3 simple words

T

Travis Newbury

Neal said:
BTW, the answer to the question is dependant on whether your song had
been recorded or not. If it had been, I owe you 9.1 cents (US) per copy
if the song is under 5 minutes. (8.5 cents a few weeks ago.)

It depends if the song has been "published", not "recorded" (yea that's
nit picking here in this forum, but not in the real world), but you are
right statutory rates (compulsory licenses) go into effect after first
use rates have been applied. Typically the publisher will not go over
the statutory rate, but they can if they want.

If anyone is interested (or even still reading this thread) in
Copyright and how it is related to the music industry, Donald Passman's
book "ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE MUSIC BUSINESS" Is a pretty good read.
 
R

Richard

While sitting in a puddle SpaceGirl scribbled in the mud:
Sent a memo out to brucie.

By the fact you are ignoring my challenge, I will therefor have no choice
but to accept your surrender in this matter.
As you have seen sir/madame, the copyright office makes it quite clear that
in order for a person to claim infringement, the work MUST be duly
registered.
I will not remove the item based upon your word that you own a copyright.
Show the proof.
 
N

Neal

Travis Newbury said:
Typically the publisher will not go over the statutory rate, but
they can if they want.

Actually, the 9.1 cent rate is mandated by law. A copyright owner can
give you a break, but no more.
If anyone is interested (or even still reading this thread)

More likely.
 
C

Christopher Finke

Henry said:
Let's say you have idea of a liquid man (Terminator 2). If you could prove
that you had that idea and you will be a very rich man. There is only one
problem.

You will have to prove it, that you were the first one, the originator.

I came across a website the other day geared towards this sort of situation:
http://registeredworks.com/

Apparently, they provide some sort of timestamped backup service so that you
can prove ownership of documents, along with dates and times of when you
first uploaded them. I'm kind of split on whether this is a useful idea or
not. What does everyone else think?

Chris Finke
 
H

Hywel Jenkins

By the fact you are ignoring my challenge, I will therefor have no choice
but to accept your surrender in this matter.
As you have seen sir/madame, the copyright office makes it quite clear that
in order for a person to claim infringement, the work MUST be duly
registered.

No, no, no, no. You really are the dumbest person I've ever had the
misfortune to come across. Bullis, learn to read. Start with small
words.
 
R

Richard

No, no, no, no. You really are the dumbest person I've ever had the
misfortune to come across. Bullis, learn to read. Start with small
words.


Why don't you vent your anger towards the United States Copyright office?
I did not write the statement, they did.
The work MUST be registered in order for the plaintiff to succeed in
infringement.
That is what registration gives you. LEGAL authority.

Comparing that to buying a car and driving it on the road with no license
plate.
You get cited for no license plate right? Not to mention having your vehicle
impounded.
But you still own the car.

Duende is a coward. Pure and simple. He made the threat, let him speak for
himself.
 
H

hyweljenkins

Richard said:
Why don't you vent your anger towards the United States Copyright office?
I did not write the statement, they did.
The work MUST be registered in order for the plaintiff to succeed in
infringement.

This is what the law says, taken from the link you, RtS, provided:
"The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action
in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright."

Obviously the phrase "frequently misunderstood" refers to you and yuor
complete ineptitude. Duende has the copyright on the image you stole
from him. Here's some more:
"The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S.
law, although it is often beneficial."

WTF is your car analogy about, Bullis?

Regardless of whether Duende would win his day in court, you've
breached his copyright, plain and (like you) simple. You admit that
time and time again, yet you've still convinced yourself that you've
done nothing wrong. I still cannot understand how one person can be so
stupid. Even a five year old would have a better grasp of this.

I very much doubt that Duende is a coward. He's probably like anyone
else that gets their work stolen by incompetents such as you: he knows
he created the work; you know you stole it; he has the creative
ability, you do not; he has pride; you have the knowledge the you're a
prick.
 
T

Travis Newbury

Richard said:
Why don't you vent your anger towards the United States Copyright office?
I did not write the statement, they did.
The work MUST be registered in order for the plaintiff to succeed in
infringement.
That is what registration gives you. LEGAL authority.

Not even close. Ask Micheal Jackson, Mariah Cary, or any number of
other performers that have been successfully brought to court, and lost
a copyright infringement case brought against them because of (in many
casses) a cassette tape. No registration at all.

Registration makes it easier to win a suit. But is completely optional
in the eyes of the law.
Comparing that to buying a car and driving it on the road with no license
plate.

Why? The analogy is meaningless
Duende is a coward. Pure and simple. He made the threat, let him speak for
himself.

And you sir... are a troll
 
R

rf

Travis Newbury said:
Why? The analogy is meaningless

Realise that bullis has been drummed out of misc.transport.trucking and also
some other misc.transport.* groups as well. He knows equally as much about
cars and transport in general as he does about copyright.

groups.google for "bullis truck" :)
 
C

CarolW.

Why don't you vent your anger towards the United States Copyright office?
I did not write the statement, they did.
The work MUST be registered in order for the plaintiff to succeed in
infringement.
That is what registration gives you. LEGAL authority.

