumanity to reach its crescendo (Spanish Inquisition, Slavery, Holocaust, Apartheid, Guantanamo) before the scales fall from people's eyes and they recognise the error in their dogma.

How many kids must be incarcerated before their cultural liberty is considered a lesser evil than copyright's continuation?

Justin:

A portion of your post is slightly misleading. "Mystery of the Ages" by Herbert Armstrong is readily available on eBay from U.S. sellers. In fact, most of the numerous sellers on eBay seem to be from the U.S. The cost of the book appears to be relatively insignificant, somewhere between $2 and $10. If this book was "banned" in the U.S., as you claim, it would not be for sale on eBay by U.S. sellers.

You already pointed out that one book that was temporarily restrained is now readily available.

Which means that there is only one book on your list that is actually "banned" in the U.S.

Of course, add to your hyperbole Mr. Fitch's "copyright kills babies" arguments, and this entire thing becomes a poster child for something, but only vaguely liberty. Maybe a poster child for exaggeration.

Copyright causes baby seals to be bludgeoned to death!

Anonymous, you suggest "Baby seals to be bludgeoned to death!" is the level to which the injustice of copyright enforcement must escalate if it is to register on people's consciousness as an externalised social cost worthy of attention and potential remedy.

You may be right, but I very much hope suing kids for millions, excommunicating families, and despatching FBI SWAT teams to apprehend child pirates and extraordinarily render them into 'copyright rehabilitation' centres might persuade people sooner.

It isn't much of a step even today for search and seizure squads on a mission to remove 'counterfeit' copies of 101 Dalmatians from someone's house that they shoot dead a resident child's pet puppy as a safety precaution.

Perhaps in suitable climates the child might have a pet baby seal, and the armed officers may decide a bludgeon is quieter and less likely to alert the residents of their imminent invasion.

How many baby seals do you reckon it would take?

Anonymous -

By your own logic then, "Coming through the Rye" isn't "banned" here either since you can order it through Europe and customs agents won't prevent it from being sent directly to your door.

I suppose its technically true. No work is "banned" here as long as you can still either:

(1) access it overseas somehow; or

(2) find a copy on e-bay even though a court order prevents further copies, publications and public performances of the work from being made in this country. (If those copies disappear or get destroyed somehow, it still won't be "banned" so long as at least one single copy remains I suppose.)

If you are OK with that scenario, then you have a completely different concept of press freedoms than I have.

(I assume that most people understood the literary allusion I was making when I referenced Fireman knocking down my door to burn my books. No - I don't really expect state authorities to ransack my home over these books. But the outrage still remains. If you were not one of those people who picked up on the literary reference, oh well.)

Justin, I got the further references to 451F, slavery, and Kristallnacht. Then there is the potential for a triple reference to 1984: 1) authoritarian/revisionist control of 'knowledge', 2) banning of the novel, 3) retrospective 'repossession' of the Kindle e-book by Amazon. Perhaps there were others I missed?

There will soon be crimes of inciting copyright infringement and god knows what else. So even Against Monopoly can look forward to having its collar felt one day soon... and then they'll come for the authors...

Crosbie writes:

Copyright abolitionism is the modern heresy, and those recognised as heretics are shunned.

I'm a chronic winner of Nerd of the Year and can't catch a date to save my life anyway. So ... may as well be shunned for a sheep as for a lamb, right? :)

Count me in as a copyright (and patent) abolishist.

Zerbulous, were you a tad tipsy when you wrote that? ;-)

Crosbie:

"you suggest "Baby seals to be bludgeoned to death!" is the level to which the injustice of copyright enforcement must escalate if it is to register on people's consciousness as an externalised social cost worthy of attention and potential remedy."

Actually, you suggested that. I merely suggested that your statements are hyperbolic, and used the "copyright kills baby seals" statement to point that out.

"but I very much hope suing kids for millions"

How many children have been sued for millions?

"excommunicating families"

Excommunicating them from what?

"and despatching FBI SWAT teams to apprehend child pirates and extraordinarily render them into 'copyright rehabilitation' centres"

First one on me. I have never heard of a single example of an FBI SWAT team being dispatched to apprehend a "child pirate." How about an example?

As for your "copyright rehabilitation" centre, have you been reading science fiction again. You know your doctor has told you that you need to be rooted in reality, not fantasy.

"It isn't much of a step even today for search and seizure squads on a mission to remove 'counterfeit' copies of 101 Dalmatians from someone's house that they shoot dead a resident child's pet puppy as a safety precaution.

Hyperbole, thy name is Crosbie. As for your "search and seizure squads," there is zero evidence they exist. I suppose if you want hyperbole, we can talk about the thousands of children condemned to starvation because their artistic parents have been unable to make a dime from their books or music due to pirates. How nice to see a child kill a child in this fashion. (FYI - I do not believe this is true, but it as is true as your characterizations.)

"Perhaps in suitable climates the child might have a pet baby seal, and the armed officers may decide a bludgeon is quieter and less likely to alert the residents of their imminent invasion.

How many baby seals do you reckon it would take?"

Crosbie, you should right for a living. I am thinking romance novels. Your over-the-top fantasy is just the thing for that market. Of course, if you encourage piracy enough you will not be able to survive on writing, so you should have a day job too.

Justin:

"By your own logic then, "Coming through the Rye" isn't "banned" here either since you can order it through Europe and customs agents won't prevent it from being sent directly to your door.

I suppose its technically true. No work is "banned" here as long as you can still either:

(1) access it overseas somehow; or

(2) find a copy on e-bay even though a court order prevents further copies, publications and public performances of the work from being made in this country. (If those copies disappear or get destroyed somehow, it still won't be "banned" so long as at least one single copy remains I suppose.)

If you are OK with that scenario, then you have a completely different concept of press freedoms than I have."

You went all around the block on this. Let us keep life simple.

Banning a book from sale means exactly that, it is banned from sale. "Mysteries of the Ages" is not banned from sale. Anywhere. You could have correctly said that it is banned from being published, but you did not.

Being able to get a book from overseas could still mean the book is "banned" in this country. Disney has "banned" sales of "Song of the South" in the United States, but it has been available overseas.

You mix "press freedom" with banning of books. I have never heard of the "press" being banned from expressing an opinion or criticism. Copying of someone's work of fiction is not "freedom of the press." For that matter, if four people get together and write a book expressing their religious beliefs, and then make four copies of the book for themselves, and refuse to grant others permission to copy their book, why is "freedom of the press" been violated? The "press" is free to review the book, criticize the book, opine regarding the book, quote from the book, and just about anything else they want to do EXCEPT copy the book. And after copyright expires, anyone can do even that. So, explain to me where this limitation on the "freedom of the press" - thought the only "limitation" is that of making copies of someone else's work - is actually affecting anyone's ability to criticize or have an opinion?

"(I assume that most people understood the literary allusion I was making when I referenced Fireman knocking down my door to burn my books. No - I don't really expect state authorities to ransack my home over these books. But the outrage still remains. If you were not one of those people who picked up on the literary reference, oh well.)"

Yes, I got your feigned outrage. It just came across as hyperbole and snarky.

@Anonymous: You might want to take a look at White House Releases Public Comments On IP Enforcement where the White House is implementing an enforcement arm to protect so-called intellectual property for the benefit of corporations.

You might also take a look at Film Studio Argues That Filming The Making of a Film Violates Copyright, where a private company can, at its own volition, declare something illegal and force it to be removed. No due process here!

