|
|
 | | From: | Dan Abel | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:32:17 -0800 |
|
|
 | In article <2horu0diflnpt7fso3hj3vg0karkgct1n4@4ax.com>, Stuffed Tiger
wrote:
> He claims protection under "fair use" which is in force precisely to
> allow this kind of educational use of materials not sold for profit.
> This is much broader than the recording and publishing industries
> would have you believe. It is intended precisely to cover usages like
> this where the sheer volume of participants is instructive.
I don't know about the "fair use" stuff, but claiming that "the sheer
volume of participants is instructive" has to be the most ridiculous thing
you've posted to date. Is the Super Bowl instructive? It must be, since
so many people watch it.
> Were he to charge for those pictures, that would be an entirely
> different matter. Then, that would be theft, and he could be sued.
No, theft is theft. Most people would conceed that the theft seems worse
when somebody is making money off of it, but it's still theft if no money
is made.
Say you (the generic you) have a lawn mower and a neighbor Sue. Sue is
very nice, and does occasional little favors for you. One day she is
complaining that her lawn is too long, her mower is broken and she doesn't
have any money to fix it until Friday. So you loan her your mower. A
week later, you need to mow your lawn but the mower is gone. Later that
day you walk down the street and see your lawn mower. Your hated neighbor
Bill is using it to mow his lawn. You stop and accuse him of stealing
your lawn mower. He explains that he didn't steal it, that you had loaned
it to Sue last week so now it was public property.
There's a lot of difference between taking a lawn mower and making an
electronic copy of a picture on a public web site, but the principle is
the same. You can't check a book out of the library and then make a copy
of it, why should you be able to do the same with a picture on a web page?
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net
|
|
| | From: | Stuffed Tiger | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:52:46 GMT |
|
|
| On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:32:17 -0800, dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:
.... snip ...
>No, theft is theft. Most people would conceed that the theft seems worse
>when somebody is making money off of it, but it's still theft if no money
>is made.
.... snip ...
Yes indeed. Theft is theft, and that is why Bill is not a thief. Theft
is not the basis for copyright protection, in spite of the crap put
out by the recording industry.
The copyright laws are not there to insure YOU make money or to
protect you per se, but rather to enable society to benefit from your
work on the (correct) theory that if you held no rights you might not
produce it. One of the key ways that society benefits by giving you a
copyright is by allowing incorporating and adapting your work in new
formats. That is perfectly legal.
This has been affirmed repeatedly in decision after decision.
For example, copyrighted materials are often the subjects of humor and
critiques. Were images, voice and text not able to be copied, this
kind of use could not take place. The law says It does not matter if,
say, O'Reilly likes it or not. His words can be copied and used as a
basis for humor. Same with any published material, even a speech by
the President. As another example, an artist may make a copy of an
original painting; as long as the copy is not sold as the original,
there is no theft. It may even be sold.
Your rights to your creation do not protect you from derivative works.
Only taking the original is theft. That is why you are allowed to make
copies in libraries from books of all kinds, including printouts from
the Internet, and include them in all sorts of derivative works. That
is why it is perfectly legal to make a videotape but not sell it. You
can sing any song or play any music you want; there is no issue unless
you try to sell it.
In this case, the pictures were excerpted from other web sites. That
use may or may not be "fair use" under the law. One of the most
important considerations is whether or not the work is produced for
sale. If it is not, the courts will allow much more leeway.
Another is, if you are selling your work, does the use of your images
hurt your ability to sell them. If it does, then you may be able to
sue for damages, but in no case will that be considered theft. You
will sue under the protection afforded you by copyright law.
You will find you will not be able to bring a criminal case here. Try
it. Go to your local DA and see. Again that is because it is not
theft.
You may be able to bring a civil case, but you will have to prove
damages. If you cannot, you may be counter sued and have to pay all
court costs of the defendant. If Bill could also prove damages from
your slandering him as a thief, he may be able to collect additional
damages, even putative damages.
If you think that is absurd, stranger things have happened. You are
probably right in the sense that any court would likely find the
entire thing absurd and throw it out. Only a group with as much money
as the recording industry can get away with frivolous lawsuits.
Hopefully, I was able to answer you without insulting you. If a
site posted your materials, you might have a sound basis to sue for
copyright violation (they sold it) and damages to your reputation.
Stuffed Tiger
|
|
| | From: | El Dorado Hot Springs | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:31:51 GMT |
|
|
|
Dear StuTig,
Thank you for, once again, proving how little you know. Next time, please
post it elsewhere.
Several people here (perhaps many) really wish you'd do some research before
posting such incorrect statements. If I ever want to lose a case, I'll be
sure to ask your advise.
For the record, a copyright protects the owner against any and all
unauthorized use of a body of work, including written, recorded, or
photographic work. Copyrights exist to protect the owner of the work.
Actually, what you posted isn't that surprising since you also posted that
there are more than 200 nudist facilities but you can't name any of them
past about 130.
Please try posting the truth, won't you? (Believing something doesn't make
it the truth, in case you didn't know that.)
Thanks.
Bill
"Stuffed Tiger" wrote in message
> Yes indeed. Theft is theft, and that is why Bill is not a thief. Theft
> is not the basis for copyright protection, in spite of the crap put
> out by the recording industry.
>
> The copyright laws are not there to insure YOU make money or to
> protect you per se, but rather to enable society to benefit from your
> work on the (correct) theory that if you held no rights you might not
> produce it. One of the key ways that society benefits by giving you a
> copyright is by allowing incorporating and adapting your work in new
> formats. That is perfectly legal.
>
> This has been affirmed repeatedly in decision after decision.
>
> For example, copyrighted materials are often the subjects of humor and
> critiques. Were images, voice and text not able to be copied, this
> kind of use could not take place. The law says It does not matter if,
> say, O'Reilly likes it or not. His words can be copied and used as a
> basis for humor. Same with any published material, even a speech by
> the President. As another example, an artist may make a copy of an
> original painting; as long as the copy is not sold as the original,
> there is no theft. It may even be sold.
