[conspire] Book Burning continues thanks to the Feds
ruben at mrbrklyn.com
Thu Mar 24 21:00:58 PDT 2011
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 08:12:20PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> 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.
Every few years the copyright commision holds hearings on the
DMCA...those hearing,...not just those.
And while you think you might be able to sue successfuly for copyright
infringment without registration, try it. Have fun.
I'm certain everyone in the courtroom will be polite.
> 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.
> conspire mailing list
> conspire at linuxmafia.com
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."
"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."
© Copyright for the Digital Millennium
More information about the conspire