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! =-----

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! =-----

From: =A0=A0 Frank Gilliland Group: =A0=A0
rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 Announcement To The Group Date: =A0=A0
Sun, Feb 22, 2004, 8:16pm (EST-3) X-Trace: =A0=A0 corp.newsgroups.com
1077509839 216.64.140.103 (22 Feb 2004 22:17:19 -0600) X-Comments:
=A0=A0 This message was posted through A href X-Comments2: =A0=A0
IMPORTANT: Newsfeed.com does not condone, X-Report: =A0=A0 Please report
illegal or inappropriate use to X-Comments3: =A0=A0 A href
=3D"http://www.newsgroups.com"Visit Organization: =A0=A0 Newsfeeds.com
http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
In , "Bra=ECnbuster"

wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...
In , "Bra=ECnbuster"



A law is not a law unless it can be enforced.




Mercy sakes alive.....

Twistedhed wrote in message
...

Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...
A law is not a law unless it can be enforced.

Mercy sakes alive.....


Yep, he sounds more like a Keyclown every day. What do you think,
maybe a closet Keyclown?
;~)

According to reports, "wap" 'phones in this country are now making
child porn perverts impossible to trace. A main requirement before taking
action against such people is that you know who they are - and can prove
the "infringement" of such laws.
Maybe Frank believes that, due to the unenforceable nature of the
medium, it is not illegal to view such filth on an untraceable connection
to the Internet.


Regards.

Peter.

In , while pounding his keyboard in despair,
"Peter the Hypocrite" spotted a post by TwistyDave
that gave him a glimmer of hope and wrote:

Twistedhed wrote in message
...

Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...
A law is not a law unless it can be enforced.

Mercy sakes alive.....


Yep, he sounds more like a Keyclown every day. What do you think,
maybe a closet Keyclown?
;~)

According to reports, "wap" 'phones in this country are now making
child porn perverts impossible to trace. A main requirement before taking
action against such people is that you know who they are - and can prove
the "infringement" of such laws.
Maybe Frank believes that, due to the unenforceable nature of the
medium, it is not illegal to view such filth on an untraceable connection
to the Internet.


Or maybe Peter believes that by drawing a line connecting keyclowns with child
porn is somehow going to validate his argument.... This wasn't a contest, Peter,
but you are sure acting like a sore loser.

The facts a 1) no connection is untraceable; 2) child porn perverts -do- get
busted (several hundred in a single sting operation last year, or don't you read
the news?); 3) no child pornographer is ever going to file a claim of copyright
infringement, and therefore the issue of child porn has absolutely nothing to do
with copyright infringement; and 4) you are a hypocrite for even trying to make
such a connection when it is that very same behavior by others in this newsgroup
that you have claimed to despise.

And the concept that "a law is not a law unless it can be enforced" is an old
one, and certainly -doesn't- apply to keyclowns since those laws can indeed be
enforced -- the FCC is just too busy taking bids (and probably kickbacks) on
prime spectrum space.

Got any more lame arguments?



This post Copyright 2004 by Frank Gilliland, all rights reserved.






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

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Or maybe Peter believes that by drawing a

line connecting keyclowns with child porn is

somehow going to validate his argument....





Brain didn't draw that line,,,Hall did by telling us how he got excited
regarding his illegal monitoring of minor girls while they spoke of sex
on a private telephone.

Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...

but you are sure acting like a sore loser.


You go all around the houses, trying to pretend that no law was
broken, then finally admit that it was. But that's OK... because
he can get away with it.

Doing a U-turn", in an attempt to mask your previous claims - then declaring
the other person the "loser" will not work.
You finally admitted what I already said... you agree with violating certain
laws, because the victims may not be able (or willing) to take action.


The facts a 1) no connection is untraceable;


Really. How does one trace the user of a mobile 'phone? For example, the
company who provide my mobile 'phone service have no details of my name or
address... but I still have the service. I just go to a shop, and "top up"
the phone at any time. If I violated terms of service, at best all they
could
do is to shut down the service. I could then sell the 'phone in a free-ads
paper
and get another. Just like Google accounts - if you get "busted, you just
get another.
The "untraceable" reports are being mentioned on UK TV and radio, and
by child protection groups... so take up the argument with them.


2) child porn perverts -do- get busted
(several hundred in a single sting operation last year,
or don't you read the news?);

I think you need to look up a bit more, get the full facts.