>
> Your rights to your creation do not protect you from derivative works.
> Only taking the original is theft. That is why you are allowed to make
> copies in libraries from books of all kinds, including printouts from
> the Internet, and include them in all sorts of derivative works. That
> is why it is perfectly legal to make a videotape but not sell it. You
> can sing any song or play any music you want; there is no issue unless
> you try to sell it.
>
> In this case, the pictures were excerpted from other web sites. That
> use may or may not be "fair use" under the law. One of the most
> important considerations is whether or not the work is produced for
> sale. If it is not, the courts will allow much more leeway.
>
> Another is, if you are selling your work, does the use of your images
> hurt your ability to sell them. If it does, then you may be able to
> sue for damages, but in no case will that be considered theft. You
> will sue under the protection afforded you by copyright law.
>
> You will find you will not be able to bring a criminal case here. Try
> it. Go to your local DA and see. Again that is because it is not
> theft.
>
> You may be able to bring a civil case, but you will have to prove
> damages. If you cannot, you may be counter sued and have to pay all
> court costs of the defendant. If Bill could also prove damages from
> your slandering him as a thief, he may be able to collect additional
> damages, even putative damages.
>
> If you think that is absurd, stranger things have happened. You are
> probably right in the sense that any court would likely find the
> entire thing absurd and throw it out. Only a group with as much money
> as the recording industry can get away with frivolous lawsuits.
>
> Hopefully, I was able to answer you without insulting you. If a
> site posted your materials, you might have a sound basis to sue for
> copyright violation (they sold it) and damages to your reputation.
>
> Stuffed Tiger
|
|
| | From: | Stuffed Tiger | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:47:45 GMT |
|
|
| On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:31:51 GMT, "El Dorado Hot Springs"
wrote:
>
>Dear StuTig,
God, that's so clever Bill.
>
>For the record, a copyright protects the owner against any and all
>unauthorized use of a body of work, including written, recorded, or
>photographic work.
No. It doesn't. I gave you many examples where it clearly does not.
>Copyrights exist to protect the owner of the work.
No. They don't. The Supreme Court has held your opinion, exactly, to
be in error. They exists to promote the common good.
>
>Actually, what you posted isn't that surprising since you also posted that
>there are more than 200 nudist facilities but you can't name any of them
>past about 130.
No I didn't. You posted that the AANR was lying. I demonstrated first
of all that you have no facts to back up your claim. Second, I showed
that what the AANR said was reasonable. Thirdly, since the only source
of ANY of the facts you quoted was the AANR itself, I chose to believe
them. I know that hurts, but it also hurts when you trash good people.
Sorry,
ST
|
|
| | From: | cyndiann | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:23:04 GMT |
|
|
|
"Stuffed Tiger" wrote in message
news:kk3uu0dvfur53c2fjobh7ntnv4t31qjui5@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:32:17 -0800, dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
> >No, theft is theft. Most people would conceed that the theft seems worse
> >when somebody is making money off of it, but it's still theft if no money
> >is made.
> ... snip ...
>
> Yes indeed. Theft is theft, and that is why Bill is not a thief. Theft
> is not the basis for copyright protection, in spite of the crap put
> out by the recording industry.
>
>
> In this case, the pictures were excerpted from other web sites. That
> use may or may not be "fair use" under the law. One of the most
> important considerations is whether or not the work is produced for
> sale. If it is not, the courts will allow much more leeway.
>
> Another is, if you are selling your work, does the use of your images
> hurt your ability to sell them. If it does, then you may be able to
> sue for damages, but in no case will that be considered theft. You
> will sue under the protection afforded you by copyright law.
>
> You will find you will not be able to bring a criminal case here. Try
> it. Go to your local DA and see. Again that is because it is not
> theft.
>
Then how come AANR is jumping into this on my behalf and agreed that the
pictures of me don't belong on his site? Rememer, Erich is a lawyer, he'd
know more about law than you would.
cyndiann
|
|
| | From: | cyndiann | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 04:30:03 GMT |
|
|
|
"cyndiann" wrote in message
news:IoNHd.2158$rp1.330@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Stuffed Tiger" wrote in message
> news:kk3uu0dvfur53c2fjobh7ntnv4t31qjui5@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:32:17 -0800, dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:
> >
> > ... snip ...
> >
> > >No, theft is theft. Most people would conceed that the theft seems
worse
> > >when somebody is making money off of it, but it's still theft if no
money
> > >is made.
> > ... snip ...
> >
> > Yes indeed. Theft is theft, and that is why Bill is not a thief. Theft
> > is not the basis for copyright protection, in spite of the crap put
> > out by the recording industry.
> >
> >
> > In this case, the pictures were excerpted from other web sites. That
> > use may or may not be "fair use" under the law. One of the most
> > important considerations is whether or not the work is produced for
> > sale. If it is not, the courts will allow much more leeway.
> >
> > Another is, if you are selling your work, does the use of your images
> > hurt your ability to sell them. If it does, then you may be able to
> > sue for damages, but in no case will that be considered theft. You
> > will sue under the protection afforded you by copyright law.
> >
> > You will find you will not be able to bring a criminal case here. Try
> > it. Go to your local DA and see. Again that is because it is not
> > theft.
> >
>
> Then how come AANR is jumping into this on my behalf and agreed that the
> pictures of me don't belong on his site? Rememer, Erich is a lawyer, he'd
> know more about law than you would.
>
> cyndiann
>
"Cyndiann,
I appreciate the patience that you've had with me getting back to you.
I spoke with Bill yesterday (Pat Plumstead was going to call you back to
let you know about the call). Bill has personally assured me that he will
take down any offending picture(s) (we discussed some of the pictures from
the e-mails you sent me and, as you've noted, many have been taken down).
