|
RDH 4: Get Your Copy Now.
I have just sent Thomson a certified letter requesting clarification
of the status of this title. It's extremely doubtful, but possible, they may issue C&D to the servers offering it. If you want it, on .pdf, DOWNLOAD IT NOW. If they do, they won't bother anyone who has it if they don't publicly distribute it. Copyright is challengeable if it exists at all because it's been out for years and they did nothing. |
RDH 4: Get Your Copy Now.
On Oct 5, 3:32 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
I have just sent Thomson a certified letter requesting clarification of the status of this title. It's extremely doubtful, but possible, they may issue C&D to the servers offering it. If you want it, on .pdf, DOWNLOAD IT NOW. If they do, they won't bother anyone who has it if they don't publicly distribute it. Copyright is challengeable if it exists at all because it's been out for years and they did nothing. What in the world are you babbling about? OH! RADIO DATA HANDBOOK/// Do you figure Thomsen owns it because they bought some portion of RCA Corporation? If so WHO owns that part of Thomsen now? Aren't copyrights for written materials from the early days 75 years or something? Are you going to make me search fro stuff I'm not gonna find a lot about? Tune in next time to As the Transformer Burns and find out! TRANSCRIBED |
RDH 4: Get Your Copy Now.
On Oct 5, 5:00 pm, Steven wrote:
On Oct 5, 3:32 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote: I have just sent Thomson a certified letter requesting clarification of the status of this title. It's extremely doubtful, but possible, they may issue C&D to the servers offering it. If you want it, on .pdf, DOWNLOAD IT NOW. If they do, they won't bother anyone who has it if they don't publicly distribute it. Copyright is challengeable if it exists at all because it's been out for years and they did nothing. What in the world are you babbling about? OH! RADIO DATA HANDBOOK/// Do you figure Thomsen owns it because they bought some portion of RCA Corporation? If so WHO owns that part of Thomsen now? Aren't copyrights for written materials from the early days 75 years or something? Are you going to make me search fro stuff I'm not gonna find a lot about? Sorry, Radiotron Designer's Handbook, Fourth Edition. In reality it's almost certainly public domain-almost certainly as in almost certainly they really went to the moon or almost certainly Marilyn Monroe met with some foul play. But a nut named Andrew McCoy, alias Andre Jute, has wrecked our group with ****ing about how it really is not public domain, so I have had to "settle the matter". If you don't have the .pdf, you might want to download it now. |
Incitement to theft by Bret Ludwig, thief
On Oct 5, 2:32 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
I have just sent Thomson a certified letter requesting clarification of the status of this title. It's extremely doubtful, but possible, they may issue C&D to the servers offering it. If you want it, on .pdf, DOWNLOAD IT NOW. Thomson have nothing to do with the RDH4 copright; the thief Bret Ludwig blowing smoke in your face. If you want to know why, come follow the threads on RAT. If they do, they won't bother anyone who has it if they don't publicly distribute it. Copyright is challengeable if it exists at all because it's been out for years and they did nothing. But you will know you're a thief, won't you? Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
Liar Liar Pants On Fire "Andre Jute" Again
I have just sent Thomson a certified letter requesting clarification of the status of this title. It's extremely doubtful, but possible, they may issue C&D to the servers offering it. If you want it, on .pdf, DOWNLOAD IT NOW. Thomson have nothing to do with the RDH4 copright; the thief Bret Ludwig blowing smoke in your face. If you want to know why, come follow the threads on RAT. If they do, they won't bother anyone who has it if they don't publicly distribute it. Copyright is challengeable if it exists at all because it's been out for years and they did nothing. But you will know you're a thief, won't you? One can only steal what can be stolen, and only what is owned can be stolen. No one owns RDH 4. Not Newnes, not Audio Amateur Productions, not Thunderfunk Amps, not Thomson, and very certainly not Andrew McCoy d/b/a Andre Jute. If any one did own it they would have issued a C&D by now. They have not because they do not. They will not because they can not. At the very least they would have allowed free distribution only with attribution, which they have not asked for. You are a liar, a thief, a mountebank, and probably a mattoid, Andrew. |
Already the thief Bret Ludwig falls back on his mantra
On Oct 5, 3:16 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
I have just sent Thomson a certified letter requesting clarification of the status of this title. It's extremely doubtful, but possible, they may issue C&D to the servers offering it. If you want it, on .pdf, DOWNLOAD IT NOW. Thomson have nothing to do with the RDH4 copright; the thief Bret Ludwig blowing smoke in your face. If you want to know why, come follow the threads on RAT. If they do, they won't bother anyone who has it if they don't publicly distribute it. Copyright is challengeable if it exists at all because it's been out for years and they did nothing. But you will know you're a thief, won't you? One can only steal what can be stolen, and only what is owned can be stolen. No one owns RDH 4. Not Newnes, not Audio Amateur Productions, not Thunderfunk Amps, not Thomson, and very certainly not Andrew McCoy d/b/a Andre Jute. If any one did own it they would have issued a C&D by now. They have not because they do not. They will not because they can not. At the very least they would have allowed free distribution only with attribution, which they have not asked for. You are a liar, a thief, a mountebank, and probably a mattoid, Andrew. This comes down to, "We stole it so often, it is now ours." When will you write to the Newnes imprint of Reed-Elseviers, Bratzi, to dob in that little list of copyright thieves? cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 From Newnes at least you might get some kind of an answer. It could even be more than just, Thanks, Dumbo, but we know. Unsigned out of contempt for a fool and a thief |
RDH 4: Get Your Copy Now.