The examples above may only be small incidents, but they expose the expansive trend towards the repression of the public's rights in the name of fighting piracy.

Alonniemouse opines at length that copyright is not violating the freedom of the press, except that the press can't copy verbatim the entireties of existing works. (There was also the usual starving-artists strawman, but that one's been dealt with at length before, so let's skip it.)

The thing is, the examples in this blog post are instances of the presses being restrained from printing original works of authorship, not unauthorized copies. Printing Coming Through the Rye is not copying Catcher in the Rye, in particular.

Either justify banning the printing of Coming Through the Rye or shut your pie-hole.

Steve:

I am well aware of further, attempted expansion of copyright. I am also well aware that DMCA has yet to be constitutionally challenged. I am also well aware that there are significant activities related to expanding fair use and restricting further expansion of copyright.

A person can look at the attempted expansions only, as Mr. Levine has done, or a person can look at the numerous activities related to restricting copyright and expanding fair use. Of course, rather than noting that there are significant activities relating to ameliorating or reducing copyright and the effects of copyright, someone can also go a step further and claim that copyright causes jailng of children, starvation in third world countries, the current recession, herpes, and hair loss. I know I find such hyperbole amusing.

Beeshit:

"the press can't copy verbatim the entireties of existing works"

No shit? Really? You mean I cannot copy the entire work of someone else? Wow. What a revelation. On the other hand, how is that "freedom of the press"? Freedom of the press has always meant and continues to mean the ability to criticize and hold opinions without oppression or censorship, not the ability to copy or plagiarize the works of others. However, it does mean that you can quote the works of others to the extent necessary to support a position or point out that the position is in error or to be critical.

"Either justify banning the printing of Coming Through the Rye or shut your pie-hole."

I do not need to justify anything to you, Beeshit. First, because I never said anything about this book and you are basically starting an argument where there is none. I can see that you too are quite familiar with straman arguments, along with ad hominem arguments.

As far as I know, this book is one of the rare cases where sales of a book were banned due to copyright. But, I did not speak about the banning. My point was that the scope of the post was hyperbolic, which you did not address. So, if you cannot stay on conversation, stick your thumb back in your mouth, keep sucking and shut the hell up.

Alonniemouse burbled:

A person can look at the attempted expansions only, as Mr. Levine has done, or a person can look at the numerous activities related to restricting copyright and expanding fair use.

Or a person can look at the one-sided history of what the courts and legislature have actually done, which is turn copyright into The Blob, voraciously expanding and consuming more and more.

[insult deleted]:

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"the press can't copy verbatim the entireties of existing works"

No shit? Really? You mean I cannot copy the entire work of someone else? Wow. What a revelation.

Grow up.

On the other hand, how is that "freedom of the press"? Freedom of the press has always meant and continues to mean the ability to criticize and hold opinions without oppression or censorship, not the ability to copy or plagiarize the works of others.

It has also included the ability to publish new works of literature. Coming Through the Rye is not "copying the works of others", since its text is almost wholly original, nor is it "plagiarism" for the same reason. Furthermore, it undoubtedly credits J. D. Salinger and The Catcher in the Rye as inspiration.

You don't have a leg to stand on, Lonnie.

(As usual.)

"Either justify banning the printing of Coming Through the Rye or shut your pie-hole."

I do not need to justify anything to you, [insult deleted].

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

You do have to justify your claims if you expect many people to believe them.

First, because I never said anything about this book

Perhaps not explicitly, but you clearly took the side of the book-banners, so by implication you support the specific banning of Coming Through the Rye.

and you are basically starting an argument where there is none.

Let's see. 1. You come to an anti-copyright blog and post a blatantly pro-copyright comment. 2. You call one of the users names. And then 3. you accuse that user of trying to start a fight? Look in the mirror, bub.

I can see that you too are quite familiar with straman arguments, along with ad hominem arguments.

Unfortunately, anyone who argues with you for any length of time rapidly becomes quite familiar with both.

As far as I know, this book is one of the rare cases where sales of a book were banned due to copyright.

You're leaving out the bit where the copyright holder who's doing the banning is not the copyright holder of the book being banned.

And I think I speak for almost everyone here when I say I find any kind of book-banning at all to be disturbing, doubly so when the author of the book in question is not the one doing the banning.

But, I did not speak about the banning. My point was that the scope of the post was hyperbolic

You attacked it. I defended it, as I am sworn to defend all anti-copyright blog posts against baseless criticisms by the forces of monopolistic evil.

So, if you cannot stay on conversation, [implied insult deleted] and shut the hell up.

No. I do not take orders from you, and none of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I've stayed perfectly on-topic. Unlike you.

Anonymous -

Now that I have my single copy of "60 Years Later" here in the U.S., I could easily sell it to another person in the U.S. through e-bay or various other avenues. Would you then claim the book is not "banned" here since people in the U.S. can now obtain it from me? I would find that argument to be lacking.

If courts prevent the further "publication" of a work, I don't find it to be an instance of unjustified "hyperbole" to claim that the work is effectively "banned" - even if previously existing copies made before the court order might still be floating around in circulation.

Beepoop:

"Or a person can look at the one-sided history of what the courts and legislature have actually done, which is turn copyright into The Blob, voraciously expanding and consuming more and more."

The legislature may have expanded copyright, but the courts have generally tried to balance fair use and common sense with copyright laws.

"No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

Stop being paranoid. I have yet to say anything nasty about you. You certainly make it easy to do that, but I will refrain.

"Grow up."

You first.

"It has also included the ability to publish new works of literature. Coming Through the Rye is not "copying the works of others", since its text is almost wholly original, nor is it "plagiarism" for the same reason. Furthermore, it undoubtedly credits J. D. Salinger and The Catcher in the Rye as inspiration."

You keep talking about a book that I have not said a word about. I am not sure why. I know an insufficient amount about a single book that was actually banned from being sold in the United States to say anything about it.

"You don't have a leg to stand on, Lonnie.

(As usual.)"

Haha. You WIN. Well, actually not. Since I have not discussed this book even once, you win only because I have not made any comments. So, congratulations on winning a discussion with yourself.

"You do have to justify your claims if you expect many people to believe them."

I do not have to justify myself to you and I have not made any claims that need justification.

"First, because I never said anything about this book

Perhaps not explicitly, but you clearly took the side of the book-banners, so by implication you support the specific banning of Coming Through the Rye."

Wrong again. Of course, you typically are. I have already said that "Coming through the Rye" is an example of a book that was banned due to copyright issues. Period. Nothing more. So, what is your point? Have I taken the side of the "book-banners," as you call them? Ummm...no. Not explicitly or implicitly. Further, you are moving further and further from my only point, which was that of the books mentioned, only one, that being "Coming through the Rye," is actually banned from sale in the U.S. Anything else you say after that regarding my comments is crap you made up. Beecrap makes up crap. Makes sense.

"and you are basically starting an argument where there is none.

Let's see. 1. You come to an anti-copyright blog and post a blatantly pro-copyright comment."

And what "pro-copyright comment" was that?

"2. You call one of the users names."

That jerk should not have insulted me and called me names first.

"3. you accuse that user of trying to start a fight? Look in the mirror, bub."

You started the fight the moment that you (1) called me names and (2) lied about what I said.

"I can see that you too are quite familiar with straman arguments, along with ad hominem arguments.

Unfortunately, anyone who argues with you for any length of time rapidly becomes quite familiar with both."

Yes, because it seems to be the only way you can respond to some of my comments.