He will arrange to take down any pictures of you promptly.
With thanks for your help,
Erich Schuttauf"
|
|
| | From: | Richard C. | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:08:21 -0800 |
|
|
| X-No-archive: yes
"cyndiann" wrote in message
news:fz%Hd.2702$rp1.2345@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "cyndiann" wrote in message
> news:IoNHd.2158$rp1.330@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Stuffed Tiger" wrote in message
>> news:kk3uu0dvfur53c2fjobh7ntnv4t31qjui5@4ax.com...
>> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:32:17 -0800, dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:
>> >
>> > ... snip ...
>> >
>> > >No, theft is theft. Most people would conceed that the theft seems
> worse
>> > >when somebody is making money off of it, but it's still theft if no
> money
>> > >is made.
>> > ... snip ...
>> >
>> > Yes indeed. Theft is theft, and that is why Bill is not a thief. Theft
>> > is not the basis for copyright protection, in spite of the crap put
>> > out by the recording industry.
>> >
>> >
>> > In this case, the pictures were excerpted from other web sites. That
>> > use may or may not be "fair use" under the law. One of the most
>> > important considerations is whether or not the work is produced for
>> > sale. If it is not, the courts will allow much more leeway.
>> >
>> > Another is, if you are selling your work, does the use of your images
>> > hurt your ability to sell them. If it does, then you may be able to
>> > sue for damages, but in no case will that be considered theft. You
>> > will sue under the protection afforded you by copyright law.
>> >
>> > You will find you will not be able to bring a criminal case here. Try
>> > it. Go to your local DA and see. Again that is because it is not
>> > theft.
>> >
>>
>> Then how come AANR is jumping into this on my behalf and agreed that the
>> pictures of me don't belong on his site? Rememer, Erich is a lawyer, he'd
>> know more about law than you would.
>>
>> cyndiann
>>
> "Cyndiann,
>
> I appreciate the patience that you've had with me getting back to you.
>
> I spoke with Bill yesterday (Pat Plumstead was going to call you back to
> let you know about the call). Bill has personally assured me that he will
> take down any offending picture(s) (we discussed some of the pictures from
> the e-mails you sent me and, as you've noted, many have been taken down).
>
> He will arrange to take down any pictures of you promptly.
>
> With thanks for your help,
>
> Erich Schuttauf"
>
===================================
Does that include the photos stolen from various sites?
|
|
| | From: | cyndiann | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:43:46 GMT |
|
|
|
"Richard C." wrote in message
news:41f09913$0$27408$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "cyndiann" wrote in message
> news:fz%Hd.2702$rp1.2345@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "cyndiann" wrote in message
> > news:IoNHd.2158$rp1.330@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> "Stuffed Tiger" wrote in message
> >> news:kk3uu0dvfur53c2fjobh7ntnv4t31qjui5@4ax.com...
> >> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:32:17 -0800, dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > ... snip ...
> >> >
> >> > >No, theft is theft. Most people would conceed that the theft seems
> > worse
> >> > >when somebody is making money off of it, but it's still theft if no
> > money
> >> > >is made.
> >> > ... snip ...
> >> >
> >> > Yes indeed. Theft is theft, and that is why Bill is not a thief.
Theft
> >> > is not the basis for copyright protection, in spite of the crap put
> >> > out by the recording industry.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > In this case, the pictures were excerpted from other web sites. That
> >> > use may or may not be "fair use" under the law. One of the most
> >> > important considerations is whether or not the work is produced for
> >> > sale. If it is not, the courts will allow much more leeway.
> >> >
> >> > Another is, if you are selling your work, does the use of your images
> >> > hurt your ability to sell them. If it does, then you may be able to
> >> > sue for damages, but in no case will that be considered theft. You
> >> > will sue under the protection afforded you by copyright law.
> >> >
> >> > You will find you will not be able to bring a criminal case here. Try
> >> > it. Go to your local DA and see. Again that is because it is not
> >> > theft.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Then how come AANR is jumping into this on my behalf and agreed that
the
> >> pictures of me don't belong on his site? Rememer, Erich is a lawyer,
he'd
> >> know more about law than you would.
> >>
> >> cyndiann
> >>
> > "Cyndiann,
> >
> > I appreciate the patience that you've had with me getting back to you.
> >
> > I spoke with Bill yesterday (Pat Plumstead was going to call you back to
> > let you know about the call). Bill has personally assured me that he
will
> > take down any offending picture(s) (we discussed some of the pictures
from
> > the e-mails you sent me and, as you've noted, many have been taken
down).
> >
> > He will arrange to take down any pictures of you promptly.
> >
> > With thanks for your help,
> >
> > Erich Schuttauf"
> >
> ===================================
> Does that include the photos stolen from various sites?
>
>
It did include some of them, the ones I showed to Erich. The gallery is so
vast that there is no sensible way to remove them all.
cyndiann
|
|
| | From: | Molly Wilson | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:29:17 -0600 |
|
|
| Then how come AANR is jumping into this on my behalf and agreed that the
pictures of me don't belong on his site? Rememer, Erich is a lawyer,
he'd know more about law than you would.
cyndiann
====================================== see Max....if you are thinking
about getting into family nudism......as you can see there is an
additional liability that comes with it.......its like you gotta be
looking over your shoulder for the ones that might do you harm.....but
they say the photography of naked bodies is the only way they have of
promoting their lifestyle......hey it cost more to belong to the local
country club but you probably would agree that it is well worth it.....i
mean ...the price is just too high for a place to expose ones
crotch............regards...jonZeee
www.nudisthallofshame.info
|
|
| | From: | KidsSafe at truecanadiannudists.ca | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:50:07 -0500 |
|
|
| On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:52:46 GMT, Stuffed
Tiger wrote:
>Hopefully, I was able to answer you without insulting you. If a
>site posted your materials, you might have a sound basis to sue for
>copyright violation (they sold it) and damages to your reputation.