On Oct 5, 3:07 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
On Oct 5, 5:00 pm, Steven wrote: On Oct 5, 3:32 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote: I have just sent Thomson a certified letter requesting clarification of the status of this title. It's extremely doubtful, but possible, they may issue C&D to the servers offering it. If you want it, on .pdf, DOWNLOAD IT NOW. If they do, they won't bother anyone who has it if they don't publicly distribute it. Copyright is challengeable if it exists at all because it's been out for years and they did nothing. What in the world are you babbling about? OH! RADIO DATA HANDBOOK/// Do you figure Thomsen owns it because they bought some portion of RCA Corporation? If so WHO owns that part of Thomsen now? Aren't copyrights for written materials from the early days 75 years or something? Are you going to make me search fro stuff I'm not gonna find a lot about? Sorry, Radiotron Designer's Handbook, Fourth Edition. In reality it's almost certainly public domain-almost certainly as in almost certainly they really went to the moon or almost certainly Marilyn Monroe met with some foul play. But a nut named Andrew McCoy, alias Andre Jute, has wrecked our group with ****ing about how it really is not public domain, so I have had to "settle the matter". What can be settled by writing to Thomson who have nothing to do with the RDH4 copright? The thief Bret Ludwig is blowing smoke in our faces. If you want to know why, come follow the threads on RAT. If you don't have the .pdf, you might want to download it now. And you will be a thief if you do. Bret Ludwig is a confessed thief and a pimp for thieves. Andre Jute |
Already the thief Bret Ludwig falls back on his mantra
On Oct 5, 7:13 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 5, 3:16 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote: I have just sent Thomson a certified letter requesting clarification of the status of this title. It's extremely doubtful, but possible, they may issue C&D to the servers offering it. If you want it, on .pdf, DOWNLOAD IT NOW. Thomson have nothing to do with the RDH4 copright; the thief Bret Ludwig blowing smoke in your face. If you want to know why, come follow the threads on RAT. If they do, they won't bother anyone who has it if they don't publicly distribute it. Copyright is challengeable if it exists at all because it's been out for years and they did nothing. But you will know you're a thief, won't you? One can only steal what can be stolen, and only what is owned can be stolen. No one owns RDH 4. Not Newnes, not Audio Amateur Productions, not Thunderfunk Amps, not Thomson, and very certainly not Andrew McCoy d/b/a Andre Jute. If any one did own it they would have issued a C&D by now. They have not because they do not. They will not because they can not. At the very least they would have allowed free distribution only with attribution, which they have not asked for. You are a liar, a thief, a mountebank, and probably a mattoid, Andrew. This comes down to, "We stole it so often, it is now ours." When will you write to the Newnes imprint of Reed-Elseviers, Bratzi, to dob in that little list of copyright thieves? cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 From Newnes at least you might get some kind of an answer. It could even be more than just, Thanks, Dumbo, but we know. Unsigned out of contempt for a fool and a thief You are quite a character! You claim the book is owned by Newnes yet you claim it was stolen from YOU. Your "facts" just do not add up. If it was indeed copyright the owner would have removed it by now ( if they even cared). |
Already the thief Bret Ludwig falls back on his mantra
You are quite a character! You claim the book is owned by Newnes yet you claim it was stolen from YOU. Your "facts" just do not add up. If it was indeed copyright the owner would have removed it by now ( if they even cared). Very precisely. Companies like Newnes guard their property very well. They have full time infringement monitoring and attorneys on retainer in every country in the world worth bothering with. Anyone doubting that need only put up a scanned book that IS copyright and they will find out. The book is a work for hire from a company that no longer exists in any tangible form. Like most of the classic RCA and GE tube manuals and educational materials published before about 1962-64 the copyright was not renewed at the time and because of US law and laws elsewhere is effectively out of copyright. Andre's opinions not withstanding are irrelevant. The fact that the book was reprinted is irrelevant. In fact, I suspect Newnes never would have bothered reprinting it if it were subject to copyright. It is very difficult for third parties to license old books in most cases because tracking down everyone is a hassle and because most publishing houses in New York refuse to talk to anyone without a lot of money-they just can't be bothered. Andre(w) is a liar, a mountebank, and a ****head. It's likely he molests koala bears and craps in his neighbors' hydrangea bushes as well, but this as yet unproven. |
Already the thief Bret Ludwig falls back on his mantra
On 6 Oct, 04:34, Bret Ludwig wrote:
] Andre(w) is a liar, a mountebank, and a ****head. It's likely he molests koala bears and craps in his neighbors' hydrangea bushes as well, but this as yet unproven. So, he camps with Arny. It also explains the state of Arny's bushes. And they are brown bears, not Koalas. |
Already the thief Bret Ludwig falls back on his mantra
On Oct 5, 7:34 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
