[conspire] Book Burning continues thanks to the Feds

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):

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

> It is the case and you can read the DMCA hearings for the copyrights
> commisions position on this OUTRIGHT.  Despite the statute, it is the
> policy of the US government prioritize (ie INGORE anything BUT )
> registered copyright works for the purposes of infringment.

Less vague, please.

I have no idea what 'commission' you are speaking of, but it basically
is _not_ the Federal government's job to enforce specific copyrights at
all.  That is the owners' job -- though the Feds _have_ engaged in
thuggery on behalf of copyright and trademark stakeholders in a
variety of arenas including but not limited to recent treaties (ACTA not
least among them).

I would not be the least surprised to hear that those bits of Federal
thuggery give greater teeth solely to copyrights registered with the
copyright and trademarks registered with USPTO.  

But you are -- in any event -- rather outrageously _changing the subject_
to evade my point.  

Let's back up:  You claimed that 'the courts won't help you' unless
you register your copyright.  This is provably false, period:  As I
said, you simply bring civil lawsuit, in any court, for infringement under 
17 U.S.C. 504.  Make your case, and the court will award you an
injunction and actual damages.  Add a valid LoC copyright registration
(or equivalent proof of actual notice), and they will also award you
statutory damages and attorney's costs.

Those are the facts.  You spoke in error.  Deal.



> Law is a Theory, not just a stack of papers, and it is grounded and
> practiced within the confines of that legal theory.

There is an old saying in law school -- proverbial advice for aspiring
litigators:  'When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.  When
the law is on your side, pound on the law.  When neither is on your
side, pound on the table.'

Ruben, the facts aren't on your side.  The law _certainly_ isn't on your
side.  So, you're pounding on the table.  ;->



> and as i said, it is section 102 that is the most problematic, and in
> conflict with existing legal theory.  

Less vague, please.