>
>Stuffed Tiger
Unfortunately, your answer is factually wrong.
My advice to you, Stuffed Tiger. Based on your postings on various
legal topics, don't ever try and represent yourself in court.
Copyright allows the artist to protect his work against more than just
monetary loss.
It also protects his artistic control. BTW, Bill is not using
derivatives of existing work. He is using the entire works with the
exception of removing the copyright notices.
Grab a clue.
If you feel insulted, whine and snivel elswhere. because I could give
a rat's ass.
|
|
| | From: | Stuffed Tiger | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:48:02 GMT |
|
|
| On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:50:07 -0500, KidsSafe@truecanadiannudists.ca
wrote:
.... snip ...
>
>Unfortunately, your answer is factually wrong.
No. It's correct, TROLL
>
>My advice to you ...
ROTFLMAO
....
>
>If you feel insulted, whine and snivel elswhere. because I could give
>a rat's ass.
BWAAAAAAAAHHHHHH. I am so insulted.
|
|
| | From: | Richard C. | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:07:35 -0800 |
|
|
| X-No-archive: yes
"Stuffed Tiger" wrote in message
news:kk3uu0dvfur53c2fjobh7ntnv4t31qjui5@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:32:17 -0800, dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
>>No, theft is theft. Most people would conceed that the theft seems worse
>>when somebody is making money off of it, but it's still theft if no money
>>is made.
> ... snip ...
>
> Yes indeed. Theft is theft, and that is why Bill is not a thief. Theft
> is not the basis for copyright protection, in spite of the crap put
> out by the recording industry.
>
> The copyright laws are not there to insure YOU make money or to
> protect you per se, but rather to enable society to benefit from your
> work on the (correct) theory that if you held no rights you might not
> produce it. One of the key ways that society benefits by giving you a
> copyright is by allowing incorporating and adapting your work in new
> formats. That is perfectly legal.
>
> This has been affirmed repeatedly in decision after decision.
>
> For example, copyrighted materials are often the subjects of humor and
> critiques. Were images, voice and text not able to be copied, this
> kind of use could not take place. The law says It does not matter if,
> say, O'Reilly likes it or not. His words can be copied and used as a
> basis for humor. Same with any published material, even a speech by
> the President. As another example, an artist may make a copy of an
> original painting; as long as the copy is not sold as the original,
> there is no theft. It may even be sold.
>
> Your rights to your creation do not protect you from derivative works.
> Only taking the original is theft. That is why you are allowed to make
> copies in libraries from books of all kinds, including printouts from
> the Internet, and include them in all sorts of derivative works. That
> is why it is perfectly legal to make a videotape but not sell it. You
> can sing any song or play any music you want; there is no issue unless
> you try to sell it.
>
> In this case, the pictures were excerpted from other web sites. That
> use may or may not be "fair use" under the law. One of the most
> important considerations is whether or not the work is produced for
> sale. If it is not, the courts will allow much more leeway.
>
> Another is, if you are selling your work, does the use of your images
> hurt your ability to sell them. If it does, then you may be able to
> sue for damages, but in no case will that be considered theft. You
> will sue under the protection afforded you by copyright law.
>
> You will find you will not be able to bring a criminal case here. Try
> it. Go to your local DA and see. Again that is because it is not
> theft.
>
> You may be able to bring a civil case, but you will have to prove
> damages. If you cannot, you may be counter sued and have to pay all
> court costs of the defendant. If Bill could also prove damages from
> your slandering him as a thief, he may be able to collect additional
> damages, even putative damages.
>
> If you think that is absurd, stranger things have happened. You are
> probably right in the sense that any court would likely find the
> entire thing absurd and throw it out. Only a group with as much money
> as the recording industry can get away with frivolous lawsuits.
>
> Hopefully, I was able to answer you without insulting you. If a
> site posted your materials, you might have a sound basis to sue for
> copyright violation (they sold it) and damages to your reputation.
>
> Stuffed Tiger
=============================
Your post is filled with so many false statements it is ridiculous!
Try looking at these for a start:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
http://www.whatiscopyright.org/
http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm
http://www.netatty.com/copyright.html
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
==============================
|
|
| | From: | Stuffed Tiger | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:08:47 GMT |
|
|
| On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:07:35 -0800, "Richard C."
wrote:
.... snip ...
>Your post is filled with so many false statements it is ridiculous!
Why be derogatory. You think you know it all. Think again before you
cause yourself more trouble than this is worth. (And I certainly have
no clue why I should even care.)
>Try looking at these for a start:
>
I did, long before you posted this. Did you think I posted my comments
without a ready reference? Did you think I just happened to spit out
the analysis on "fair use?"
Why didn't you just ask instead of being nasty. In fact material in
your own reference:
>http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
was one of my sources. Here is the applicable portion:
==================================================
"(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users
(1) In general. - A service provider shall not be liable for monetary
relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or
other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the
storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a
system or network controlled or operated by or for the service
provider, if the service provider -
....
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the
infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the
right and ability to control such activity; "
==================================================
This alone should have alerted you to the fact that there was more to
this situation than the propositions you all have put forward to date.
If you had looked up the name I had given you (fair use) on the very
same web site:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
you would have found exactly what I have alluded to:
==================================================
"§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work."
================================================
All of the other stuff you talk about is immaterial to the topic at
hand. The fact is that, from the two sections above it would appear
that Bill Martin is not guilty of anything, but at the very least he
is NOT a thief under this law (and there *are* criminal penalties for
theft under this law if you were to say duplicate DVDs for sale).
There it is folks. Why didn't you just ask me for the reference
instead of all the insults. If you want to know how each of those
sections applies in this situation, just re-read my prior posts.