You are quite a character! You claim the book is owned by Newnes yet you claim it was stolen from YOU. Your "facts" just do not add up. If it was indeed copyright the owner would have removed it by now ( if they even cared). Very precisely. This is the same old story twice: "We stole it so often, it is now ours." Then the thief Bret Ludwig, who has never seen the inside of a publisher and never will, sets himself up as an "expert" on publishing house practice, starting with a paranoid daydream absolutely typical of his fascist mentality: Companies like Newnes guard their property very well. They have full time infringement monitoring and attorneys on retainer in every country in the world worth bothering with. Anyone doubting that need only put up a scanned book that IS copyright and they will find out. Actually, small publishing houses, and large ones, have rather small staffs fully occupied with editing and selling books. Copyright infringement in a civilized society is so rare, and the sort of concerted theft that the thief Bret Ludwig pimps for so very rare, that nobody pays much attention to copyright theft, not even the rights manager, whose function is to license rights to other territories, for translation, and for other media, not in the first instance to enforce copyright compliance. The book is a work for hire from a company That's a lie. It has been explained again and again that this is an Australian book and that Australian books created by employees are protected *everywhere in the world* for the life of the author plus 70 full years. that no longer exists in any tangible form. This is an implied lie: Bratzi tries to claim the property dies with the property owner. Actually, the copyright survives to to the full term and may be, and in this case was, transferred to a new owner: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Like most of the classic RCA and GE tube manuals and educational materials published before about 1962-64 the copyright was not renewed at the time and because of US law and laws elsewhere is effectively out of copyright. This is a whole bunch of lies and ignorant statements compounded. For a start, we're not talking about the US, we're talking about the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic who stole in Canada the RDH4, and claim the protection of Canadian law (which they deliberately lie about) for their theft. I'll get to the USA thefts later if their posters don't in the meanwhile take them down. Andre's opinions not withstanding are irrelevant. This is a double negative from a semi-literate solder sniffer trying to sound sophisticated. What do you mean to say, Bratzi? Surely, since I am the only one here who actually knows anything about copyright, courtesy of having earned my living by copyright for half a century, my knowledge and opinions are the most relevant? The fact that the book was reprinted is irrelevant. In fact, I suspect Newnes never would have bothered reprinting it if it were subject to copyright. Holy Moses! And this scumball Bret Ludwig holds himself up as a copyright expert! Yo, moron, Newnes reprinted exactly *because* they owned the copyright: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 It is very difficult for third parties to license old books in most cases because tracking down everyone is a hassle For you, the thief Bret Ludwig, of course it is impossible, because you don't know who to approach and how to approach them. Newnes and other publishers do this every day for a living. For them it is no bother at all. But, in any event "license" in your mouth is a lie. You're not on about licensing copyright for payment, you're just a thief and a pimp for thieves, in this case the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic, and their mirrors. and because most publishing houses in New York refuse to talk to anyone without a lot of money-they just can't be bothered. Yet another lie. Most copyright licensing deals are for a few thousand dollars. Many, many translation rights, especially in novels are licensed for a few hundred dollars. Bret Ludwig doesn't know what he is talking about. It is all of a piece with his paranoid misconception of the world: little Bret against the monster publishing houses. I've worked with all the largest publishing houses in the world, and many of the smaller ones, and they're just people like everyone else. Andre(w) is a liar, a mountebank, and a ****head. It's likely he molests koala bears and craps in his neighbors' hydrangea bushes as well, but this as yet unproven. These are more lies. But what does one expect from Bret Ludwig, who steals from the living and the dead and brags about it? Andre Jute You can find out how I know so much about copyright by visiting my books at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ |
Already the thief Bret Ludwig falls back on his mantra
This is an implied lie: Bratzi tries to claim the property dies with the property owner. Actually, the copyright survives to to the full term and may be, and in this case was, transferred to a new owner: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Like most of the classic RCA and GE tube manuals and educational materials published before about 1962-64 the copyright was not renewed at the time and because of US law and laws elsewhere is effectively out of copyright. This is a whole bunch of lies and ignorant statements compounded. For a start, we're not talking about the US, we're talking about the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic who stole in Canada the RDH4, and claim the protection of Canadian law (which they deliberately lie about) for their theft. I'll get to the USA thefts later if their posters don't in the meanwhile take them down. Andre's opinions not withstanding are irrelevant. This is a double negative from a semi-literate solder sniffer trying to sound sophisticated. What do you mean to say, Bratzi? Surely, since I am the only one here who actually knows anything about copyright, courtesy of having earned my