[conspire] Book Burning continues thanks to the Feds

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):

> If you don't register a copyrighted work, the LOC and courts won't help
> you.  I've been through enough hearings at the Department of Commerce, the
> LOC and Judiciary Sub-Committees of both the house and senate, about 14
> times and counting,  to know that as a fact.

Then, you 'know as a fact' something that is not the case.

  Title 17, Chapter 5, section 504:

  Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

  (a) In General. -- Except as otherwise provided by this title, an
  infringer of copyright is liable for either --
  (1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits
  of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or
  (2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c). 
  [...]

As a copyright owner whose 17 U.S.C. 106 exclusive rights under
copyright have been infringed, you get the courts to 'help you' by 
bringing civil litigation against the infringer under 17 U.S.C. 504
(above).  

Whether _statutory_ damages can be collected depends on other factors,
some of which are detailed in the remainderof 17 U.S.C. 504 (omitted)
and in administrative law -- which mostly amount to 'Did you register
at the Copyright Office, establishing constructive notice?'  If you
didn't, and didn't achieve actual notice in other ways, then you get
awarded actual damages and an injunction, but no statutory damages.


> Secondly, the Berne convention can scratch my tuchas.  It was a change
> in statutary law to conform with the Berne Convention which caused that
> complete insanity.

No, the _Berne Convention_ was not a change in statutory law.  The 
_Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988_ was a change in statutory
law, patching various provisions of 17 U.S.C. to _mostly_ align Federal
copyright law with the Berne Convention, deliberately making exceptions
in two areas (moral rights and copyright formalities).


> Sooner or later the Berne Convention will be called on as
> unconstitutional. 

Less vague, please.  Kindly outline a credible theory of law.
(I'm not holding my breath, as in fact there is no Constitutional 
issue.)


> This has never been a legal battle.

That is correct.  So, enough already with the bullshit legal arguments
from someone who doesn't actually understand the law.  It wastes
everyone's time and does your credibility no favours.