[45119] in linux-announce channel archive
Empower Yourself with the Ultimate Bladder Solution
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Avoid Kegels)
Thu Mar 14 07:06:56 2024
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:06:54 +0100
From: "Avoid Kegels" <AvoidKegels@lotterydefendersoftware.best>
Reply-To: "Avoid Kegels" <AvoidKegels@lotterydefendersoftware.best>
To: <linuxch-announce.discuss@charon.mit.edu>
--34e5601d1ce350075ec92ce71f7bd91a_2260a_c97ba
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Empower Yourself with the Ultimate Bladder Solution
http://lotterydefendersoftware.best/xQkJUW7u8L7qyF6AdfFOtPLgAAUQ8klq_JfPT4cn92BWGvyzpQ
http://lotterydefendersoftware.best/ITVrr0uKcfuGU1pSRYq8TJj1GkO4KX4YISM7ApFvJygNAtXp1A
theories. First, the court held that the composers did not have a right of privacy under New York law because those who use public domain works may publish them along with the names of their authors. Second, assuming that it had the authority to issue an injunction for libel under New York law, the court rejected the defamation claim because the composers had failed to prove that the use of their music implied that they supported the message of the film. Specifically, the court held that, unlike copyrighted works—for which the public expects that their authors have consented to their use, probably in exchange for being paid—there cannot be an implication of support when a work is in the public domain and available for use by all.
The court addressed the composers' third and fourth claims together, concluding that their theory of injury "leads inescapably to the Doctrine of Moral Right". The court, assuming moral rights existed in United States law and recognizing that a court could grant a moral rights claim, held that the composers had not shown such a violation because there was no clear standard of adjudication. The court asked: "Is the standard to be good taste, artistic worth, political beliefs, moral concepts or what is it to be?" The court concluded that there was insufficient legal precedent to determine (1) whether moral rights existed, (2) how they interacted with the righ
--34e5601d1ce350075ec92ce71f7bd91a_2260a_c97ba
Content-Type: text/html;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<title>Newsletter</title>
</head>
<body><a href="http://lotterydefendersoftware.best/y8Z1jU_w45SZThtW07yc2vRhJ_XWIPW5S7yXI8Ue9li3fEpuEA"><img src="http://lotterydefendersoftware.best/c6762fd612abccc8a4.jpg" /><img src="http://www.lotterydefendersoftware.best/vibpNgZnWYBV-u1Mgzh21szHfD12TMmY2N2vDf6R7vlrixfVLw" width="1" /></a>
<center>
<div style="max-width:100%;height:auto;width:600px;font-size:18px;font-family:Lucida Fax;text-align:left;">Have you been doing kegels to stop bladder leakage and tighten your pelvic floor?<br />
<br />
Well, you should probably stop doing that and do this instead...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://lotterydefendersoftware.best/xQkJUW7u8L7qyF6AdfFOtPLgAAUQ8klq_JfPT4cn92BWGvyzpQ" http:="" microsoft.com="" rel="sponsored" target="blank"><b>>> This Easy Stretch STOPS 'pee leaks'</b></a><br />
<br />
I know it may be hard to believe, but this easy stretch works because it strengthens the pelvic floor in a way that kegels can't.<br />
<br />
Thousands of women have already already used this stretch to <a href="http://lotterydefendersoftware.best/xQkJUW7u8L7qyF6AdfFOtPLgAAUQ8klq_JfPT4cn92BWGvyzpQ" http:="" microsoft.com="" rel="sponsored" target="blank"><b>put an end </b></a>to involuntary “pee leaks,” and you could be next.<br />
<br />
So if you've tried "everything" to regain control of your bladder (and your life), and nothing has worked so far, then you owe it to yourself to <a href="http://lotterydefendersoftware.best/xQkJUW7u8L7qyF6AdfFOtPLgAAUQ8klq_JfPT4cn92BWGvyzpQ" http:="" microsoft.com="" rel="sponsored" target="blank"><b>TRY THIS today.</b></a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://lotterydefendersoftware.best/xQkJUW7u8L7qyF6AdfFOtPLgAAUQ8klq_JfPT4cn92BWGvyzpQ" http:="" microsoft.com="" rel="sponsored" target="blank"><img src="http://lotterydefendersoftware.best/c7db6192a14fc7a8d7.png" style="max-width: 100%; width: 500px;" /></a><br />
<br />
Terry
<div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://lotterydefendersoftware.best/qXysMyb8knF751ITooyFb_Hi0BUBjAe2RQODjYw-RfIEF1BaBQ" http:="" microsoft.com="" rel="sponsored" target="blank"><img http:="" microsoft.com="" src="http://lotterydefendersoftware.best/f12cd603c119377aa5.png" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:10px;">theories. First, the court held that the composers did not have a right of privacy under New York law because those who use public domain works may publish them along with the names of their authors. Second, assuming that it had the authority to issue an injunction for libel under New York law, the court rejected the defamation claim because the composers had failed to prove that the use of their music implied that they supported the message of the film. Specifically, the court held that, unlike copyrighted works—for which the public expects that their authors have consented to their use, probably in exchange for being paid—there cannot be an implication of support when a work is in the public domain and available for use by all. The court addressed the composers' third and fourth claims together, concluding that their theory of injury "leads inescapably to the Doctrine of Moral Right". The court, assuming moral rights existed in United States law and recognizing that a court could grant a moral rights claim, held that the composers had not shown such a violation because there was no clear standard of adjudication. The court asked: "Is the standard to be good taste, artistic worth, political beliefs, moral concepts or what is it to be?" The court concluded that there was insufficient legal precedent to determine (1) whether moral rights existed, (2) how they interacted with the righ</span></div>
</div>
</center>
</body>
</html>
--34e5601d1ce350075ec92ce71f7bd91a_2260a_c97ba--
