''Goober Tears" by Whine Duckery [quack]

[Barbara's Cat]

Duck doesn't understand how the apostrophe works.
"Perhaps you know of a good link that explores
such apostrophe problems?"
- Goober Duck confused about its/it's
4 Jan 2008

I understand Copyright law, though.

Your erroneous quacking indicates: No, you don't.

[Meat Plow]

doesn't understand how the apostrophe works.

I understand quacking law, quack.

Of course you do.

[Barbara's Cat]

Glad you realize who is the owner.

Sure, I wrote it and recognize that under copyright law

when you give someone permission to use what you wrote
in their creations they can use what you wrote in their
creations and what they create is their property and is
protected by copyright law?

Your stealing and attempting to sell Mr Cook's property
is outright theft and a violation of copyright law.

[Barbara's Cat]

I wrote the crap, thus, I own the crap.

Mr Cook made the recording

Using the crap

that you publicly gave Mr Cook permission to use.

Wrong

On the contrary: unquestionably correct.


"Added music would be great, Michael!"
- MID ***@news2.knology.net


"have you added music to the Mp3, yet?"
- MID 3fe79e6b$***@news1.knology.net


"I think it's kind of fun to go into the Google archives
with *another* "Collaboration with Michael Cook..."
- MID 3fe7842b$***@news2.knology.net

[Dennis M. Hammes]

Post by Barbara's Cat

I wrote the crap, thus, I own the crap.

Mr Cook made the recording

Using the crap

that you publicly gave Mr Cook permission to use.

Wrong

On the contrary: unquestionably correct.
"Added music would be great, Michael!"
"have you added music to the Mp3, yet?"
"I think it's kind of fun to go into the Google archives
with *another* "Collaboration with Michael Cook..."

But he doesn't /get/ it, apparently, and if he doesn't /get/ it,
apparently, it is obviously untrue apparently, as many would quack.