Again, I demand an apology, particularly from Bill.
Stuffed Tiger
Disclaimer (since I have quoted law): nothing stated here constitutes
or should be construed as legal advice. Consult your own attorney for
all legal advice.
|
|
| | From: | El Dorado Hot Springs | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:42:48 GMT |
|
|
|
It's neat! I LOVE it! He actually posts things proving he's wrong while
thinking he's posting something that proves his incorrect statements true!
Is he trying to be the court jester?
The part about demanding an apology, "particularly from Bill" is absolutely
hilarious!
Kiss my what, Stewed Tig?
Closer and closer you are to the Wall Of Shame.
Really, you post as a rational person, but what you post doesn't match the
facts, doesn't match history. Again, I implore you, please post things that
match the facts. Please post the truth. Thnx.
Bill Pennington
Real Name
"Stuffed Tiger" wrote in message
news:vk01v09t12v19vn12bgfvvkt4s9pdkhrui@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:07:35 -0800, "Richard C."
> wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
> >Your post is filled with so many false statements it is ridiculous!
>
> Why be derogatory. You think you know it all. Think again before you
> cause yourself more trouble than this is worth. (And I certainly have
> no clue why I should even care.)
>
> >Try looking at these for a start:
> >
>
> I did, long before you posted this. Did you think I posted my comments
> without a ready reference? Did you think I just happened to spit out
> the analysis on "fair use?"
>
> Why didn't you just ask instead of being nasty. In fact material in
> your own reference:
>
> >http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
>
> was one of my sources. Here is the applicable portion:
>
> ==================================================
> "(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users
>
> (1) In general. - A service provider shall not be liable for monetary
> relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or
> other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the
> storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a
> system or network controlled or operated by or for the service
> provider, if the service provider -
> ...
> (B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the
> infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the
> right and ability to control such activity; "
> ==================================================
>
> This alone should have alerted you to the fact that there was more to
> this situation than the propositions you all have put forward to date.
>
> If you had looked up the name I had given you (fair use) on the very
> same web site:
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
>
> you would have found exactly what I have alluded to:
>
> ==================================================
> "§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
>
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
> of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
> phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
> purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
> (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
> research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
> the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
> factors to be considered shall include -
>
> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
> is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>
> (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
>
> (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
> the copyrighted work as a whole; and
>
> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
> the copyrighted work."
> ================================================
>
> All of the other stuff you talk about is immaterial to the topic at
> hand. The fact is that, from the two sections above it would appear
> that Bill Martin is not guilty of anything, but at the very least he
> is NOT a thief under this law (and there *are* criminal penalties for
> theft under this law if you were to say duplicate DVDs for sale).
>
> There it is folks. Why didn't you just ask me for the reference
> instead of all the insults. If you want to know how each of those
> sections applies in this situation, just re-read my prior posts.
>
> Again, I demand an apology, particularly from Bill.
>
> Stuffed Tiger
>
> Disclaimer (since I have quoted law): nothing stated here constitutes
> or should be construed as legal advice. Consult your own attorney for
> all legal advice.
|
|
| | From: | Richard C. | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:06:58 -0800 |
|
|
| X-No-archive: yes
"Stuffed Tiger" wrote in message
news:vk01v09t12v19vn12bgfvvkt4s9pdkhrui@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:07:35 -0800, "Richard C."
> wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>>Your post is filled with so many false statements it is ridiculous!
>
> Why be derogatory. You think you know it all. Think again before you
> cause yourself more trouble than this is worth. (And I certainly have
> no clue why I should even care.)
>
>>Try looking at these for a start:
>>
>
> I did, long before you posted this. Did you think I posted my comments
> without a ready reference? Did you think I just happened to spit out
> the analysis on "fair use?"
>
> Why didn't you just ask instead of being nasty. In fact material in
> your own reference:
>
>>http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
>
> was one of my sources. Here is the applicable portion:
>
> ==================================================
> "(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users
>
> (1) In general. - A service provider shall not be liable for monetary
> relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or
> other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the
> storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a
> system or network controlled or operated by or for the service
> provider, if the service provider -
> ...
> (B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the
> infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the
> right and ability to control such activity; "
> ==================================================
>
> This alone should have alerted you to the fact that there was more to
> this situation than the propositions you all have put forward to date.
>
> If you had looked up the name I had given you (fair use) on the very
> same web site:
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
>
> you would have found exactly what I have alluded to:
>
> ==================================================
> "§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
>
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
> of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
> phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
> purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
> (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
> research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
> the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
> factors to be considered shall include -
>
> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
> is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>
> (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
>
> (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
> the copyrighted work as a whole; and
>
> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
> the copyrighted work."
> ================================================
>
> All of the other stuff you talk about is immaterial to the topic at
> hand. The fact is that, from the two sections above it would appear
> that Bill Martin is not guilty of anything, but at the very least he
> is NOT a thief under this law (and there *are* criminal penalties for
> theft under this law if you were to say duplicate DVDs for sale).
>
> There it is folks. Why didn't you just ask me for the reference
> instead of all the insults. If you want to know how each of those
> sections applies in this situation, just re-read my prior posts.
>
> Again, I demand an apology, particularly from Bill.
>
> Stuffed Tiger
>
> Disclaimer (since I have quoted law): nothing stated here constitutes
> or should be construed as legal advice. Consult your own attorney for
> all legal advice.
=============================
Your ignorance is appalling!
You clearly cannot comprehend what you have read.
Theft of ANY copyrighted material is just that: THEFT!
He is guilty of multiple copyright violations.
Everything in all federal laws shows that he is.
The "nature of the work" is a photograph created by an individual.
Each picture is a "whole" copyrighted work.
Each use of it on a site such as his, without permission, and without
credit,
infringes on the "potential market" for the works.