living by copyright for half a century, my knowledge and opinions are the most relevant? The fact that the book was reprinted is irrelevant. In fact, I suspect Newnes never would have bothered reprinting it if it were subject to copyright. Holy Moses! And this scumball Bret Ludwig holds himself up as a copyright expert! Yo, moron, Newnes reprinted exactly *because* they owned the copyright: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 They owned the same "copyright" that Lindsay Publications owns on all the out of copyright books that they reprint: that additional or changed material they have added, or if they have edited or deleted things the exact things they have edited or deleted. Anyone else besides Lindsay Publications may do the same thing Lindsay has done, reprint a book in the public domain. They cannot add, for example, Lindsay's foreword or addenda he puts in. Even a King James Bible has a copyright statement: they are seeking to protect the formatting and extra materials such as maps they put in. Although some do not even bother anymore with that. Believe me, Newnes knows a great deal more than either of us about copyright and copyright enforcement and they would have long ago put the kibosh on these sites if it were improper. |
Already the thief Bret Ludwig falls back on his mantra
On Oct 6, 3:51 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
This is an implied lie: Bratzi tries to claim the property dies with the property owner. Actually, the copyright survives to to the full term and may be, and in this case was, transferred to a new owner: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Like most of the classic RCA and GE tube manuals and educational materials published before about 1962-64 the copyright was not renewed at the time and because of US law and laws elsewhere is effectively out of copyright. This is a whole bunch of lies and ignorant statements compounded. For a start, we're not talking about the US, we're talking about the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic who stole in Canada the RDH4, and claim the protection of Canadian law (which they deliberately lie about) for their theft. I'll get to the USA thefts later if their posters don't in the meanwhile take them down. Andre's opinions not withstanding are irrelevant. This is a double negative from a semi-literate solder sniffer trying to sound sophisticated. What do you mean to say, Bratzi? Surely, since I am the only one here who actually knows anything about copyright, courtesy of having earned my living by copyright for half a century, my knowledge and opinions are the most relevant? The fact that the book was reprinted is irrelevant. In fact, I suspect Newnes never would have bothered reprinting it if it were subject to copyright. Holy Moses! And this scumball Bret Ludwig holds himself up as a copyright expert! Yo, moron, Newnes reprinted exactly *because* they owned the copyright: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 They owned the same "copyright" that Lindsay Publications owns on all the out of copyright books that they reprint: Then you, Bret Ludwig, or the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic, or the thieves who operate their mirrors, must prove that 70 years have elapsed since the death of the last author of the RDH4. That is clearly impossible for a book published as recently as 1953, with a revised and expanded edition published possibly as late as 1967 creating yet another of authors and copyrights. You're wanking hysterically, Ludwig: that additional or changed material they have added, or if they have edited or deleted things the exact things they have edited or deleted. Are you blowing smoke, Ludwig, or are you growing incoherent in your hysteria? The Newnes edition of 1997 is a facsimile edition of the last, 1967 edition under the old copyright holder AWV. Nothing has been added or subtracted. All that has happened is that the copyright passed from AWV to Reed, mother company of Newnes. Copyright, for your information, isn't a magical incantation, it is just property, exactly like an amplifier or real estate. Anyone else besides Lindsay Publications may do the same thing Lindsay has done, reprint a book in the public domain. Once the book is in the public domain, sure. But the RDH4 cannot even begin to come into the public domain until 2014 at the very earliest (if all the authors were dead at publication, which we know isn't so because there were revised and expanded editions after that) and most probably until 2038. Assertion doesn't put a book in the public domain, Ludwig: proof is required, and you haven't even tried to get the necessary proof. They cannot add, for example, Lindsay's foreword or addenda he puts in. What has Lindsay got to do with the RDH4? Are you drunk or doped up again, Ludwig? Even a King James Bible has a copyright statement: they are seeking to protect the formatting and extra materials such as maps they put in. Although some do not even bother anymore with that. Everyone knows the writers of the King James Bible are dead for several centuries now. You, Bret Ludwig, and the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic have yet to prove the authors of the RDH4 are dead, and have been dead for 70 years. You can't, because only forty years has passed since the last revised and expanded edition of the RDH4. Tough luck, sonny. Believe me, Newnes knows a great deal more than either of us about copyright and copyright enforcement They certainly know more than you do, Ludwig, because you know nothing, as is illustrated by your mantra: and they would have long ago put the kibosh on these sites if it were improper. "We have stolen the book so often, it is now ours." Unsigned out of contempt for thief and a pimp for thieves |
More lies and shit from Andrew.
