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! =-----