Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
From: (Duke=A0Of=A0Windsor)
(Twistedhed) wrote in news:27398-402C0637-334 @storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net: 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... And i am not george, comprehend that. I really don't care,,,,but since you brought it up...why did you say you were by placing forth his call sign as your own when asked? The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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! =----- |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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. :~) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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! =----- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FCC: Broadband Power Line Systems | Policy | |||
NOTICE TO ALL NEWS GROUP MEMBER | Equipment | |||
NOTICE TO ALL NEWS GROUP MEMBER | Equipment | |||
New Scottish Division Dx Group | CB | |||
Shut Up Twisted, Shut Up | CB |