Path: news.nzbot.com!border2.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feed.xsnews.nl!border-3.ams.xsnews.nl!cyclone03.ams2.highwinds-media.com!voer-me.highwinds-media.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn
From: Southern-Charms@a.joke.gov
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.southern-charms.pictures
Subject: Re: Official Southern Charms Notice
Date: 7 Sep 2012 10:14:40 -0700
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <k2da20018bo@drn.newsguy.com>
References: <4292s.4900$Ok1.1073@newsfe13.iad> <ta5j485hqe1utvmev9jfle0av20g4uaotv@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: a330.newsdawg.com
User-Agent: Direct Read News 5.60
X-Received-Bytes: 5322
X-Original-Bytes: 5466
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.southern-charms.pictures:11218
In article <ta5j485hqe1utvmev9jfle0av20g4uaotv@4ax.com>, nanopunk says...
>
>Oh please. Don't flatter yourself. The quality of SC stuff is crap and
>pretty much always has been. . I always checked the group and hoped
>to find something worth subscribing to but sadly never did. I did once
>subscribe to one because she reminded me of an old GF but was
>dissapointed with the size and quality of the work and never went
>back.
>
>Do yourself a favor and check out the quality and resolution of work
>on SimonScans and ATKHairy work from Sean S., ATKingdom particulary
>BMB's recent work. And of course, DDFNetworks stuff to see how it's
>done. I see their work on Usenet and always subscribe to them as much
>as I can afford 'cause they deserve it. They produce quality work. SC
>does not and never has.
>
>And I'm not talking about Professional Quality models. I like mostly
>funky-er unique amateur girl and milf next door type models. Most of
>yours are just plain unapealing, with a few exceptions. But mostly
>I'm talking about image quality - resolution and lighting. Fix that
>and you might be in the game.
>
>But now that you've banned posting on Usenet, if you ever DO produce
>something worth subscribing to, I guess we'll never know. Good luck
>with that strategy.
>
>nanopunk
>
>On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:00:38 -0500, "SC DMCA"
><dmca@southern-charms.com> wrote:
>
>>To Whom It May Concern:
>>
>>There seems to be considerable confusion concerning the removal of Southern
>>Charms content from UseNet. In order to circumvent the perpetuation of what
>>amounts to the blatant wholesale exploitation of the material in question,
>>Southern Charms provides this official statement to enlighten you.
>>
>>On May 7, 2012, Southern Charms was awarded in excess of 7.1 million dollars
>>in it's first copyright violation case - case # C2-10-566 by The Honorable
>>Edmund A. Sargus, Jr, United States District Judge.
>>
>>The amount of the award was based directly upon the amount of Southern
>>Charms content. UseNet currently displays more Southern Charms content than
>>the offender in the lawsuit,
>>
>>You so eloquently describe your actions as "advertisement" that you seem to
>>think Southern Charms should be in concert with, when in reality you are
>>directly responsible for adversely affecting every model in every image you
>>have ever uploaded to UseNet in addition to breaking the law.
>>
>>Be advised, as Hugh Elmwood stated, YOUR anonimity also ends with the
>>billing process. By law we can and will obtain your contact information
>>should any further abuse appear..
>>
>>Having successfully prosecuted copyright infringement, we are now seeking to
>>have all Southern Charms content immediately disabled/removed from UseNet
>>and any other Internet venue per DMCA law. For those who are not aware,
>>from our official DMCA:
>>
>>"We further request that the following Southern Charms
>>exclusively licensed material posted on UseNet be
>>removed. Since this practice has started, it has cost us
>>millions in sales. We will not allow this practice to continue. It
>>is our intent to permanently remove all Southern Charms
>>content from UseNet.
>>
>>As you nor the participants of UseNet neither
>>asked for nor received permission to use Southern Charms images nor to
>>make or distribute copies, including electronic copies, of
>>same, you and they have willfully infringed upon our rights
>>under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and could be liable for
>>statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in
>>Section 504(c)(2) therein. All of the below listed images
>>are licensed exclusively to Southern Charms."
>>
>>That is $150,000 PER VIOLATION...
>>
>>Let me clarify- all of the images seen on Southern Charms are copyright
>>protected and licensed exclusively to Southern Charms. Southern Charms and
>>it's models will no longer tolerate the unauthorized use of it's
>>intellectual properties, and will prosecute those who continue to infringe
>>upon Southern Charms' copyrights..
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>Southern Charms Tech Support
>>Tech.Support@southern-charms.com
>>Southern Charms DMCA
>>dmca@southern-charms.com
>>for Southern Charms Owner, William Wesson
Southern Charms has nothing but a bunch of washed up old porno ho's. Most of
them did business either on other sites, or have their own. Losing business?
Like there ever was any. It Southern Charms actually took every poster to
court, it would cost them more than they would ever receive. There are many
groups where their ho's are posted. They would have to shut down all of Usenet.
What a joke.
|
|