"As far as I know, this book is one of the rare cases where sales of a book were banned due to copyright.

You're leaving out the bit where the copyright holder who's doing the banning is not the copyright holder of the book being banned."

Since I have never talked about the book, I am probably leaving out a lot more than that.

"And I think I speak for almost everyone here when I say I find any kind of book-banning at all to be disturbing, doubly so when the author of the book in question is not the one doing the banning."

Wow. An actual point. Amazing. This whole time I thought all you had were insults, ad hominem statements and strawman. I must write this in my diary.

"But, I did not speak about the banning. My point was that the scope of the post was hyperbolic

You attacked it. I defended it, as I am sworn to defend all anti-copyright blog posts against baseless criticisms by the forces of monopolistic evil."

You "defended" it by adding irrelevancies. Good job.

"No. I do not take orders from you"

And I do not take them from you, so stop giving them to me.

"and none of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I was waiting for your paranoia to come out again.

"I've stayed perfectly on-topic. Unlike you."

Since my topics have not been yours, then obviously we are on different topics. You may go harrass someone else now.

Justin:

"Now that I have my single copy of "60 Years Later" here in the U.S., I could easily sell it to another person in the U.S. through e-bay or various other avenues. Would you then claim the book is not "banned" here since people in the U.S. can now obtain it from me? I would find that argument to be lacking."

I think you missed my point. Just because a book is available could still mean it is "banned" in the U.S. Banned should mean that the book is not available for primary purchase in the United States versus the used market. "Banned" products have been available for decades through other routes, even though they remain banned.

"If courts prevent the further "publication" of a work, I don't find it to be an instance of unjustified "hyperbole" to claim that the work is effectively "banned" - even if previously existing copies made before the court order might still be floating around in circulation."

Let's just talk about that for a moment.

Can you readily purchase "Mystery of the Ages" through retail outlets?

Yes.

Can you purchase "Mystery of the Ages" brand new through retail outlets, including Amazon?

Yes.

Is a non-holder of a copyright prohibited from publishing a book to which they do not hold title?

Yes. Why would this book be any different from any other book? Why not just say that non-copyright holders are "banned" from publishing books to which they do not hold copyright? That would be an accurate statement.

How about this? Is the accused infringer, the Philadelphia Church of God, still offering copies of "Mystery of the Ages" in print and in pdf, for free, on a U.S.-based website?

Yes. http://www.thetrumpet.com/s/mysteryoftheages/index.php?gclid=CJXQie3Z3KECFdFM5wodInE7kg

Okay. Just exactly where is the banning again? I think I missed it.

Alonniemouse spewed:

[insult deleted]:

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"Or a person can look at the one-sided history of what the courts and legislature have actually done, which is turn copyright into The Blob, voraciously expanding and consuming more and more."

The legislature may have expanded copyright, but the courts have generally tried to balance fair use and common sense with copyright laws.

Bullshit. This banned-book controversy has erupted not because of the legislature but because of the courts. Execrable decisions like Blizzard v. BNetD and Eldred v. Ashcroft were also handed down by the courts.

Let's just look at these again. The first of these banned some original works of authorship from being published in the US by their own copyright holders. The second granted software publishers the ability to arbitrarily restrict software users far beyond a) copyright's "exclusive rights" of distribution and public performance, affecting even private use, and b) the normal fair-use exemptions; Blizzard v. BNetD basically says a software publisher can simply stick a note saying "All your fair use are belong to us" in the box with the software -- a note you won't even see until after the sale -- and poof! No fair use for you. And the Eldred decision upheld extrajudicial prior restraint of speech by private parties by simply filing a "DMCA notice", with said prior restraint having since been exploited to the hilt by corporations to take down critical or embarrassing leaked documents, YouTube videos, and similar that are clearly not supposed to be banned speech.

Oh, the courts have done plenty of damage, believe you me.

"No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

Stop being [insult deleted].

I'm not; you're the crazy one. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I have yet to say anything nasty about you.

A lie. "Beeshit", I recall, was used by you recently as a bit of childish namecalling. And there have been plenty of other examples both before and since.

[implied insult deleted], but I will refrain.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I'd find it easier to believe that you "will refrain" if you hadn't insulted me yet again in the same damn sentence.

"Grow up."

[insult deleted]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"It has also included the ability to publish new works of literature. Coming Through the Rye is not "copying the works of others", since its text is almost wholly original, nor is it "plagiarism" for the same reason. Furthermore, it undoubtedly credits J. D. Salinger and The Catcher in the Rye as inspiration."

You keep talking about a book that I have not said a word about.

I already explained one post ago why this argument of yours is disingenuous. To paraphrase the debate thus far:

A: "They banned Coming Through the Rye and two other books! The basterds!"

L: "The 'basterds' have every right; it's called 'copyright'."

B: "But the copyright holder of Coming Through the Rye isn't the one who banned it, Lonnie. In fact his copyright -- his right to copy the work he authored -- has been violated supposedly in the name of 'copyright'!"

L: "Hey! I didn't say anything about that particular book!"

See how stupid it sounds when it's compressed like this so the whole exchange can be seen and read in a couple of seconds?

You may not have explicitly mentioned the book, but the guy you attacked did and that was what you attacked him for.

Give it up, Lonnie. As with the one-click patent last month, you have again demonstrated quite a knack for picking a particularly indefensible overstretch of "IP" law to defend, getting predictably lambasted for it, and then trying to weasel out of it by claiming retroactively that you don't actually defend such extreme misuses of the law.

"You don't have a leg to stand on, Lonnie.

(As usual.)"

Haha. You WIN.

Well, there you go, then. Maybe next time you'll think one whole move ahead and refrain from clicking "submit" after writing a post that will otherwise get shredded, doused in gasoline, lit on fire, and then shoved down your throat along with a generous helping of crow. (Figuratively speaking, of course.)

You know what happens every single time you post a pro-patent or pro-copyright comment to this blog. You get your arse handed to you.

Give it up already!

"You do have to justify your claims if you expect many people to believe them."

I do not have to justify myself to you and I have not made any claims that need justification.

You implied, strongly, that you stand by the banning of the three books mentioned in the original article.

Quit lying about it and own up to your error. You once again defended something that no loyal patriot and supporter of First Amendment values could reasonably defend. I'd call you a traitor, but that would be an insult to traitors the world over; you stooped to the much, much lower level occupied by the Bush Administration and various cronies. Rather than sell out for some other country, a religious credo, or similarly high ideal, you sold out the First Amendment for something base and banal: boring old money. Much like Bush.

Tell me, are you perchance a Republican?

"Perhaps not explicitly, but you clearly took the side of the book-banners, so by implication you support the specific banning of Coming Through the Rye."

[calls me a liar].

No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Keep wriggling on that hook, Lonnie. But I ain't letting you go until you admit that you were wrong.

I have already said that "Coming through the Rye" is an example of a book that was banned due to copyright issues.

The funny thing is that the guy that holds its copyright didn't want it banned. How, therefore, can it possibly be justly banned due to "copyright issues", even if you think copyright itself isn't inherently unjust?

I'd really like to know. It would make a nice additional note to put in the "Lonnie E. Holder" folder I have in a neatly-alphabetized file cabinet drawer labeled "Abnormal Psychology" that I keep close to my computer workstation for occasions like this. (The Internet is a remarkably fruitful source of new observations relevant to my hobby of studying kooks and wackos. Remarkably fruitful.)

