Irvine resigns thread

[jonnythan]

SeaJay once bubbled...

Legal or not, I consider it morally correct to ask permission before using someone else's work.

I've never felt otherwise... And have not implied otherwise.

When did Billy Joel and AC/DC say it was OK to use their work?

 

[WJL]

Genesis once bubbled...


Nope. Not if the infringement commenced prior to the registration.

You claim to do this kind of law and you haven't read the case law behind it? I even provided the cite for you!

You must register within three months of first publication.
However, an infringement that commences prior to the effective date of registration is immune from claims for statutory damages and fees, even if it continues past the registration date.

THERE IS NO ZONE OF DANGER. It is a bright-line test, and the only factor is whether or not the infringement commenced prior to the effective date of registration.

If the answer is "yes", then you are immune from a statutory damage and fee claim.

(Again, reading from the case law, and not as a barrister...)

Karl,

The Mason v. Montgomery Data case doesn't mean exactly what you are citing it for. You have to start with the statutory language:

17 USC 412

....no award of statutory damages or of attorney's fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for -

(1) any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective date of its registration; or

(2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work.



In the case under discussion, the issue turns on whether the work infringed was published or unpublished. If the work was unpublished, then there is no possibility of an award of statutory damages and attorney fees for an infringement commenced before registration. However, if the work was published, and posting on a public forum on the internet is probably "publication", then the copyright owner has three months to register the work and still be able to enter the bonus round for damages.

So yes, there is in fact a zone of danger.

 

[Steve_S]

WOW! I need to return to PI school

Thank you -Jon

We are referring to the following which breaks your framesets:


http://www.deepsouthdivers.org/songs.html

Those .mp3 are on your site. About 49 links to these .mp3 on your site from well known artists. INside the framesets it's Home >> Listen >> The Club's Favorite Scuba Songs

Respectfully, do you have permission to host and use all of them?

Are you familiar with the numerous suits and awards in favor of the RIAA?

If you aren't familiar with the numerous "cases" where user have paid large fines then please ask and I'm confident one of our resident leagl beagels can provide you with information aka the legaleese

I'm really hoping this is just an honest mistake from many many years ago and that you will remove this content from your server and remove the links. On the other hand, you may have prior authorization from the artists/labels.

Could you please clarify this?

 

[jonnythan]

Steve_S once bubbled...
WOW! I need to return to PI school

Thank you -Jon

We are referring to the following which breaks your framsets:


http://www.deepsouthdivers.org/songs.html

Those .mp3 are on your site. About 49 links to these .mp3 on your site from well known artists. INside the framesets it's Home >> Listen >> The Club's Favorite Scuba Songs

Respectfully, do you have permission to host and use all of them?

Are you familiar with the numerous suits and awards in favor of the RIAA?

I'm really hoping this is just an honest mistake from many many years ago and that you will remove this content from your server and remove the links. On the other hand, you may have prior authorization from the artists/labels.

Could you please clarify this?

There was already a long thread about this, which got pulled. Basically I had emailed his host (while letting him know that I was emailing his host), the host pulled the site, and now he hosts it with the ISP he owns (or something like that). The fact that his site is small fry and he won't get sued is his reasoning. If he doesn't get convicted, it's not wrong.

 

[Steve_S]

Thanks for the clarrification. I'm not here to cause law suits or complaints. If I convince a few folks that they should voluntarily comply then I'm a happy camper I have better things to do with my time but every so often I get really involved when I should be working

Natch, I don't agree with the flawed logic you cited and I'm sure some of the legal beagels have quoted or will quote the legal issues.

Folks need to understand how really easy it is for some folks to press the correct button if they are so inclined and in some cases have the money. In some cases this has disaterous effects since a given city may only have a single Consumer pricing broad band service.

The class C IP block is owned by Sprint for the site in question and the router indicates this is a DSL service. Natch this includes the dedicated IP. The owner of the IP is the button. Their may be and often are other names/Companies involved but the owner is always the ticket.

The AUP of Sprint may be found at: http://www.sprint.net/policy/abuse.html

Its rather clear on this issue or perhaps clear enough for the owner of the IP I'm asking the owner of this site politely and respectfully to please remove this content. Thats all I'm after and hope and pray you will consider my request and comply.

 

[Genesis]

One quick point.