The American "sting" operation *identified* many UK perverts. Try finding
out how FEW of those perverts actually got "busted". The UK police have
a long list of "perverts" handed to them by the American police... but are
sitting on that list.
There is a big difference between being "stung" by some operation and
being successfully prosecuted... specially if you happen to be members
of the UK Government.
Oh yes, some Government perverts were reportedly "stung", but they have
not been dealt with. In fact, the story seems to have been dropped. No
doubt, when Tony p*ss*s off another one of his ministers, they will then
spill the beans on who is involved - like they have on the spying done
on U.N. people.


3) no child pornographer is ever going to file a claim of copyright
infringement,


That's it, Frankie... twist and squirm with silly replies.


Got any more lame arguments?

Have you got any more lame excuses why you and your buddies
should be exempt from the law?

Here you go, Frankie... I'll try to put it in terms that even you should be
able to understand:
What stops enforcement of CB laws:
Time, money and resources. Clearly the authorities are unwilling
to spend the money on the equipment and work-force needed to
tackle the "problem".

What stops the UK taking enforcement against the perverts identified by the
American "sting" operation:
Time, money and resources. The department is under-funded and
under-staffed. In fact, it has been reported that they are so
under-funded that they are relying on software that can be obtained
free. Not that which is best for the job - that which is free.

What stops enforcement action against some copyright violators.
Time, money and resources. All it takes is registration to allow
them to take legal action - but that costs money. If someone has
many items to copyright, then the costs can be high, and staff may
be needed just to deal with registration of material as it is created.

Put simply, same thing.
If you believe that, because a copyright holder will not spend time and
money on actions needed to enforce the law, that breaking that law is
acceptable, then you are suggesting that all other laws which lack the
funding to enforce them are fair game for criminals.

You claim to be "pro-legal", yet stand up for breaking certain
laws... because you can get away with it.

From: (Bra=ECnbuster)
Twistedhed wrote in message
...
=A0=A0=A0=A0Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...
A law is not a law unless it can be enforced.

Mercy sakes alive.....

_
(Yep, he sounds more like a Keyclown every day. What do you think, maybe
a closet Keyclown?)



Full blown Kloset KeyKlown? Now THERE is made-up word we can live
with.....



=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0;~)
(According to reports, "wap" 'phones in this country are now making
child porn perverts impossible to trace. A main requirement before
taking action against such people is that you know who they are - and
can prove the "infringement" of such laws.
Maybe Frank believes that, due to the unenforceable nature of the
medium, it is not illegal to view such filth on an untraceable
connection to the Internet.
Regards.
Peter.)







Excellent point, especialy since it has been shown members of Team Voob
have tried to defend illegal and perverted actions regarding sex and
children...such as intentionally eavesdropping on minors speaking of sex
on cordless phones. There most definitely exists a pattern here that
Team voob members share regarding such filth.

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 ...

A law is not a law unless it can be enforced.


I'll remember that next time you lot are whining about CB rules
not being enforced.



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

Unless the offender breaks into the property of a copyright owner and
mutilates their original copy... then that is ALWAYS the case. If they did
get to the authors original copy, then the case would be one of breaking in
and criminal damage - not copyright.
Even the image on the site will not be an "original"... that is a copy of an
image held somewhere else.


You can also publically display copyrighted
material all you want if you are the owner of the copyright.


That was never in dispute.


Registration is -not- a requirement for copyright protection. It -IS- a
requirement to seek civil remedies for infringement.


Exactly.
Just remember not to whine about non-enforcement of CB rules, because the
FCC believe that the results do not justify the costs of action large enough
to make even a small dent in the "problem".
We get the same over here, CB rules have been broken for years. The RIS got
so fed up with being snowed under while under-funded, that they found a way
around it:
1. Remove and change rules to make those people legal.
2. Force victims of interference to take a long and costly
"remedy - or suffer".

The number of violators dropped rather quickly when they removed most of
the unenforceable rules... and then again when they effectively stopped the
complaints by putting the procedure out of sight and out of reach.

At least we all know where you stand on the matter of "infringement" (law
breaking)... it's fine to "freeband", as long as nobody can claim those
frequencies are being "stolen" from them.
Anyway, they still have the original frequencies in their radio...
freebanders are only using the copies in their radios :~)