Have I taken the side of the "book-banners," as you call them? [calls me a liar]

No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Wriggle, wriggle ...

Let's see. 1. You come to an anti-copyright blog and post a blatantly pro-copyright comment."

And what "pro-copyright comment" was that?

Oh. Alzheimer's. How boring. And here I thought I'd stumbled onto an interesting new variety of paranoid schizophrenia, one whose persecution complex delusions center on "intellectual property" rather than on such boring and commonplace objects of nutty fascination as the CIA, the KGB, and Dunkin' Donuts.

"2. You call one of the users names."

That [insult deleted] should not have insulted me and called me names first.

I didn't. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"3. you accuse that user of trying to start a fight? Look in the mirror, bub."

[calls me a liar]

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"Unfortunately, anyone who argues with you for any length of time rapidly becomes quite familiar with both."

Yes

Ah, so you admit it. That's the first step. Congratulations, Lonnie, at last you're making progress. A little bit of it, anyway.

"You're leaving out the bit where the copyright holder who's doing the banning is not the copyright holder of the book being banned."

I am probably leaving out a lot more than that.

Noted.

Keep on going. The more of it you admit the sooner the healing can begin.

"And I think I speak for almost everyone here when I say I find any kind of book-banning at all to be disturbing, doubly so when the author of the book in question is not the one doing the banning."

A point.

Of course.

Keep on admitting things...

[insult deleted]

Aww! And you were doing so well.

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"You attacked it. I defended it, as I am sworn to defend all anti-copyright blog posts against baseless criticisms by the forces of monopolistic evil."

[false accusation deleted]

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"No. I do not take orders from you."

[another rude demand deleted]

What part of "I do not take orders from you" did you not understand?

"and none of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

I was waiting for your [vicious insult deleted].

No! You're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"I've stayed perfectly on-topic. Unlike you."

[calls me a liar][false accusation deleted]

No, no, a thousand times no! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Is a non-holder of a copyright prohibited from publishing a book to which they do not hold title?

The problem here is that we have at least three recent instances where the holder of a copyright was prohibited from publishing a book to which they do hold title.

Okay. Just exactly where is the banning again? I think I missed it.

You missed something alright, but I seriously doubt it was the "banning". Perhaps you misspelled the word "brains"?

Beedork:

"No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

Ah, more evidence that everything I have said about you, though I have said very little, is in fact true.

"Bullshit. This banned-book controversy has erupted not because of the legislature but because of the courts. Execrable decisions like Blizzard v. BNetD and Eldred v. Ashcroft were also handed down by the courts."

You have interpreted the first of these cases incorrectly. The court ruled specifically that BNetD violated the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA, properly finding for a legislative fact. Essentially, the court had no choice but to uphold the law as passed by conress. If BNetD wishes to challenge the constitutionality of that provision they will need to take their case to the Supreme Court.

As for Eldred v. Ashcroft, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the Bono copyright extension was constitutional; i.e., whether the legislature was within their rights in passing the extension. The Supreme Court agreed 7-2 that congress had the ability to extend copyright by 20 years. End of story. Where was the DMCA in this Supreme Court decision?

So, neither court made law, but upheld laws passed by congress. You should be looking to congress to fix laws, not having court make new ones.

"Oh, the courts have done plenty of damage, believe you me."

If they have, the examples you gave did not indicate so.

"I'm not; you're the crazy one. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

You are so funny.

"I have yet to say anything nasty about you.

A lie. "Beeshit", I recall, was used by you recently as a bit of childish namecalling. And there have been plenty of other examples both before and since."

After your initial name-calling, the response seemed appropriate.

"Grow up."

You first.

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

Nice come back. I wish I had thought of it. .1 .2 .3 "It has also included the ability to publish new works of literature. Coming Through the Rye is not "copying the works of others", since its text is almost wholly original, nor is it "plagiarism" for the same reason. Furthermore, it undoubtedly credits J. D. Salinger and The Catcher in the Rye as inspiration."

You keep talking about a book that I have not said a word about.

I already explained one post ago why this argument of yours is disingenuous. To paraphrase the debate thus far:

A: "They banned Coming Through the Rye and two other books! The basterds!"

L: "The 'basterds' have every right; it's called 'copyright'."

B: "But the copyright holder of Coming Through the Rye isn't the one who banned it, Lonnie. In fact his copyright -- his right to copy the work he authored -- has been violated supposedly in the name of 'copyright'!"

L: "Hey! I didn't say anything about that particular book!"

See how stupid it sounds when it's compressed like this so the whole exchange can be seen and read in a couple of seconds? .1 .2 .3 .4 I had to separate this series of posts. The first paragraph is from someone else, not me. Sure, when you mix conversations from three different people, it does sound stupid. Until you began talking to me about "Coming through the Rye," I had not made a single comment about it.

"You may not have explicitly mentioned the book, but the guy you attacked did and that was what you attacked him for."

No, no, no. I have not said anything to anyone about "Coming through the Rye." That book has been banned. What else is there to say about it?

"Give it up, Lonnie. As with the one-click patent last month, you have again demonstrated quite a knack for picking a particularly indefensible overstretch of "IP" law to defend, getting predictably lambasted for it, and then trying to weasel out of it by claiming retroactively that you don't actually defend such extreme misuses of the law."

"You don't have a leg to stand on, Lonnie. (As usual.)"

What in the hell are you talking about? What defense? There is no defense. Let's review.

I said that Justin's post was hyperbole. Why? Because Justin said that his collection of banned books had grown. Now, let's see if my viewpoint holds water.

The stated banned books were: "Mystery of the Ages," "Coming through the Rye," and "The Wind Done Gone." Let us recap this list of banned books.

"Mystery of the Ages" - NOT banned "The Wind Done Gone" - NOT banned "Coming through the Rye" - Banned

So, Justin's statement is now that he has a collection of banned book.

I will also point out that the reason that "The Wind Done Gone" is NOT banned is because of the COURT, not congress.

"Well, there you go, then. Maybe next time you'll think one whole move ahead and refrain from clicking "submit" after writing a post that will otherwise get shredded, doused in gasoline, lit on fire, and then shoved down your throat along with a generous helping of crow. (Figuratively speaking, of course.)"

Seems like my post was not shredded, but now Justin agrees that I was correct that two of his banned books are not, in fact, banned. That was my point all along.

See ya.

"You know what happens every single time you post a pro-patent or pro-copyright comment to this blog. You get your arse handed to you.

Give it up already!"

lol...After Justin agreed to the facts? Seems like I finally got my point across. If anything was "handed" to me, it was Justin's agreement that his "banned" book collection consists of one banned book. That has been my point all along.

"You do have to justify your claims if you expect many people to believe them."

I do not have to justify myself to you and I have not made any claims that need justification.

You implied, strongly, that you stand by the banning of the three books mentioned in the original article."

Now you are plain lying. I have never said in any of MY posts that I agreed with the banning of any of the books. You may have INFERRED that, but I did not IMPLY that. I am also pleased that the COURTS decided that "The Wind Done Gone" was publishable according to copyright law. Right decision. I also agreed with the dissenting opinion regarding "Mystery of the Ages." All factors pointed to permitting publication. Fortunately, the copyright holder came to their senses and reversed their earlier decision.

"Quit lying about it and own up to your error. You once again defended something that no loyal patriot and supporter of First Amendment values could reasonably defend. I'd call you a traitor, but that would be an insult to traitors the world over; you stooped to the much, much lower level occupied by the Bush Administration and various cronies. Rather than sell out for some other country, a religious credo, or similarly high ideal, you sold out the First Amendment for something base and banal: boring old money. Much like Bush."