Not actually - you are interpreting the law broadly or just trying to
see what you want to see:

"THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF COPYRIGHTS:

1. UNREGISTERED COPYRIGHTS: This is copyright protection at its most
basic level. Upon creation and fixation, a valid copyright exists -
your rights are created the moment your pen leaves the paper, the
camera is clicked, etc. However, only minimal protections exist for
unregistered copyrights. You can only sue infringers for your actual
damages, such as the amount of the infringer's profits or the value of
your loss by not being able to sell or license the protected work
yourself. "

http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/artsaction/copyright.htm

The above means that Duende cannot sue you for the maximum amount of
$150,000 for the image.

Then there is this to consider:

"III. Copyright
A. Registration as Jurisdictional Requirement and Limitation on
Available Remedies
1. Jurisdictional Requirement -- Section 411 of the Copyright Act
probhibits, under certain circumstances, commencement of a copyright
infringement action unless the copyright at issue has been registered
with the Copyright Office.
a. Exceptions: Non-"United States" works and "works
consisting of sounds, images, or both . . . ." "

Page 15 from
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...right+infringement+cases"++unregistered&hl=en
Page 17 shares the range of statutory claims where $150,000 for
infringment is applicable for Willful Infringement ... around $200 to
$30,000 per infringment for Knowing Infringement.

I doubt, with you stating publically more than once where and how you
got the image and the subsequent threads you have created on the topic
that you could try to plea Innocent Infringment thoughts. However, if
you have had the image on two sites - the GeoCities one and the
BatCave one - then that could be viewed as two infringments versus
just one so the monetary amount could be doubled in what you could be
fined.

Then there is Section F about Punitive Damages where a case is cited
about the defendent citing infringment that did not fall under
statutory damages but was able to go after punitive damages based on
"malice and ill will" thoughts. I am not a lawyer, then again -
neither are you, but your posts toward Duende could probably show
"malice and ill will" existing on your side of the coin in this issue?


This is if a person goes the above route with the older copyright
laws. The DMCA has introduced some new thoughts that apply, but not
limited to, digital thoughts and does not, you will love this Richard,
require registration that you love to cite being part of the thoughts
for legally seeking damages to the fullest extent that the law allows:


From page 27:
"8. Registration Requirement for DMCA Claims
a. The statute is silent on the issue of whether the
registration requirement under Section 411(a) applies to claims under
the DMCA.
b. Limited authority does suggest, however, that Section 411(a) is
inapplicable to claims under Sections 1201 and 1202. "

There are various other links using the search phrase of 'images
+"copyright infringement cases" +unregistered' that I used just to
scratch the surface a little bit.

[snip]
Duende is a coward. Pure and simple. He made the threat, let him speak for
himself.

He made NO threat; he did what is recommended to be done in instances
like this - he asked you to take the image down. You have been the one
taunting him [and others] and misinterpreting copyright laws.

Hopefully the above will help illustrate only *part* of the reasons
why people have informing you that your interps of the laws, shared
here, were not wholly accurate or terribly flawed in how you tried to
interprete them.

Carol
 
S

Starshine Moonbeam

Richard ([email protected]) said:
_"WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF"_

Guess what St00pid, he's got it. You've already admitted to stealing it
in a public forum.

Please deposit another quarter and this time stick yourself in the dryer
like you were supposed to.
 
A

Andy Dingley

in order for a person to claim infringement, the work MUST be duly
registered.

Hey Richard, what'cha reckon to that Einstein guy ? Can't go
faster'n Speed Of Light, huh ? What sort o' rubbish is that he's
spout'n.

I bet you've got some _real_ doozey of a scheme for how to travel
faster'n light. Why don't you tell us all about it ?
 
D

Daniel Ruscoe

I came across a website the other day geared towards this sort of situation:
http://registeredworks.com/

Apparently, they provide some sort of timestamped backup service so that you
can prove ownership of documents, along with dates and times of when you
first uploaded them. I'm kind of split on whether this is a useful idea or
not. What does everyone else think?

Not a bad idea. There's always the old method of mailing yourself a copy
of your work so you have a sealed envelope date stamped by the post
office.
 
T

Travis Newbury

Daniel said:
Not a bad idea. There's always the old method of mailing yourself a copy
of your work so you have a sealed envelope date stamped by the post
office.

Doing this is kind of like circumstantial evidence. This by it's self
would not prove a case. But enough put together will. Then there are
also groups like the WGA for screen writers. They (for $20 if your not
a member) will take a hard copy of your script and put it in a safety
deposit box, and testify in court wen they received it if you need them
to. There are similar organizations for song writers one that comes to
mind is Just Plain Folks. I think they do it.

Man has this topic really gone astray. I'm out-a-here..
 
D

Duende

While sitting in a puddle Travis Newbury scribbled in the mud:
Man has this topic really gone astray.

You really didn't want this thread to stay on topic did you?
 
T

Toby Inkster

Henry said:
Let's say you have idea of a liquid man (Terminator 2). If you could
prove that you had that idea and you will be a very rich man. There is
only one problem.

No -- ideas are not copyrightable -- expression is.

The concept of a liquid man, or indeed a square iris, cannot be
copyrighted.

A picture, photograph or video of a liquid man can be copyrighted. A
picture, photograph or video of a square iris can be copyrighted.
 
T

Toby Inkster

Travis said:
Right, it must be in a tangible format. Tangible formats (for a song)
include a lead sheet, the lyrics, melody, or cords written on a piece of
paper, a recording of the song.

It has to be asked... on behalf of all drugs companies everywhere... if
cords can be copyrighted, what about jeans? ;-)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,483
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top