|
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
1. You've quoted a chunk of text that is copyrighted.
Copyrighted by whom?
In case you have forgotten - legal genius who is suing Google over a
copyright case - every text written after March 1, 1989 is automatically
copyrighted within the U.S. by the author of that text once it is placed
in a fixed medium. The copyright protection is automatic and requires
no notice as of that date, because the U.S. became a member of the Berne
Convention which eliminated any requirement for copyright notices. The
only real requirement is it must be registered either within 3 months of
publication or before the infringement takes place to get statutory damages.
You're supposed to know this if you're going to prosecute a copyright
claim in court against Google.
More evidence to prove your incompetence.
|
| |
| |
1. You've quoted a chunk of text that is copyrighted.
Copyrighted by whom?
In case you have forgotten - legal genius who is suing Google over a
copyright case - every text written after March 1, 1989 is automatically
copyrighted within the U.S. by the author of that text
i.e., the ONLY one who has standing to whine.
Let the author of this posting step forward if he feels the need.
Otherwise, no one else has any interest.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
1. You've quoted a chunk of text that is copyrighted.
Copyrighted by whom?
In case you have forgotten - legal genius who is suing Google over a
copyright case - every text written after March 1, 1989 is automatically
copyrighted within the U.S. by the author of that text
i.e., the ONLY one who has standing to whine.
Let the author of this posting step forward if he feels the need.
Otherwise, no one else has any interest.
You could still be prosecuted for criminal copyright violation even if
you weren't sued for civil infringement. Not likely, unfortunately.
|
| |
| |
i.e., the ONLY one who has standing to whine.
Let the author of this posting step forward if he feels the need.
Otherwise, no one else has any interest.
You could still be prosecuted for criminal copyright violation even if you
weren't sued for civil infringement. Not likely, unfortunately.
This can't be legal advice, since the person writing it isn't a lawyer and
his legal opinions are worthless.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
i.e., the ONLY one who has standing to whine.
Let the author of this posting step forward if he feels the need.
Otherwise, no one else has any interest.
You could still be prosecuted for criminal copyright violation even if you
weren't sued for civil infringement. Not likely, unfortunately.
This can't be legal advice, since the person writing it isn't a lawyer and
his legal opinions are worthless.
As opposed to you, for whom ALL of your opinions are worthless.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
i.e., the ONLY one who has standing to whine.
Let the author of this posting step forward if he feels the need.
Otherwise, no one else has any interest.
You could still be prosecuted for criminal copyright violation even if you
weren't sued for civil infringement. Not likely, unfortunately.
This can't be legal advice, since the person writing it isn't a lawyer and
his legal opinions are worthless.
Unlike you, however, I've been in court and actually gotten verdicts in
my favor. More than once. Of all the times you've been in court, how
many times have you ever gotten a verdict in your favor?
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:_dA7d.221$Cr6.200@trndny03:
1. You've quoted a chunk of text that is copyrighted.
Copyrighted by whom?
In case you have forgotten - legal genius who is suing Google over a
copyright case - every text written after March 1, 1989 is
automatically copyrighted within the U.S. by the author of that text
i.e., the ONLY one who has standing to whine.
Let the author of this posting step forward if he feels the need.
Otherwise, no one else has any interest.
Are you saying that someone can watch a person break the law and if they
are not the one who is hurt by that law breaking then they should ignore
that law breaking?
This from the man who claims to fight discrimination (and he is not the one
being discriminated against) and to defend civil rights (and he is not the
one who's civil rights are violated)? There seems to be an extreme lack of
consistency between these two things.
I guess that doesn't really surprise me after all.
|
| |
| |
|