Stop lying. My statements have been quite clear throughout. Now, you may have confused my statements with the statements of someone else, but, you are a confused person. I think I have summarized my viewpoints quite nicely in this post. I also resent you putting words in my mouth. Speak for yourself, not for me.

"Keep wriggling on that hook, Lonnie. But I ain't letting you go until you admit that you were wrong."

Too late. Justin already essentially admitted I was right.

"I have already said that "Coming through the Rye" is an example of a book that was banned due to copyright issues.

The funny thing is that the guy that holds its copyright didn't want it banned. How, therefore, can it possibly be justly banned due to "copyright issues", even if you think copyright itself isn't inherently unjust?"

Separate issue altogether from my point. You can discuss "Coming through the Rye" all you wish. I find it annoying that, as per your statement, that the guy holding the copyright does not want the book banned. That seems unjust to me.

"2. You call one of the users names."

That [insult deleted] should not have insulted me and called me names first.

I didn't."

How soon we forget. Perhaps your Alzheimer's is kicking in? I agree that merely having Alzheimers is boring. In any case, I direct your attention to your post of 05/18/2010, 06:32 AM, where you called me "alonniemouse." Seems like name calling to me, and you addressed me first, not I you. Then you followed that up with "shut your pie-hole." Clearly a pejorative remark and an insult, and it was quite clear that you intended on insulting. So, you have, once again, been caught in a lie. Liar.

"3. you accuse that user of trying to start a fight? Look in the mirror, bub." [calls me a liar]

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

As I noted just above, you began with name-calling and insults. I believe your comments speak for themselves, despite your protestation of innocence.

""I've stayed perfectly on-topic. Unlike you." [calls me a liar][false accusation deleted]

No, no, a thousand times no! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

I believe the evidence of your lies is quite abundant, and your protestations of innocence avail you naught.

"Okay. Just exactly where is the banning again? I think I missed it.

You missed something alright, but I seriously doubt it was the "banning". Perhaps you misspelled the word "brains"?"

How amusing. In retrospect, as I noted in an earlier post, "Mystery of the Ages" in fact is not banned. So, my brains seem to be working quite fine. But, you further your lies with more insults.

Alonniemouse apparently decided he hadn't had the crap beaten out of him enough yet:

[insult deleted]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

[calls me a liar]

No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"Bullshit. This banned-book controversy has erupted not because of the legislature but because of the courts. Execrable decisions like Blizzard v. BNetD and Eldred v. Ashcroft were also handed down by the courts."

You [insult deleted].

No, you're the moron. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

The decision in Blizzard v. BNetD asserted a software vendor had a right to control all downstream use of the software; that one could create arbitrary additional rules that go far beyond the "exclusive rights" explicitly spelled out in the statute.

This is clearly a very bad precedent.

[calls me a liar]. You should be looking to congress to fix laws, not having court make new ones.

No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Congress is bought. The courts are bought. Congress makes law to please big corporate constituents like the entertainment industry. The courts interpret that law in a manner that, typically, bends over backwards for the same corporate sponsors. And they legislate from the bench, in favor of big business again, as when they created a whole new "inducement" liability for copyright infringement out of thin freaking air.

"Oh, the courts have done plenty of damage, believe you me."

[calls me a liar]

No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"I'm not; you're the crazy one. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

[insult deleted]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"A lie. "Beeshit", I recall, was used by you recently as a bit of childish namecalling. And there have been plenty of other examples both before and since."

After your initial name-calling, the response seemed appropriate.

What initial name-calling? You called me a name before I ever called you a name, Lonnie.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

"No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

Nice come back.

Why, thank you.

"See how stupid it sounds when it's compressed like this so the whole exchange can be seen and read in a couple of seconds?"

[false accusation deleted]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

You made the second comment to this blog post, and it was critical of the post. Therefore, it was an argument in favor of the book bannings, including the specific banning of Coming Through the Rye.

Stop lying.

"You may not have explicitly mentioned the book, but the guy you attacked did and that was what you attacked him for."

[calls me a liar]

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"You don't have a leg to stand on, Lonnie. (As usual.)"

What in the hell are you talking about? What defense? There is no defense.

Justin Levine criticized the banning of three books, including Coming Through the Rye. You criticized Justin Levine's criticism. Therefore, you support the banning of the three books, including Coming Through the Rye. The enemy of my enemy, and all that. You are the enemy of the enemy of the book banning; therefore the defender of the book banning.

There is no way you can possibly weasel out of it, Lonnie.

"Well, there you go, then. Maybe next time you'll think one whole move ahead and refrain from clicking "submit" after writing a post that will otherwise get shredded, doused in gasoline, lit on fire, and then shoved down your throat along with a generous helping of crow. (Figuratively speaking, of course.)"

[calls me a liar]

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"Give it up already!"

[calls me a liar]

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Even if it was just one, that is one too goddamn many.

"You implied, strongly, that you stand by the banning of the three books mentioned in the original article."

[calls me a liar]

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I have never said in any of MY posts that I agreed with the banning of any of the books.

Said? Perhaps not. Implied? Yes, by attacking someone who was attacking the bans.

Let's recap -- again. Justin criticizes the courts for banning a book. You post a knee-jerk attack aimed at Justin. Then you expect to be believed when you don't merely back away from the position you took, but claim never to have taken it?

You did attack Justin. He was in the right. You are therefore in the wrong. Just admit it for Chrissake and get on with your life. Or even just slink away quietly instead of admitting it. But please stop posting these senseless attack posts aimed at Justin and me. It won't accomplish anything. Nobody is going to think copyright is less evil or that Coming Through the Rye should be banned. In fact, "defenders" like you give the copyright regime a bad name all by themselves.

"Rather than sell out for some other country, a religious credo, or similarly high ideal, you sold out the First Amendment for something base and banal: boring old money. Much like Bush."

[calls me a liar][insult deleted], but, [insult deleted]. I think I have summarized my viewpoints quite nicely in this post. I also resent you [false accusation deleted].

No, no, a thousand times no! You're the liar, the moron, and the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"Keep wriggling on that hook, Lonnie. But I ain't letting you go until you admit that you were wrong."

[refuses]

Then your torment shall continue. Sucks to be you. You know how to stop it, now, though.

"The funny thing is that the guy that holds its copyright didn't want it banned. How, therefore, can it possibly be justly banned due to "copyright issues", even if you think copyright itself isn't inherently unjust?"

Separate issue altogether from my point.

No, it's the very heart of the issue. Your attempt at a cop-out: not accepted.

The guy holding the copyright does not want the book banned. That seems unjust to me.

If you believe it's unjust that the author doesn't want it banned, then you truly are lost.

"I didn't."

[insult deleted]

No, you're the one with Alzheimer's. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

In any case, I direct your attention to your post of 05/18/2010, 06:32 AM, where you called me "alonniemouse."

And your namecalling aimed at me during our previous tussles doesn't count as having come earlier than that? By what peculiar reckoning? (And don't try to baffle our audience with some nonsense about relativity; your prior incidents of namecalling, such as calling me "Earwax", lie in the past light cone of my "alonniemouse" remark, and so preceded it for all observers. Jackass.)

Furthermore, "alonniemouse" is just a play on your name and the term "anonymouse", commonly used for anonymous posters and mildly if at all pejorative.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill there. Unless maybe it's being outed that you're objecting to. But you're really outing yourself every time you make one of your characteristic confused, pro-IP arguments and start calling people names.