The first crap you quoted is merely to protect the ISP from actions such as
his.
You are wrong. No apologies here, bunky!
He stole the pictures. He is in violation of multiple laws.
=================================
|
|
| | From: | Stuffed Tiger | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:37:27 GMT |
|
|
| On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:06:58 -0800, "Richard C."
wrote:
.... snip ...
>Your ignorance is appalling!
Name calling will not improve the quality of your arguments. Do you
think I can't flame you back? Would that improve anything?
I understand you are angry, and rightfully so. Why attack me. Would
you rather I just hop on the "let's fry another nudist" bandwagon. Do
you think that bandwagon won't eventually get around to you?
In the larger context, do you think hurting Bill helps you in some
way? Will you feel vindicated somehow?
>You clearly cannot comprehend what you have read.
Do such insults improve the quality of your arguments? Why not refer
to something you think I have failed to comprehend and show me how you
have it better.
>
>Theft of ANY copyrighted material is just that: THEFT!
Yes, and what Bill did then has to be shown to be theft. So while I
agree with your statement (it is a tautology), that in no way means
Bill is a thief. Aren't you one who always insists a person is
innocent until proven guilty. Is this any different?
You have a public web site. You can't just assert that every
electronic copy is your property and a theft. Nobody can look at a web
site without making an electronic copy. Unless you disable "print" and
"save" you invite your readers to make copies. It's not the same as a
book or a work of art. If you put your work on the Internet, open to
the public, you still own it, but the rules of "fair use" are broader.
The limitations of copyright protection in either or both sections I
posted, one as Information Residing on Systems or Networks at
Direction of Users (which protects the service provider) and second
under "fair use" which protects excerpts from your web site not sold,
are significant, common and may well be sufficient defenses.
In addition, there are other provisions in the law, such as removal of
material upon notification, that may also defend Bill in this case.
At best you have a small civil case of infringement, not theft. You
get to say, "Darn, that's just not right!" and make the case for all
the real reasons it is not right, such as associating you with
and making it seem you support his web site.
That's what we should be discussing, IMHO.
>
>He is guilty of multiple copyright violations.
AFAIK, he has not be convicted of that. Are we to accept your judgment
as inviolate?
>
>Everything in all federal laws shows that he is.
Yes and the limitations and exceptions to that law I quoted show that
he is not. The discussion is one of exactly which sections do or do
not apply. My guess is nobody wants to take it to court to find out.
My guess is he will remove the pictures, and you won't sue.
Am I wrong? If I am right, then what is the point of claiming theft
when there are so many other valid issues here worth exploring and
that can be explored without frying another nudist. Maybe the next
person who takes your pictures may be more difficult than Bill. Are
there measures you can take to better protect yourself?
Funny, nobody even asked about that. Too busy being nasty.
>The "nature of the work" is a photograph created by an individual.
>Each picture is a "whole" copyrighted work.
Yes it can be, and in this case, because it was excerpted from a page
on your web site, the web site then is the whole work to which a
defense could claim "amount and substantiality" would apply. How would
you show that these pictures should be considered apart from your
site? That is where you put them.
One way might be if you purchased the pictures and they are the work
of another individual who sold them to you and holds the copyright.
That would also help establish the value also. A commercial site might
use that against a "fair use" defense; it would be just one factor
though.
>Each use of it on a site such as his, without permission, and without
>credit, infringes on the "potential market" for the works.
Yes again, but one can't just imagine a potential market. One has to
be able to back up that claim with some tangible indication of damage.
You have had those pictures available for no charge for a significant
time. What then would be the potential market?
>
>The first crap you quoted is merely to protect the ISP from actions such as
>his.
I quoted the actual law. Why are your calling it crap. Will such
discounting or substituting improve your arguments?
The wording says nothing about an ISP. It talks about information at
the direction of users, which this information surely qualifies as
because users can post without the service provider's knowledge.
The point is not that it is crystal clear that you are wrong. I never
said that. My point is that is it far from clear that Bill is a thief.
In that case we should give him the benefit of the doubt if for no
other reason than he is a well known nudist.
He has a number of defenses because a copyright is a limited
instrument whose protection varies with use, as I have shown.
Nobody, least of all me, likes what he did. That in no way entitles us
to do something back just as nasty in a forum just as public. If we
do, we are no better, and perhaps worse, and perhaps even liable.
>
>You are wrong. No apologies here, bunky!
What? Should I now call you "sport" or some other false familiarity.
OK. Then I leave you to your misery. You deserve it and will be the
source of your own punishment because you know better.
ST
|
|
| | From: | El Dorado Hot Springs | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:17:31 GMT |
|
|
|
Dear Stewed Tiger,
"Stuffed Tiger" wrote in message
news:2f71v01s28ebni4juqfricv6castmt47cd@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:06:58 -0800, "Richard C."
> wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
> >Your ignorance is appalling!
He didn't call you a name. He correctly described your lack of knowledge.
Bill Pennington, Real Name
|
|
| | From: | Richard C. | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:59:15 -0800 |
|
|
| X-No-archive: yes
"Stuffed Tiger" wrote in message
news:2f71v01s28ebni4juqfricv6castmt47cd@4ax.com...
>
> You have a public web site. You can't just assert that every
> electronic copy is your property and a theft. Nobody can look at a web
> site without making an electronic copy. Unless you disable "print" and
> "save" you invite your readers to make copies. It's not the same as a
> book or a work of art. If you put your work on the Internet, open to
> the public, you still own it, but the rules of "fair use" are broader.
>
=================================
Right there is the main falacy in your argument concerning Bill.
"Fair use" indeed includes what you stated in the first part above.
HE, however, took those pictures and claimed them as his own on his web
site!
THAT is not fair use.
Fair use is NOT broader on the internet. Actual court cases have proven
that.