Everyone knows the writers of the King James Bible are dead for several centuries now. You, Bret Ludwig, and the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic have yet to prove the authors of the RDH4 are dead, and have been dead for 70 years. You can't, because only forty years has passed since the last revised and expanded edition of the RDH4. Tough luck, sonny. Believe me, Newnes knows a great deal more than either of us about copyright and copyright enforcement They certainly know more than you do, Ludwig, because you know nothing, as is illustrated by your mantra: and they would have long ago put the kibosh on these sites if it were improper. "We have stolen the book so often, it is now ours." It isn't anyone's. If it were they would have stopped it. It's quite that simple. "RDH 4 may be distributed free of charge, as has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. " So go and eat ****, you puke-eating cur, you sniffer of bicycle seats and tampon applicators found outdoors. |
The thief Bret Ludwig says: "We stole it so often, now it is ours.:
On Oct 6, 9:04 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
Everyone knows the writers of the King James Bible are dead for several centuries now. You, Bret Ludwig, and the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic have yet to prove the authors of the RDH4 are dead, and have been dead for 70 years. You can't, because only forty years has passed since the last revised and expanded edition of the RDH4. Tough luck, sonny. Believe me, Newnes knows a great deal more than either of us about copyright and copyright enforcement They certainly know more than you do, Ludwig, because you know nothing, as is illustrated by your mantra: and they would have long ago put the kibosh on these sites if it were improper. "We have stolen the book so often, it is now ours." It isn't anyone's. cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 If it were they would have stopped it. It's quite that simple. "We have stolen the book so often, it is now ours." You flatter yourself, Ludwig, and you flatter the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic. Until someone tells them, it is doubtful a publisher will discover some mickey mouse person on his mickey mouse netsite offers the publisher's copyright property for download. "RDH 4 may be distributed free of charge, as has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. " Bull****. It is in copyright, and the copyright owner is identifiable and has been identified: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 So go and eat ****, you puke-eating cur, you sniffer of bicycle seats and tampon applicators found outdoors. Even you abuse is dull, Ludwig. You really aren't suited for intellectual enterprise. You should stick to shooting at cans and sniffing solder fumes. Unsigned for the usual reasons |
The thief Bret Ludwig says: "We stole it so often, now it is ours.:
On Oct 7, 12:03 am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 6, 9:04 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote: Everyone knows the writers of the King James Bible are dead for several centuries now. You, Bret Ludwig, and the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic have yet to prove the authors of the RDH4 are dead, and have been dead for 70 years. You can't, because only forty years has passed since the last revised and expanded edition of the RDH4. Tough luck, sonny. Believe me, Newnes knows a great deal more than either of us about copyright and copyright enforcement They certainly know more than you do, Ludwig, because you know nothing, as is illustrated by your mantra: and they would have long ago put the kibosh on these sites if it were improper. "We have stolen the book so often, it is now ours." It isn't anyone's. cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 If it were they would have stopped it. It's quite that simple. "We have stolen the book so often, it is now ours." You flatter yourself, Ludwig, and you flatter the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic. Until someone tells them, it is doubtful a publisher will discover some mickey mouse person on his mickey mouse netsite offers the publisher's copyright property for download. They have been notified. If you don't believe me, notify them yourself. "RDH 4 may be distributed free of charge, as has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. " Bull****. It is in copyright, and the copyright owner is identifiable and has been identified: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Let them issue a ceast and desist then. They won't. They can't. |
The thief Bret Ludwig says: "We stole it so often, now it is ours.:
On Oct 6, 10:21 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
On Oct 7, 12:03 am, Andre Jute wrote: On Oct 6, 9:04 pm, Bret Ludwig It isn't anyone's. cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 If it were they would have stopped it. It's quite that simple. "We have stolen the book so often, it is now ours." You flatter yourself, Ludwig, and you flatter the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic. Until someone tells them, it is doubtful a publisher will discover some mickey mouse person on his mickey mouse netsite offers the publisher's copyright property for download. They have been notified. If you don't believe me, notify them yourself. Me? I'm not a grass. I leave it to criminals like you, Ludwig, to dob in the other criminals, like Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic. But I don't believe you. I still want to see the e-mail you sent, complete if you don't mind, so that I can determine whether you did the job at all, and if your did do it, and if you did do it, did yo do it right. "RDH 4 may be distributed free of charge, as has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. " Bull****. It is in copyright, and the copyright owner is identifiable and has been identified: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Let them issue a ceast and desist then. They won't. Oh dear. You really are a slow learner. These are the facts: 1. The copyright holder is the copyright holder by presumption. They don't have to prove anything. You, the thief Bret Ludwig, have to prove that the book is in the public domain. That is the law. 2. They don't have to tell you anything, not even a cease and desist order. That is the law. You're a nobody; you have no standing; you're just another thief. 