RadioBanter - Announcement To The Group

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- CB (https://www.radiobanter.com/cb/)

- - Announcement To The Group (https://www.radiobanter.com/cb/30947-announcement-group.html)

LO..my name ain't Dave, and Geogre appears to realize it by
comprehending I actually am in Tampa Bay and have never resided on the
opposite coast,,,but s'cool,,I'm not gonna look to anyone else for
validation of where I reside or who I may be, that's *your* failed
game....,,,it simply does not matter (to anyone except you) except for
entertainment value to those that have met me on this group who enjoy
watching you swing at ghosts....now,,,,,back to matter at hand,,,,sure a
copyright has limitations,,,sidestep some more, if you
must,,,,,,EVERYTHING has limitations,,,,LOL,,but you still, may NOT
reproduce or "copy" a copyrighted piece without permission,,,period.
Since you believe otherwise, I am not interested in changing your
opinion,,you were taught the same thing by several others here, all whom
you apparently feel threatened by, based on your continual insultive and
rude demeanor to everyone that ever expressed a point of view you failed
to entertain, otherwise, there would be no need for your condescension.
You go on believing you have the right to reproduce copyrighted material
without explicit permission. Really, no one is going to try and change
your mind,,remember, you have the right to insist on remaining ignorant.

The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct
proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong

Frank Gilliland wrote in message
...

Nice rant, but it is based on your ignorance of copyright law.

Really, Frank... it is clear:
quote ref="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci"
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights
provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright.
/quote

But you seem to wish to argue that registration is required.
Maybe you should have read this part:

quote ref="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc"
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in
the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.
/quote

But surely you must know that - it was in the section that you mentioned to
Mark:

quote ref="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr"
However, registration is not a condition of copyright
protection. Even though registration is not a requirement
for protection, the copyright law provides several
inducements or advantages to encourage copyright
owners to make registration.
quote

With or without registration, works ARE protected by copyright.

Let's try this one more time..... Study the code from the link I quoted
above,
verify all of its references to other sections of the code that are
relevant
to this specific 'case',

If, as you suggest, you have already done this, then quote the reference to
a section which allows public display and modification of copyright
material.
I named the sections, and gave the wording. If you are unwilling to do the
same, then you are just spouting off and hiding in a mountain of rules,
pages and links.

Landshark wrote in message ...

. He would have read that all material either written or
displayed is copyrighted.

Doesn't make any difference, copyright exists without any declaration,
registration, or other act.
That is made clear on the site you named...
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

quote
Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created
/quote

And, although sparky happily refers to the text:
"Before an infringement suit may be filed in court,
registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin."

He seems to be avoiding this, in the same section:
quote
However, registration is not a condition of copyright
protection. Even though registration is not a requirement
for protection, the copyright law provides several
inducements or advantages to encourage copyright
owners to make registration.
/quote

Registration is NOT a condition of copyright.

Regards.

Peter.

In , "Braìnbuster"
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote in message
...

Nice rant, but it is based on your ignorance of copyright law.

Really, Frank... it is clear:
quote ref="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci"
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights
provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright.
/quote

But you seem to wish to argue that registration is required.
Maybe you should have read this part:

quote ref="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc"
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in
the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.
/quote

But surely you must know that - it was in the section that you mentioned to
Mark:

quote ref="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr"
However, registration is not a condition of copyright
protection. Even though registration is not a requirement
for protection, the copyright law provides several
inducements or advantages to encourage copyright
owners to make registration.
quote

With or without registration, works ARE protected by copyright.

Let's try this one more time..... Study the code from the link I quoted
above,
verify all of its references to other sections of the code that are
relevant
to this specific 'case',

If, as you suggest, you have already done this, then quote the reference to
a section which allows public display and modification of copyright
material.
I named the sections, and gave the wording. If you are unwilling to do the
same, then you are just spouting off and hiding in a mountain of rules,
pages and links.

You can cut-&-paste the US Code as much as you want, but the original still
exists at the link I provided. I guess I have to spell it out for you.....

"Sec. 412. - Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement",
means that if your copyright isn't registered, you don't have any rights beyond
those listed in Sec. 106A(a). That section is very specific, and those rights
are limited to "Rights of Attribution and Integrity":

".....

Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in
section 106, the author of a work of visual art -

(1) shall have the right -

(A) to claim authorship of that work, and

(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of
visual art which he or she did not create;

(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author
of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other
modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or
reputation; and

(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the
right -

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification
of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and
any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a
violation of that right, and

(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any
intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that
right.

....."

That's it. NOW, Peter, which of those rights have been violated?

-----= 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! =-----

Duke Of Windsor wrote in message ...

And i am not george, comprehend that.