Some cases have actually forbidden sites to eve LINK to another site.
Do you get it now?
=================================
> The limitations of copyright protection in either or both sections I
> posted, one as Information Residing on Systems or Networks at
> Direction of Users (which protects the service provider) and second
> under "fair use" which protects excerpts from your web site not sold,
> are significant, common and may well be sufficient defenses.
>
> In addition, there are other provisions in the law, such as removal of
> material upon notification, that may also defend Bill in this case.
>
=================================
Really?
There are several cited examples where he has NOT removed the pictures.
I got quite a hassle when I demanded he remove mine.
It took a lot of e-mails before they were fully removed.
====================================
>
> Am I wrong? If I am right, then what is the point of claiming theft
> when there are so many other valid issues here worth exploring and
> that can be explored without frying another nudist. Maybe the next
> person who takes your pictures may be more difficult than Bill. Are
> there measures you can take to better protect yourself?
>
> Funny, nobody even asked about that. Too busy being nasty.
>
=================================
The nastiness originated with Bill.
===============================
>>The "nature of the work" is a photograph created by an individual.
>>Each picture is a "whole" copyrighted work.
>
> Yes it can be, and in this case, because it was excerpted from a page
> on your web site, the web site then is the whole work to which a
> defense could claim "amount and substantiality" would apply. How would
> you show that these pictures should be considered apart from your
> site? That is where you put them.
>
=============================
With a FULL copyright notice clearly at the top of the page.
==============================
> One way might be if you purchased the pictures and they are the work
> of another individual who sold them to you and holds the copyright.
> That would also help establish the value also. A commercial site might
> use that against a "fair use" defense; it would be just one factor
> though.
>
============================
You seem to think it is theft only if there is some etherial "value" that
you recognize.
I am no longer going to discuss this with you.
It is a matter between Bill and the multiple individuals that will be
contacting him about the "unfair use" of their property.
============================
|
|
| | From: | El Dorado Hot Springs | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:09:54 GMT |
|
|
|
Dear Richard,
He obviously has an inclination to make himself look as bad as possible, to
make the most of his losing streak, as it were.
Bill
"Richard C." wrote in message
news:41f098bf$0$27385$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Stuffed Tiger" wrote in message
> news:vk01v09t12v19vn12bgfvvkt4s9pdkhrui@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:07:35 -0800, "Richard C."
> > wrote:
> >
> > ... snip ...
> >>Your post is filled with so many false statements it is ridiculous!
> >
> > Why be derogatory. You think you know it all. Think again before you
> > cause yourself more trouble than this is worth. (And I certainly have
> > no clue why I should even care.)
> >
> >>Try looking at these for a start:
> >>
> >
> > I did, long before you posted this. Did you think I posted my comments
> > without a ready reference? Did you think I just happened to spit out
> > the analysis on "fair use?"
> >
> > Why didn't you just ask instead of being nasty. In fact material in
> > your own reference:
> >
> >>http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
> >
> > was one of my sources. Here is the applicable portion:
> >
> > ==================================================
> > "(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users
> >
> > (1) In general. - A service provider shall not be liable for monetary
> > relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or
> > other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the
> > storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a
> > system or network controlled or operated by or for the service
> > provider, if the service provider -
> > ...
> > (B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the
> > infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the
> > right and ability to control such activity; "
> > ==================================================
> >
> > This alone should have alerted you to the fact that there was more to
> > this situation than the propositions you all have put forward to date.
> >
> > If you had looked up the name I had given you (fair use) on the very
> > same web site:
> >
> > http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
> >
> > you would have found exactly what I have alluded to:
> >
> > ==================================================
> > "§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
> >
> > Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
> > of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
> > phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
> > purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
> > (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
> > research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
> > the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
> > factors to be considered shall include -
> >
> > (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
> > is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> >
> > (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
> >
> > (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
> > the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> >
> > (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
> > the copyrighted work."
> > ================================================
> >
> > All of the other stuff you talk about is immaterial to the topic at
> > hand. The fact is that, from the two sections above it would appear
> > that Bill Martin is not guilty of anything, but at the very least he
> > is NOT a thief under this law (and there *are* criminal penalties for
> > theft under this law if you were to say duplicate DVDs for sale).
> >
> > There it is folks. Why didn't you just ask me for the reference
> > instead of all the insults. If you want to know how each of those
> > sections applies in this situation, just re-read my prior posts.
> >
> > Again, I demand an apology, particularly from Bill.
> >
> > Stuffed Tiger
> >
> > Disclaimer (since I have quoted law): nothing stated here constitutes
> > or should be construed as legal advice. Consult your own attorney for
> > all legal advice.
>
> =============================
> Your ignorance is appalling!
> You clearly cannot comprehend what you have read.
>
> Theft of ANY copyrighted material is just that: THEFT!
>
> He is guilty of multiple copyright violations.
>
> Everything in all federal laws shows that he is.
> The "nature of the work" is a photograph created by an individual.
> Each picture is a "whole" copyrighted work.
> Each use of it on a site such as his, without permission, and without
> credit,
> infringes on the "potential market" for the works.
>
> The first crap you quoted is merely to protect the ISP from actions such
as
> his.
>
> You are wrong. No apologies here, bunky!
>
> He stole the pictures. He is in violation of multiple laws.
> =================================
>
>
|
|
| | From: | El Dorado Hot Springs | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:45:11 GMT |
|
|
|
Dear Richard,
"Richard C." wrote in message news:41ef4768$0$27400
> Your post is filled with so many false statements it is ridiculous!
> Try looking at these for a start:
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
>
> http://www.whatiscopyright.org/
>
> http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm
>
> http://www.netatty.com/copyright.html
>
> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
We went through this same this with StuTig about nudist clubs after he first
made hilarious claims about the number of clubs in North America being 260
or something when they're actually less than 130; when we asked him to show
all of us the names of those clubs and where there were, knowing they didn't
exist (and those asking included Cyndiane, who knows how many clubs there
are), he turned it around and told us we had to prove they didn't exist,
which was easy, really, since they are listed nowhere simply because they
didn't exist.