3. You can't conclude anything from the absence of a cease and desist order. You will still be a thief, and so will Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky. They can't. 4. The law is that the wannabes like you must prove they are not thieves. The copyright holder has to do nothing, absolutely nothing, SFFA. That too is the law. You've made a fool of yourself, Ludwig, for no gain at all. You've made a fool of yourself because you are out of your depth, Ludwig. I have explained several times how this works but you have either failed to understand or you are such a jerkup that you think your wishful thinking substitutes for the law of the land. (That last is a good definition of a sociopath.) Unsigned out of contempt for a tattletale and a fool |
The thief Bret Ludwig says: "We stole it so often, now it is ours.:
They have been notified. If you don't believe me, notify them yourself. Me? I'm not a grass. I leave it to criminals like you, Ludwig, to dob in the other criminals, like Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic. But I don't believe you. I still want to see the e-mail you sent, complete if you don't mind, so that I can determine whether you did the job at all, and if your did do it, and if you did do it, did yo do it right. You're a moral idiot. There is no fault in notifying the authorities of a crime provided you yourself were not in on the crime. It's when a co-conspirator rats out his fellows that one can be called a snitch. Would you ignore the robbing of an old lady on the street so as not to be a "grass"? And no, I will not post the email. If you are so big on doing the job why not wrote from all the sockpuppet accounts you post here on when you are having a bad period? |
The thief Bret Ludwig says: "We stole it so often, now it is ours.:
On Oct 6, 11:05 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
They have been notified. If you don't believe me, notify them yourself. Me? I'm not a grass. I leave it to criminals like you, Ludwig, to dob in the other criminals, like Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic. But I don't believe you. I still want to see the e-mail you sent, complete if you don't mind, so that I can determine whether you did the job at all, and if your did do it, and if you did do it, did yo do it right. You're a moral idiot. Anything is possible, of course. But it is a proven fact that you, Bret Ludwig is an immoral thief. The only thing shorter than your decency is your dick. There is no fault in notifying the authorities of a crime provided you yourself were not in on the crime. It's when a co-conspirator rats out his fellows that one can be called a snitch. Would you ignore the robbing of an old lady on the street so as not to be a "grass"? Of course not, nor the theft of the RDH4 copyright by Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic, with Bret Ludwig as their tout. Nor, for that matter, the theft from me by the scumball Bret Ludwig. And no, I will not post the email. If you are so big on doing the job It is not that I want to do the job, it is that I want to check you didn't deliberately send the e-mail to the wrong address. We know you are dishonest, a thief in fact, so why should we take your word for anything. why not wrote from all the sockpuppet accounts you post here on when you are having a bad period? Unsigned out of contempt for a snitch and scum |
Already the thief Bret Ludwig falls back on his mantra
|
Already the thief Bret Ludwig falls back on his mantra
On Oct 7, 6:56 am, OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION
wrote: wrote in message om Australian law says that when an employee creates a book, the employer owns it. The term of the copyright for such a corporate copyright under Australian law is for the *author's life plus 70 years from the year after his death*. Since first publication was 1953, with revised and expanded editions following until 1967, the RDH4 cannot even begin to go out of copyright before at least 2024 and possibly not even until 2038. This is such a profoundly stupid complaint you have, Mr. McJute. Let's assume that the copyright *IS* still owned by RDH4, or whoever you THINK owns it. In order to enforce their copyright, they would have to engage in legal actions. This would normally start with a "cease and desist" letter. For any publishing company, this would require at least a meeting between attorney and probably several management level employees, the lawyer would then go off and research the issue, and write the C&D. This would then be forwarded back the the client; they would circulate the draft among the management employees and likely have at least minor changes to the form and substance of the letter. The attorney would rewrite, and assuming all goes well receive approval from the client to issue it. The attorney would then need to locate the exact details of the owner of the website in question (and from what I gather this material is routinely available from a number of websites). Research would be done and perhaps at long last the C&D would be sent, probably by some kind of signed courier. Total cost? Easily US$5000, perhaps up to US$10,000. Large publishing concerns have attorneys on staff, who have nothing else to do, besides this. It takes one about ten minutes to run off a form letter and send it FedEx to the people involved. It takes even less to send an email stating that we believe this is inappropriate use of our IP to someone's ISP. We are talking fifty to a hundred dollars of company time as internally billed. Even if the amount is trivial, large publishers, and most small ones, do the level best they can to stop unauthorized use of any and all lawful IP. If you in good faith, with an active email address, put up something not in the public domain it will not be long before you hear about it. RDH 4 is absolutely and positively public domain now. A lot of desireable material isn't and arguably ought to be. I have of course written my legislators, two of which are neocon fellating whores and one basically a lazy careerist, so it is a waste of postage. but what I view as good citizenship on my part. |