Then you followed that up with "shut your pie-hole."

Because of your long, long history of making stupid comments to this blog that get you flamed. I'd have thought you'd eventually learn to stop doing that, the way children learn to stop putting their hands on hot surfaces, usually after only one incident.

[calls me a liar]

No, no, a thousand times no! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

As I noted just above, [calls me a liar].

No, no, a thousand times no! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

[calls me a liar]

No, no, a thousand times no! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"You missed something alright, but I seriously doubt it was the "banning". Perhaps you misspelled the word "brains"?"

How amusing.

Why, thank you.

[calls me a liar]

No, no, a thousand times no! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

And now that that's been taken care of, it's time for you to seriously ask yourself the following question:

Are you ready to give up? Or are you thirsty for more?

Beepoop apparently has failed, again, to realize the battle is over and he has already lost.

"No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

Your paranoia is showing, again.

"No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

[calls me a liar]

No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

Actually, you are a liar. I provided explicit details of your lies. You deny facts that have been carefully laid out.

"No, you're the moron. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

You said moron, not I. I would never call you a moron. Sorry that you thought I did. You paranoia kicking in again.

"Congress is bought. The courts are bought. Congress makes law to please big corporate constituents like the entertainment industry. The courts interpret that law in a manner that, typically, bends over backwards for the same corporate sponsors. And they legislate from the bench, in favor of big business again, as when they created a whole new "inducement" liability for copyright infringement out of thin freaking air."

Ah, yes. An extremist position. I have heard these positions before. Usually from people who wear tin hats.

However, I grant you that I often disagree with the actions of congress. The courts are a different matter. WIth the exception of the Supreme Court, courts are bound to uphold laws as they best understand them. That does not permit "common sense" or other approaches because they risk getting reverse, which no judge likes.

I deleted the remainder of your delusion statements professing injury and harm from your interpretation of my statements. They add no value and are only taking this conversation backward.

""A lie. "Beeshit", I recall, was used by you recently as a bit of childish namecalling. And there have been plenty of other examples both before and since."

After your initial name-calling, the response seemed appropriate.

What initial name-calling? You called me a name before I ever called you a name, Lonnie."

Looking back through historical posts, it appears that you have called at least three different people by the same name. It has became a habit with you and a further sign of your paranoia.

"Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest."

If I pasted something, it was copied from this page, most likely from the previous post. It is easier just to copy your post in its entirety and respond to your bizarre statements one by one.

"You made the second comment to this blog post, and it was critical of the post. Therefore, it was an argument in favor of the book bannings, including the specific banning of Coming Through the Rye."

False logic. Non sequitur. I was critical that Mr. Levine indicated his library of "banned" books had grown to three, though he point out that one was no longer banned. I further pointed out that a second book was no longer banned. Yes, I did say claiming three books were banned only to find one book was actually banned was a bit of hyperbole. Do you not find exaggeration to be something to challenge?

""You don't have a leg to stand on, Lonnie. (As usual.)"

What in the hell are you talking about? What defense? There is no defense.

Justin Levine criticized the banning of three books, including Coming Through the Rye. You criticized Justin Levine's criticism. Therefore, you support the banning of the three books, including Coming Through the Rye. The enemy of my enemy, and all that. You are the enemy of the enemy of the book banning; therefore the defender of the book banning.

There is no way you can possibly weasel out of it, Lonnie."

I criticized Justin's factual information, because it was wrong. Weasel out of the fact that Justin was (a) wrong and (b) amended his post with correct information. I intended on pointing out his mistake, he corrected it. I am happy. Had he wrote what he provided in his correction in the first place, I would have said nothing. He even acknowledged that I pointed out the error.

"Let's recap -- again. Justin criticizes the courts for banning a book. You post a knee-jerk attack aimed at Justin. Then you expect to be believed when you don't merely back away from the position you took, but claim never to have taken it?

You did attack Justin. He was in the right. You are therefore in the wrong. Just admit it for Chrissake and get on with your life. Or even just slink away quietly instead of admitting it. But please stop posting these senseless attack posts aimed at Justin and me. It won't accomplish anything. Nobody is going to think copyright is less evil or that Coming Through the Rye should be banned. In fact, "defenders" like you give the copyright regime a bad name all by themselves."

Justin was in the right? Oh. So now that he has corrected his post, does that mean he was right before and he is also right, with a different set of factual information, now? How can two completely different positions be right? Hmmm... That will make your brain hurt. Justin was wrong, he corrected his post. All is right with the world.

""Keep wriggling on that hook, Lonnie. But I ain't letting you go until you admit that you were wrong." [refuses]

Then your torment shall continue. Sucks to be you. You know how to stop it, now, though."

No torment for me. I got what I wanted, a correction from Justin.

"In any case, I direct your attention to your post of 05/18/2010, 06:32 AM, where you called me "alonniemouse."

And your namecalling aimed at me during our previous tussles doesn't count as having come earlier than that? By what peculiar reckoning? (And don't try to baffle our audience with some nonsense about relativity; your prior incidents of namecalling, such as calling me "Earwax", lie in the past light cone of my "alonniemouse" remark, and so preceded it for all observers. Jackass.)"

Furthermore, "alonniemouse" is just a play on your name and the term "anonymouse", commonly used for anonymous posters and mildly if at all pejorative.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill there. Unless maybe it's being outed that you're objecting to. But you're really outing yourself every time you make one of your characteristic confused, pro-IP arguments and start calling people names."

lol...So, you are bringing in some supposed prior insult. I wonder how far back I have to go to find you having started other insults. I see one with Mr. Fitch where you said a number of pejorative things when he seemed quite reasonable. Though I did not look back really far, you have been the initiator where you have called people stupid and ignorant and a number of other names first. You always enjoy bringing out name-calling and pejoritive terms the moment you start losing an argument.

"Are you ready to give up? Or are you thirsty for more?"

Give up? When I have already won? How do you give up when the game is over and you got what you wanted?

Alonniemouse offered himself up for another reaming:

[Insult deleted] apparently has [insult deleted].

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

[vicious insult deleted]

No, you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

[calls me a liar]

No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"No, you're the moron. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true."

[vicious insult deleted]

No, you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"Congress is bought. The courts are bought. Congress makes law to please big corporate constituents like the entertainment industry. The courts interpret that law in a manner that, typically, bends over backwards for the same corporate sponsors. And they legislate from the bench, in favor of big business again, as when they created a whole new "inducement" liability for copyright infringement out of thin freaking air."

[vicious insult deleted]

No, you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

However, I grant you that I often disagree with the actions of congress. The courts are a different matter.

Indeed. Unfortunately for us all, you have defended their execrable pro-copyright legislation from the bench and you have defended their banning of Coming Through the Rye.

I deleted [vicious insults deleted]

No! You're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"What initial name-calling? You called me a name before I ever called you a name, Lonnie."

[vicious insult deleted]

No! You're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest."

If I pasted something, it was copied from this page, most likely from the previous post.

Something you "quoted" was not copied verbatim from the previous post, or else I would not have said that.

Stop lying.

It is easier just to copy your post in its entirety and respond to your [implied insult deleted] one by one.

No! You're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"You made the second comment to this blog post, and it was critical of the post. Therefore, it was an argument in favor of the book bannings, including the specific banning of Coming Through the Rye."