Then he said that wasn't enough proof -- that they weren't listed anywhere.
So, we asked again that he tell us the names of all these landed clubs and
where they were, if they existed. He didn't respond. So then we asked him to
name just one place. He never came up with even one single name.
And the beat goes on...
All talk and no facts from babbling StuTig.
PLONK City, here you come, StuTig, unless you try to post sensibly.
It's your choice.
Try posting the truth.
Try posting things based in fact, with th'ability to back up your post with
cites.
Thanks.
Bill
|
|
| | From: | Stuffed Tiger | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:02:16 GMT |
|
|
| On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:45:11 GMT, "El Dorado Hot Springs"
wrote:
.... snip ...
>
>We went through this same this with StuTig
Dear Bill,
That is not my handle. You don't like it when other people treat your
handle with disrespect. Why do that to me.
> after he first made hilarious claims
I never made any such claim. The claim was in an AANR PR release that
you posted to prove that the AANR lies. Are the AANR claims hilarious?
I only raised the issue when the AANR was said to be a liar. I asked
you for proof. You told me you thought there were not that many
clothing optional resorts so it was now my job to prove you wrong.
Just because you think something isn't true doesn't mean it isn't
true. It certainly is not proof that it isn't true. It categorically
gives you no leave to call them a liar. I will not allow you to throw
that back on me. You want to call the AANR a liar, YOU prove it.
Otherwise, stop harassing me on this. And stop intimating that I am a
liar telling untruths. I have the entire thread and will reproduce it
if you dare call me a liar again. If I make a mistake, it is an honest
mistake and I own up to it.
If you want to stop reading or replying to my posts, that is your
business. Calling me untruthful is my business. I object to that.
Stuffed Tiger
|
|
| | From: | Dan Abel | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:37:49 -0800 |
|
|
| In article , Stuffed
Tiger wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:32:17 -0800, dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
> >No, theft is theft. Most people would conceed that the theft seems worse
> >when somebody is making money off of it, but it's still theft if no money
> >is made.
> ... snip ...
>
> Yes indeed. Theft is theft, and that is why Bill is not a thief. Theft
> is not the basis for copyright protection, in spite of the crap put
> out by the recording industry.
I don't know. Maybe theft is *not* theft. Still, it is often referred to
as "theft of intellectual property". Whether it qualifies as a crime, I
don't know. The dictionary says it's theft.
> The copyright laws are not there to insure YOU make money or to
> protect you per se, but rather to enable society to benefit from your
> work on the (correct) theory that if you held no rights you might not
> produce it. One of the key ways that society benefits by giving you a
> copyright is by allowing incorporating and adapting your work in new
> formats. That is perfectly legal.
This seems like circular reasoning. The way society benefits is precisely
by allowing the author to control their own work, by protecting it from
unauthorized copying.
> Hopefully, I was able to answer you without insulting you. If a
> site posted your materials, you might have a sound basis to sue for
> copyright violation (they sold it) and damages to your reputation.
I am certainly not insulted.
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net
|
|
| | From: | Allen | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:59:35 -0500 |
|
|
| > > The copyright laws are not there to insure YOU make money or to
> > protect you per se, but rather to enable society to benefit from your
> > work on the (correct) theory that if you held no rights you might not
> > produce it. One of the key ways that society benefits by giving you a
> > copyright is by allowing incorporating and adapting your work in new
> > formats. That is perfectly legal.
Copyright laws are for the protection of the owner. For example, I hold
copyrights to both of my books. I sold a portion of the rights to
Publishamerica for the electronic and print dissemination of these books.
They now have the right to publish the books in those forms. I retain any an
all other rights to dissemination, even if these new forms of distribution
don't exist presently.
I can sell my rights. I can give them away. I can make mutual sales and
multiple sales. Iti s fitting that these rights protect the artist. We are
the ones that labored to produce the product, whether it is tangible or
intellectual.
Hope that this clears things up.
--
Allen
www.publishedauthors.net/allenparker
Nudist Among Us 1-4137-0178-7
A Mouse Among Us 1-4137-4052-9
"Dan Abel" wrote in message
news:dabel-2001051237490001@ssu-64en129.sonoma.edu...
> In article , Stuffed
> Tiger wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:32:17 -0800, dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:
> >
> > ... snip ...
> >
> > >No, theft is theft. Most people would conceed that the theft seems
worse
> > >when somebody is making money off of it, but it's still theft if no
money
> > >is made.
> > ... snip ...
> >
> > Yes indeed. Theft is theft, and that is why Bill is not a thief. Theft
> > is not the basis for copyright protection, in spite of the crap put
> > out by the recording industry.
>
>
> I don't know. Maybe theft is *not* theft. Still, it is often referred to
> as "theft of intellectual property". Whether it qualifies as a crime, I
> don't know. The dictionary says it's theft.
>
>
> > The copyright laws are not there to insure YOU make money or to
> > protect you per se, but rather to enable society to benefit from your
> > work on the (correct) theory that if you held no rights you might not
> > produce it. One of the key ways that society benefits by giving you a
> > copyright is by allowing incorporating and adapting your work in new
> > formats. That is perfectly legal.
>
>
> This seems like circular reasoning. The way society benefits is precisely
> by allowing the author to control their own work, by protecting it from
> unauthorized copying.
>
>
> > Hopefully, I was able to answer you without insulting you. If a
> > site posted your materials, you might have a sound basis to sue for
> > copyright violation (they sold it) and damages to your reputation.
>
>
> I am certainly not insulted.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Sonoma State University
> AIS
> dabel@sonic.net
|
|
|