Already the thief Bret Ludwig falls back on his mantra
Bret Ludwig wrote:
Large publishing concerns have attorneys on staff, who have nothing else to do, besides this. It takes one about ten minutes to run off a form letter and send it FedEx to the people involved. It takes even less to send an email stating that we believe this is inappropriate use of our IP to someone's ISP. We are talking fifty to a hundred dollars of company time as internally billed. Even if the amount is trivial, large publishers, and most small ones, do the level best they can to stop unauthorized use of any and all lawful IP. If you in good faith, with an active email address, put up something not in the public domain it will not be long before you hear about it. RDH 4 is absolutely and positively public domain now. A lot of desireable material isn't and arguably ought to be. I have of course written my legislators, two of which are neocon fellating whores and one basically a lazy careerist, so it is a waste of postage. but what I view as good citizenship on my part. I have a friend, a retired lawyer who once worked for McGraw-Hill. He does not normally read the newsgroups but I sent him the google link to this thread, and he emailed me back his response. Here it is: "Mr. Ludwig is absolutely correct when he says that the large concerns have many lawyers and paralegals on staff who are solely devoted to tracking down infringing parties. Much of that activity stems from the fact that U.S. copyright law and legal precedent demands that the holders of copyright defend their properties vigorously or risk loss of the copyright. So, if an infringement is discovered, the identified infringer will be sent a C & D letter, even if the material in question is of little immediate value to the holder. The C & D letter costs the holder very little to send, and will at least establish some diligence on the part of the copyright holder to assert and protect the holder's copyright of the material. Most of the time, the infringer takes steps to stop the infringement upon receipt of the letter, and that's the end of that. It is situations where the infringer does not act-ignores the C & D letter- where the decision of what to do next becomes dicey. If the material is an original, artistic work, then the publisher who holds copyright will most likely go ahead with a lawsuit, because there is at least some possibility that the work will continue to be enjoyed by a significant number of people far into the future. However, in the case of old, outdated reference material, there is likely going to be some sort of a value test done before the holder will go further. In a perfect world, the holder would take whatever action is necessary to stop infringement in every single instance, but the world we live in is one that is driven by economics and practicality. If the materials in question are non-artistic, antiquated, and out-of-print, the up-front costs of securing a judgement against an infringer will likely exceed the value of the item being infringed. Although there are mechanisms to recover some of these costs from an infringing party that chooses to ignore a C & D letter, the reality is that recovery of these costs in the short term is often quite difficult, and often difficult in the longer term as well. The holder may well find that they have spent all this money to pursue an infringer who has no assets that can be attached. The phrase "you can't squeeze blood from a stone" really applies here. It is for this reason that casual copyright infringement, which occurs millions of times per day on the internet, is rarely prosecuted. With regards to Mr Jute, his interpretation of the strength of Australian copyright law, as it applies in the USA, is quite fanciful, to say the least. If you are going to prosecute an infringer in an American court, the law that is going to referenced in that case is American law, period. Australian law will only be considered to the extent that it matches the American statutes exactly. If the publication dates stated previously are correct, then the "RDH4" publication that is being discussed here had a USA copyright period of 28 years before entering public domain UNLESS the holder took explicit legal steps to extend the period another 28 years (later expanded to 65 years and modified again to 70 years beyond the author's death). No extension, no protection now for works produced in that era. In the case of a reference work such as the "RDH4" the question of whether or not the copyright was extended is FAR from certain. There are many that were extended and many more that were not. If the person who is publishing it on the internet has not received a C&D letter within a few weeks or months, I would suspect that the "RDH4" is indeed public domain at this point, but I would not be certain. Now, a publisher might choose to pursue litigation in an Australian court, and might get a judgement there, but all of the same issues of recouping the costs outlined above come into play, and if the infringer is located in some other place than Australia the difficulty of recouping those costs take on a whole new dimension." So, there you have it....An opinion from someone who has been there, done that. -Scott |
Already the thief Bret Ludwig falls back on his mantra
You haven't read the threads, Scott. We are not at the moment talking
