| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
February 12th 04, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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? 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. 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 Landshark -- The world is good-natured to people who are good natured. |
|
#2
February 12th 04, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! =----- |
|
#3
February 12th 04, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
February 13th 04, 12:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#6
February 13th 04, 12:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote: 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. Did I miss it, or was there something in that jumbled rant that was relevant to the topic? ........ I read it again. Nope, nothing there but a frantic attempt to confuse the issue. Same old TwistyDave using the same old tactics. *- yawn -* The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong.... ....squawk! Polly wanna cracker? -----= 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! =----- |
|
#7
February 13th 04, 07:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
February 16th 04, 08:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| 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 | |||
Hybrid Mode