[insult deleted]

No! You're the moron. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Mr. Levine complained about the banning of that book. You complained about his complaining. Therefore, you support the banning of that book. Not-(not-X) is X. You are the one who has failed elementary logic, Lonnie.

"You don't have a leg to stand on, Lonnie. (As usual.)"

[calls me a liar]

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"Justin Levine criticized the banning of three books, including Coming Through the Rye. You criticized Justin Levine's criticism. Therefore, you support the banning of the three books, including Coming Through the Rye. The enemy of my enemy, and all that. You are the enemy of the enemy of the book banning; therefore the defender of the book banning.

There is no way you can possibly weasel out of it, Lonnie."

I criticized Justin

Well, there you go, then. Your admission has been noted for the record. And now it is time for you to lay down your weapons and depart peacefully for greener pastures. It should be clear to you now that you are not welcome here.

[calls me a liar]

Aww, how disappointing.

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"Let's recap -- again. Justin criticizes the courts for banning a book. You post a knee-jerk attack aimed at Justin. Then you expect to be believed when you don't merely back away from the position you took, but claim never to have taken it?

You did attack Justin. He was in the right. You are therefore in the wrong. Just admit it for Chrissake and get on with your life. Or even just slink away quietly instead of admitting it. But please stop posting these senseless attack posts aimed at Justin and me. It won't accomplish anything. Nobody is going to think copyright is less evil or that Coming Through the Rye should be banned. In fact, "defenders" like you give the copyright regime a bad name all by themselves."

Justin was in the right? Oh.

Well, there you go, then.

Ah ... progress at last.

[implied insult deleted]

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

It really is a struggle for you, isn't it? Part of you trying to admit the truth and another part fighting tooth and nail to cling to denial that you were wrong and that copyright (like patent) is evil.

"Then your torment shall continue. Sucks to be you. You know how to stop it, now, though."

No torment for me.

So you'll quit now? Oh, goody.

"You're making a mountain out of a molehill there. Unless maybe it's being outed that you're objecting to. But you're really outing yourself every time you make one of your characteristic confused, pro-IP arguments and start calling people names."

lol...[implies that I've been dishonest]

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I see one with Mr. Fitch where [false accusation deleted].

No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"Are you ready to give up? Or are you thirsty for more?"

Give up?

Yes. You have lost. It is therefore time for you to admit that and stop posting here.

(Really, long past time.)

Beepoop:

Ah, yes. You are back for yet another drubbing. Just keep on coming. I know the people who read these things are getting a good laugh - at you.

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

Yes, I know. Sad but true.

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

No need to repeat yourself.

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

Enough is enough. You may quit any time now.

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

You are just getting repetitive.

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

Enough. You will drive me as crazy as you are.

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

SPEAK, Beepoop, SPEAK!

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

No need to belabor an obvious point.

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

The sum total of your rebuttals amounts to this, repeating the same phrase over and over and over?

"However, I grant you that I often disagree with the actions of congress. The courts are a different matter.

Indeed. Unfortunately for us all, you have defended their execrable pro-copyright legislation from the bench and you have defended their banning of Coming Through the Rye."

That is a lie. Prove that I have defended the banning of "Coming through the Rye."

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

Yes. We know. Your standard comment. But now you are merely fawning.

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

Yes, yes, yes. But you really should not be so hard on yourself.

"Stop lying."

I have not told any lies. I think you have our roles confuse. You are the liar. I am the person who states facts.

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

Boring. Say something new.

"You made the second comment to this blog post, and it was critical of the post. Therefore, it was an argument in favor of the book bannings, including the specific banning of Coming Through the Rye."

No! You're the moron. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Mr. Levine complained about the banning of that book. You complained about his complaining. Therefore, you support the banning of that book. Not-(not-X) is X. You are the one who has failed elementary logic..."

Let's just examine exactly what I said...

Justin:

Obviously a statement of fact. Justin wrote the post.

A portion of your post is slightly misleading. "Mystery of the Ages" by Herbert Armstrong is readily available on eBay from U.S. sellers. In fact, most of the numerous sellers on eBay seem to be from the U.S. The cost of the book appears to be relatively insignificant, somewhere between $2 and $10. If this book was "banned" in the U.S., as you claim, it would not be for sale on eBay by U.S. sellers.

Also a statement of fact. Indeed, the book is available through Amazon and other book sellers. The book is clearly not banned in the U.S., which Justin realized after my post and printed a correction.

You already pointed out that one book that was temporarily restrained is now readily available.

Also a statement of fact. Justin pointed this information out exactly.

Which means that there is only one book on your list that is actually "banned" in the U.S.

Once again, a factual statement.

Of course, add to your hyperbole...

Opinion, protected by the first amendment. Since you complained about my opinion, you are clearly against the first amendment.

However, since the lead-in for this post says "My Growing Library of Banned Books," and only one book is actually banned, then the title is clearly an exaggeration, which is pretty much the definition of hyperbole. So, hyperbole does seem to be a fact.

"Mr. Fitch's "copyright kills babies" arguments, and this entire thing becomes a poster child for something, but only vaguely liberty. Maybe a poster child for exaggeration.

Copyright causes baby seals to be bludgeoned to death!"

You may be against anyone having an opinion other than your own, but I am against people distorting facts. I also thought Mr. Fitch's comments with equating copyright with the holocaust and everything else (probably including V.D. and AIDS), was more than a bit of distortion and definitely hyperbole.

So, where is my so-called "support" of copyright? Seems more like a support for facts and against exaggeration. However, I, unlike you, am open minded. If you can show where I was supportive of copyright in these statements, I might have a different opinion. I doubt it, but it is possible.

"You...have a leg to stand on, Lonnie. (As usual.)"

Yes, I know. Hard for you to admit, but again, true.

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

What do Beepoop and a record with a scratch have in common? They both go over the same, tired, sad track again and again.

"Justin Levine criticized the banning of three books, including Coming Through the Rye. You criticized Justin Levine's criticism. Therefore, you support the banning of the three books, including Coming Through the Rye. The enemy of my enemy, and all that. You are the enemy of the enemy of the book banning; therefore the defender of the book banning.

There is no way you can possibly weasel out of it..."

Weasel out of what, worm? Weasel out of the facts that Justin got wrong? Weasel out of calling hyperbole by its real name? Hah. Calling you crazy with psychotic tendencies? I said all those things because they are true.

"Well, there you go, then. Your admission has been noted for the record. And now it is time for you to lay down your weapons and depart peacefully for greener pastures. It should be clear to you now that you are not welcome here."

Good heavens, your arrogance is astounding. In fact, I am quite welcome here because the people who created this site believe in freedom of speech, whereas you are for censorship. Because you are against the first amendment, I am against you.

As for my admission, yes, I admit that I corrected Justin. I admit that Justin subsequently changed his post. I admit that I provided the facts that led Justin to change his post. I admit that I recognize your mental problems and the fact that you are against many of the things supported by this site. If anyone is not welcome here, it is you, you freedom restricting, name calling, jerk.

"Aww, how disappointing."

Yes, it is disappointing that you would haunt a site that clearly has so much not in common with your professed beliefs.

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

Yes, I know.

"You did attack Justin. He was in the right. You are therefore in the wrong."

You are completely wrong, on all points. I did not "attack" Justin, I merely pointed out the error in his post. He was in the wrong and corrected his post. Logically, since he corrected his post and referred to the comments below, then I am in the right. You, on the other hand, making up lies about people, you low-life worm liar, are absolutely wrong.

"But please stop posting these attack posts aimed at...me."