about US copyright but about the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic who claim that their lies about Canadaian copyright protects their theft of the RDH4. Last time I heard, Canada was not yet a State in United States of America. As I have already pointed out to the permanently irrelevant Flipper, it is a particularly American arrogance to assume when someone shouts "Stop, thief!" that all Americans should instantly call their attorneys to start blowing smoke to cover their guilt. I'll see you when I start on the US copyright thieves. Meanwhile, if you want to play, raise your eyes to the horizon. Andre Jute Hell, these days even Chinese smoke is superior to made-in-the-USA smoke On Oct 8, 10:57 pm, "Scott W. Harvey" wrote: Bret Ludwig wrote: Large publishing concerns have attorneys on staff, who have nothing else to do, besides this. It takes one about ten minutes to run off a form letter and send it FedEx to the people involved. It takes even less to send an email stating that we believe this is inappropriate use of our IP to someone's ISP. We are talking fifty to a hundred dollars of company time as internally billed. Even if the amount is trivial, large publishers, and most small ones, do the level best they can to stop unauthorized use of any and all lawful IP. If you in good faith, with an active email address, put up something not in the public domain it will not be long before you hear about it. RDH 4 is absolutely and positively public domain now. A lot of desireable material isn't and arguably ought to be. I have of course written my legislators, two of which are neocon fellating whores and one basically a lazy careerist, so it is a waste of postage. but what I view as good citizenship on my part. I have a friend, a retired lawyer who once worked for McGraw-Hill. He does not normally read the newsgroups but I sent him the google link to this thread, and he emailed me back his response. Here it is: "Mr. Ludwig is absolutely correct when he says that the large concerns have many lawyers and paralegals on staff who are solely devoted to tracking down infringing parties. Much of that activity stems from the fact that U.S. copyright law and legal precedent demands that the holders of copyright defend their properties vigorously or risk loss of the copyright. So, if an infringement is discovered, the identified infringer will be sent a C & D letter, even if the material in question is of little immediate value to the holder. The C & D letter costs the holder very little to send, and will at least establish some diligence on the part of the copyright holder to assert and protect the holder's copyright of the material. Most of the time, the infringer takes steps to stop the infringement upon receipt of the letter, and that's the end of that. It is situations where the infringer does not act-ignores the C & D letter- where the decision of what to do next becomes dicey. If the material is an original, artistic work, then the publisher who holds copyright will most likely go ahead with a lawsuit, because there is at least some possibility that the work will continue to be enjoyed by a significant number of people far into the future. However, in the case of old, outdated reference material, there is likely going to be some sort of a value test done before the holder will go further. In a perfect world, the holder would take whatever action is necessary to stop infringement in every single instance, but the world we live in is one that is driven by economics and practicality. If the materials in question are non-artistic, antiquated, and out-of-print, the up-front costs of securing a judgement against an infringer will likely exceed the value of the item being infringed. Although there are mechanisms to recover some of these costs from an infringing party that chooses to ignore a C & D letter, the reality is that recovery of these costs in the short term is often quite difficult, and often difficult in the longer term as well. The holder may well find that they have spent all this money to pursue an infringer who has no assets that can be attached. The phrase "you can't squeeze blood from a stone" really applies here. It is for this reason that casual copyright infringement, which occurs millions of times per day on the internet, is rarely prosecuted. With regards to Mr Jute, his interpretation of the strength of Australian copyright law, as it applies in the USA, is quite fanciful, to say the least. If you are going to prosecute an infringer in an American court, the law that is going to referenced in that case is American law, period. Australian law will only be considered to the extent that it matches the American statutes exactly. If the publication dates stated previously are correct, then the "RDH4" publication that is being discussed here had a USA copyright period of 28 years before entering public domain UNLESS the holder took explicit legal steps to extend the period another 28 years (later expanded to 65 years and modified again to 70 years beyond the author's death). No extension, no protection now for works produced in that era. In the case of a reference work such as the "RDH4" the question of whether or not the copyright was extended is FAR from certain. There are many that were extended and many more that were not. If the person who is publishing it on the internet has not received a C&D letter within a few weeks or months, I would suspect that the "RDH4" is indeed public domain at this point, but I would not be certain. Now, a publisher might choose to pursue litigation in an Australian court, and might get a judgement there, but all of the same issues of recouping the costs outlined above come into play, and if the infringer is located in some other place than Australia the difficulty of recouping those costs take on a whole new dimension." So, there you have it....An opinion from someone who has been there, done that. -Scott |
Already the thief Bret Ludwig falls back on his mantra
"Andre Jute" wrote in message oups.com... You haven't read the threads, Scott. We are not at the moment talking about US copyright but about the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic who claim that their lies about Canadaian copyright protects their theft of the RDH4. Horse****! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com