OK, fellas - enough is enough, time to stop calling George
"George". We wouldn't want to upset George any further.

OK, better now, George?
I must apologise if I have ever called you "George", George.

One question...
If we cannot call you "George", what should we call you, George?
If it is a problem that you do not wish to be on "first name terms"
with a bunch of "keyclowns", we could stop using your christian
name.
Would that be better, Mr. Busche.

:~)

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

"Sec. 412. - Registration as prerequisite to certain
remedies for infringement",

You seem to be getting confused between something being "legal" or
unenforceable.
The keywords here are "remedies" and "infringement".

Remedies: Actions taken to cure a situation.
Infringement: A law has been violated.
Put together: If the law is violated, only people who have registered their
work may be able to take certain action in a US court.

Which makes your argument:
It's ok to break the law as long as the victim may be
powerless to sue your ass over your illegal act.
Which is not much of a "pro-legal" argument.

That's it. NOW, Peter, which of those rights have been violated?

How about "intentional distortion, mutilation, or other
modification of that work".
Clearly, the image has been altered (to give the impression that he is the
person in the picture).
I wonder if the people in that image mind being linked with the person in
question - and his abusive posts on this group.

But, that's not the point - copying and public display of copyright material
is illegal. People who violate laws are criminals.
Unless you can show that registration is a requirement for copyright to
exist AND the image is not resistered, then your buddy is a criminal, and
you are happily defending illegal acts.

In , "Braìnbuster"
wrote:

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

"Sec. 412. - Registration as prerequisite to certain
remedies for infringement",

You seem to be getting confused between something being "legal" or
unenforceable.
The keywords here are "remedies" and "infringement".

A law is not a law unless it can be enforced. If every word that everybody ever
wrote was protected by law, the courts would be hip-deep in diapers from the
hoards of crybabies like yourself filing frivolous copyright suits every time
they -think- their copyrights have been violated (and with claims almost as
outlandish as the ones you are making in this newsgroup). The purpose of
registration is to provide a prima-facie declaration of copyright ownership,
thereby limiting claims to legitimate and bona-fide cases of infringement.

Remedies: Actions taken to cure a situation.
Infringement: A law has been violated.
Put together: If the law is violated, only people who have registered their
work may be able to take certain action in a US court.

You still haven't read the code, and you still don't understand what a copyright
actually is. Well, here's what you missed while smoking dope in high school: A
'copyright' is a device used to claim exclusive authorship of an artistic or
literary work, and entitles the owner to all the benefits (and liabilities)
resulting from the work and/or its reproduction.

Now to apply this to the case at hand. First, did the author of that page claim
copyright, or otherwise claim authorship of the photograph? No. Even if he had,
the page was obviously a parody which is protected under the 1st Amendment (or
maybe you didn't see the movie about Larry Flynt?). Second, were there any
benefits derived from the use of the photograph? No, and even if there were any
benefits, the criminal part of the code for copyright infringement spells out
just what constitutes a 'benefit':

"....either commercial advantage or private financial gain [or] reproduction or
distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or
more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total
retail value of more than $1,000...."

So I'll ask this question YET AGAIN -- what laws were violated?

Which makes your argument:
It's ok to break the law as long as the victim may be
powerless to sue your ass over your illegal act.
Which is not much of a "pro-legal" argument.

The law is clear. You are just not reading it clearly.

That's it. NOW, Peter, which of those rights have been violated?

How about "intentional distortion, mutilation, or other
modification of that work".
Clearly, the image has been altered (to give the impression that he is the
person in the picture).

You can still go to the originating site and view the picture in all of its
unaltered glory. The -copy- was altered.

I wonder if the people in that image mind being linked with the person in
question - and his abusive posts on this group.

Why don't you ask them? At the same time, why don't you ask them if they granted
permission to the website to publish that picture of them?

But, that's not the point - copying and public display of copyright material
is illegal.

Wrong. You can copy any copyrighted materail all you want -- you just can't
claim authorship, or use it for financial gain without permission. You can also
publically display copyrighted material all you want if you are the owner of the
copyright.

People who violate laws are criminals.
Unless you can show that registration is a requirement for copyright to
exist AND the image is not resistered, then your buddy is a criminal, and
you are happily defending illegal acts.

Registration is -not- a requirement for copyright protection. It -IS- a
requirement to seek civil remedies for infringement. The -real- issue is what
protection was violated? It looks like I have to make this a multiple-guess
question:

Which of the following occured:

A. Commercial advantage was gained by posting the copied picture;
B. Person who copied the picture received private financial gain;
C. Picture has a retail value of more than $1000;
D. Picture was copied for use in a parody;

Scroll down for the correct answer.

If you scrolled all the way down here for the answer then you are an idiot!

-----= 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! =-----