In , "Hypocrite Landshark"
wrote:


"Braìnbuster" wrote in message
...
Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...

What laws are they breaking?

I guess Frank didn't go to the website that the picture was stolen
from. He would have read that all material either written or
displayed is copyrighted. They say right on the site that you
needed express permission to reproduce or display their
material.


Actually I did see the website both before and after 'modification'. You, OTOH,
haven't read the laws regarding copyright infringement.


If you don't know that, you really should stop touting for business as a
lawyer.

Try public display of copyright material...
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html#display

Copyright law gives specific sole rights to the copyright owner...
The right to reproduce the copyrighted work,
The right to prepare derivative works based upon the work,
The right to distribute copies of the work to the public,
The right to perform the copyrighted work publicly,
The right to display the copyrighted work publicly.
Giving permission for any one of these acts does NOT give rights for any
other restricted act. A copyright owner can give permission for copying
for
personal use, while retaining sole rights for public display of the work.

Registration and copyright notices are NOT required for protection to
apply
or legal action to be possible. Copyright exists as soon as a copy
exists,
even if the work is not completed.
When a work is "created":
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html
Copyright subsists in works fixed in any tangible medium:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html

Copyright infringement a federal law:
http://www.pdimages.com/law/10.htm
According to the above site, Americans breaking copyright laws are
"federal
criminals", with a possible $10,000 fine. Is that not the same as the
possible fine for illegal CB?


As with CB laws, whether someone gets caught can be another matter - and
if
a person wants to take the risk, that's their business. But, telling that
person that it is OK to do it is no better than telling someone to use an
illegal amp - and breaking copyright laws is no better than breaking CB
laws.
Also, what a copyright owner will try and what they can manage will depend
upon who they are and how much power (or money) they can throw at it. A
big
business may throw so much money at a case, that it will end up as a loss
for them... but they will make an example of the person in the hope that
others are scared.


Who in this newsgroup was victimized by
"copyright theft"?

He's right Peter who in this newsgroup was
victimized? You can say the same thing about
if I ran an export radio on the legal 40 channels
who am I victimizing on this newsgroup?


If not, then who are you to complain?


Where have I said that anyone in this group was victimised
by copyright theft?


What a goddam hypocrite you are, Peter.

YOU are the hypocrite... you claim to be "pro-legal", yet jump to defend
the
violation of copyright laws. But then, it's not about the law, it's about
WHO is doing something.
All I did was tell someone something, and you jump in with your typical
angry attitude. I'll bet you went bright red and needed a lie down to
recover from your fit. I wonder why you feel the need to jump in and
"protect" that particular person - why anyone suggesting that they
may be breaking a law makes you so angry.
Ask yourself who is doing him a favour - the person warning him of what
could happen, or the person suggesting that he should go ahead regardless?
If I was out to get him, I would simply of kept quiet, reported it, and
laughed as he got "slapped".

Exactly! I found that he had done that, I could've reported him,
but what would that have accomplished? He'll get an email telling
him to take it down, big deal. I thought it was funny right after
I pointed that out, he put little spots over the faces of them to
cover his anatomy. If I'm wrong, why worry.


If you had reported him and actually got a reply, I would have liked to have
seen your face drop while you got educated.


I have made it clear that I use LEGAL CB equipment with no power amps (or
pre-amps, as they are illegal here), I have advised people against using
amps (where they really wanted to know), and I have spoke my mind about
certain add-ons and their fitting methods. Yet, in spite of
"antikeyclown"
suggestions about "anger", I have had no angry response from the
"keyclown"
side - only from the "anti" side.
Strange how the "pro-legal" mob gladly attack a legal CBer, then claim
that
the "keyclowns" chase legal CBers from the group.

Just don't be surprised when nobody believes your claim to be
"pro-legal"... the "antikeyclown" crud is all just a cover for trolling
this group or working off some anger.
The "anti" mob do more to damage the image of legal CB and promote
illegal activities than any of your "enemies" ever could with their words.


The fact remains that picture was taken without
permission from the owner. It was then reproduced and displayed
on the internet, still without permission of the owner, to which it is
stated very clearly on the site, that all material is copyrighted and not
to be reproduced without express written permission.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci


You, like your twin Hypocrite Peter, didn't read far enough into the law. On
that same page about halfway down is the following line:

"Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary
for works of U. S. origin."



Hypocrite Landshark


Yes you are.







-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----