Most ISPs - and I KNOW this includes Sprint, because I used to deal with them all the time when people on their network were doing "odd" things - will not accept third-party complaints.

That is, if you want to allege a copyright issue and get their attention, you have to be the holder of the copyright or their lawfully-appointed agent.

Now if you are their lawfully appointed agent, heh, cool, have at it. But if you're not, but rather just raising hell for grins and giggles, be aware that this kind of axe-swinging is not "safe".

I know that Sprint takes a dim view of third-party complaints and often considers them harassment, referring them straight back to YOUR provider for action under YOUR provider's abuse policy. I saw a corporate DS-1 go "poof" this way; I knew about it because they came to me with an emergency request for service (which we were unable to fill due to circuit re-engineering requirements) when one of their hot-shot folks tried to shut down a Sprint customer's service by raising exactly this kind of complaint. They were determined to lack standing to bring the complaint, it was considered harassment by Sprint, and forwarded back to the ISP that served them - who terminated their line without notice!

Careful with that axe 'yer swinging, lest you chop off your own head.

 

[Steve_S]

Interesting and thanks so much for the tips Genesis.

My axe was retired about 6 months ago but it's always sharpened and like I said before/above "I'm not here to cause law suits or complaints."

I can only image how many they get every single hour. I assume they automatically scan them for those golden words and then autorespond back along with other actions.

 

[Genesis]

....go straight in the ash-can if they're even read.

Now if you CALL the NOC (assuming you can get the number - I used to have it, but I bet its no longer the same - they used to change it every six months to a year or so to keep down the kook count) and raise hell you'll get some kind of response.

It just might not be the one you want.

ALL the big carriers used to play hardball with this kind of stuff. If you served them with some kind of subpoena or other process they'd pay attention. If you physically faxed or mailed them a nastygram they'd pay attention, but often it wasn't the kind of attention you wanted. If you got the NOC on the phone they'd REALLY pay attention, but you had better be a peer-level provider or have a REAL good excuse to talk to them, or again, you almost CERTAINLY wouldn't like the response you got, and even if you WERE a peer, large customer or other provider they'd STILL often tell you to go straight to hell and hang up on you.

I had situations arise where I traced a high-bandwidth (as in DS-3 speeds PLUS) denial-of-service attack aimed at my core equipment to one of their customers and STILL had them tell me to go pee up a rope. My next call was to the FBI and I simultaneously posted on our NOC web page that we were dropping all of their AS-announced routes and black-holing packets from their IP allocations due to the incessant DDOS coming from their network and their refusal to respond to it. THAT got their attention (which part woke 'em up I'm still not certain of.)

Sprint wasn't alone in this cavalier "don't give a good damn" treatment of such things either. Essentially ALL of the major national backbone folks took this kind of stance in the mid to late 90s, and I bet most if not all still do.

Don't be so sure that the major players will care - they generally won't unless hit over the head with a call from some three-letter agency that has really big, sharp teeth or a summons.

 

[dutchfin]

Still trying to figure out what this has to do with diving in general...........??

 

[SeaJay]

Northeastwrecks once bubbled...


You said that you don't care what the law says, you know better and will do what you want because you don't agree with the law.

Oh fer cryin' out loud... Now you're just makin' crap up.

Your interpretation of the law is heavily flawed and lacks support. All a plaintiff would need to establish is that they have created the work, that it is entitled to copyright protection, that you violated their exclusive rights by copying or by some other act. If they want an injunction, that's about it (irreparable harm is presumed). If they want money, proof of registration in accordance with Sec. 411 or proof of actual damages is all that it takes.

Blah, blah, blah... This is getting stupid.

What I said, specifically was... Should I post it again? It would make three posts in a row, now.

You must be one of those guys that goes around telling himself baloney and then believing your own lies. It's an interesting psychological condition.

Your claim that it has never happened before would not fly. Tasini and the other cases I cited earlier make it clear that the internet is not a copyright free zone.

So... You're saying that you know of a case where someone was successfully sued for posting a link or forwarding an email?

Talking with you is like talking to a wall.

I frequently remind my students that...

I thought you said that you weren't a "professor" at the moment.

I have a tough time believing that a credible university would have someone work for them who is afflicted with your condition.

Mind giving some references so that I can check your story? