In , "Braìnbuster"
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...

What laws are they breaking?

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


Try this: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/412.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"?

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


You still didn't answer the question.


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".


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.


Nice rant, but it is based on your ignorance of copyright law. 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', then come back and try -once again- to tell us what law was broken.

I should add that Randy recently voiced his opinion about me, and it's not one
that I haven't heard before. He feels that I am preoccupied with 'being right'
all the time. That's not far from the truth, which is that I am careful not to
be wrong when I talk about something. Sure, it happens once in a while that I do
put the cart before the horse, claiming something as true before I verify the
facts. That doesn't happen often, and when it does I'm the first to admit it.
Now some people hate people like me, the "Mr. Know-It-All" type, but that's
their problem (maybe they never heard the story of the Fox and the Grapes). If
they don't like me proving them wrong then tough **** -- they should learn to
keep mouths shut. And I'm not going to intentionally spout off about things I
know nothing about just to win a popularity award from a crowd that does. So if
you are arguing this subject just because you hate the 'know-it-all' types like
me, it would be best if you quit now because I know what I'm talking about on
this subject. However, if you sincerely think that you are right, prove it and
I'll admit that I'm wrong. Fair enough?







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