If you do not wish to be attacked, then you should not attack.

"In fact, "defenders" like you give the copyright regime a bad name all by themselves."

You have yet to point to one single iota of evidence that I have "defended" copyright. In fact, at this point, your statement is a lie, liar.

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

Yes, I know. It has been sad to get you to realize your transgressions against truth, logic and free speech, but keep repeating this mantra and might yet find a path to redemption.

"So you'll quit now? Oh, goody."

Only once you stop senselessly attacking me and stop trying to infringe my freedom of speech.

...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

Perhaps you could trademark your phrase. You certainly use it enough.

"No, no, a thousand times no! ...the...things that you have said or implied about me are...all true.

Okay, okay. You keep repeating the same phrase over and over and over again. Don't you think it is time for you to get a better, more intelligent phrase?

(Really, long past time.)

Well, there you go then. Perhaps next time.

Alonniemouse needs to seek counseling for his compulsive masochistic behavior:

[insult deleted]: [insult deleted]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

Yes, I know. Sad but true.

No; you misquoted me.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

No need to repeat yourself.

I didn't. You misquoted me again.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

Enough is enough. You may quit any time now.

No. The evil of copyright must be opposed.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

You are just getting repetitive.

I know you are, but what am I?

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

Enough. [vicious insult deleted]

No, you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

SPEAK, [insult deleted], SPEAK!

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

No need to belabor an obvious point.

I didn't. You misquoted me.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

The sum total of your rebuttals amounts to this, repeating the same phrase over and over and over?

No. I gave detailed arguments in support of my contention that copyright is evil. You snipped them all, misquoted me, and repeated the same incorrect quotation over and over again. That makes you the one whose "rebuttals" amount to nought but repetition of one phrase.

"Indeed. Unfortunately for us all, you have defended their execrable pro-copyright legislation from the bench and you have defended their banning of Coming Through the Rye."

[calls me a liar]

No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

Yes. We know. Your standard comment.

No, your misquotation of it.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

Yes, yes, yes. But you really should not be so hard on yourself.

I'm not. You're the masochistic self-defeating one. Stop misquoting me, putting words in my mouth, and lying, you sick son of a bitch!

"Stop lying."

[calls me a liar]

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

[insult deleted]. Say something new.

After you. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"You made the second comment to this blog post, and it was critical of the post. Therefore, it was an argument in favor of the book bannings, including the specific banning of Coming Through the Rye."

[insults deleted, including an instance of calling me a liar]

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

A portion of your post is [calls me a liar]

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Also a statement of fact.

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

[calls Justin a liar]

I see no evidence to support your accusation.

Of course, add to your [insult deleted]...

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Opinion, protected by the first amendment. Since you complained about my opinion, [false accusation deleted].

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"First Amendment" should be capitalized, schmuck. As for your "opinion", it borders on the libelous. Watch it.

However, [attack on Justin Levine deleted]

Go f%@! yourself.

You may be against anyone having an opinion other than your own

I am not. I am against copyright, against patent, and against people telling lies about me in public, though.

but I am against people [calls me a liar].

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

[calls Crosbie Fitch a liar]

No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about Crosbie Fitch are at all true.

So, where is my so-called "support" of copyright?

In your systematic pattern of virulently attacking everyone who posts anti-copyright comments to this blog, of course. Justin opposes copyright, you attack him, Crosbie opposes copyright, you attack him, I oppose copyright, and you attack me, and keep on attacking me relentlessly like some sort of brain-damaged idiot that doesn't realize when enough is enough!

Seems more like a support for facts

No. None of the nice things that you have said or implied about copyright are at all true.

However, [insult deleted].

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

If you can show where I was supportive of copyright in these statements

I already did, repeatedly. When people attacked copyright, you attacked them. When I was particularly negative about copyright, you started into a vicious character-assassination cycle. This leads to the obvious inference about which side you're on.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

Yes, I know. Hard for you to admit, but again, true.

I did not "admit" to anything, you lying sack of shit! You misquoted me again. Get the hell out of here, you son of a bitch!

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

What do [insult deleted] and a record with a scratch have in common? [insult deleted].

No! It only seems that way when you keep misquoting me to make it seem that way. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"There is no way you can possibly weasel out of it..."

Weasel out of what, [insult deleted]?

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Weasel out of [calls Justin a liar]? Weasel out of calling hyperbole by its real name? Hah. Calling you [vicious insult deleted]? I said all those things because they are true.

No, no, a thousand times no! You're the liar and the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me or Justin are at all true.

"Well, there you go, then. Your admission has been noted for the record. And now it is time for you to lay down your weapons and depart peacefully for greener pastures. It should be clear to you now that you are not welcome here."

Good heavens, [insult deleted].

No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

In fact, [calls me a liar].

No, no, a thousand times no! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

The people who created this site believe in freedom of speech, whereas you [false accusation deleted]. Because you [false accusation deleted], I am against you.

No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I am against your repeatedly libeling and intentionally misquoting me. That is different from what you accuse me of.

As for my admission, yes, I admit that

Well, there you go, then. Noted for the record.

I admit that [vicious insult deleted]. If anyone is not welcome here, it is you, you [false accusation deleted], [false accusation deleted], [insult deleted].

Aww, how disappointing. And you were doing so well.

No, no, a thousand times no! You're the lunatic and the jerk. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Yes, it is disappointing that you would [false accusation deleted].

No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

Yes, I know.

Liar.

"You did attack Justin. He was in the right. You are therefore in the wrong."

You are [vicious insult deleted]. [Calls me a liar], I merely pointed out the [falsely accuses Justin]. He was [false accusation deleted]. Logically, [false accusation deleted]. You, on the other hand, [calls me a liar][other insults deleted].

No, no, a thousand times no! You're the moron and the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me or Justin are at all true.

"But please stop posting these attack posts aimed at...me."

If you do not wish to be attacked, then you should not attack.

I do not initiate the use of force. But I will defend myself and I will counterattack with (truthful!) insults aimed at those who publicly tell hostile lies about me.

"In fact, "defenders" like you give the copyright regime a bad name all by themselves."

[calls me a liar]

No, no, a thousand times no! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

Yes, I know.

Liar.

It has been sad to get you to realize [insult deleted][false accusation deleted].

No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I will never "realize", or in any other way accept, your evil scurrilous lies. Your efforts are futile. You will shut up now or face the consequences. Do I make myself clear?

"So you'll quit now? Oh, goody."

(Turns out Lonnie lied again, as usual.)

Only once you stop [false accusation deleted].

No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Your "freedom of speech" does not extend to libeling other blog posters. You will cease and desist from this activity at once, or else. Capisce?

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

Perhaps you could trademark your phrase.

I don't believe in "intellectual property", remember?

[misquotes me]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

Okay, okay. You keep repeating the same phrase over and over and over again.

No, you do.

[Implied insult deleted]?

No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

([Implied insult deleted].)

No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

[Implied false accusation deleted].

No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Perhaps next time.

There had better not be a next time. I hope I have made myself adequately clear. Now shut the hell up. You are free to post comments to this blog about other topics; however the topic of me is off-limits to you now, since you keep lying about that particular topic. You are not to discuss me, mention me, or imply or suggest anything about me ever again. Do I make myself clear?

You will not get another warning. Failure to comply -- so much as a single attack post consisting to any significant extent of namecalling directed at me -- will result in swift and certain punishment, probably of the "losing your internet access" kind.

Now get the hell out of my hair and get on with your life.

Or else.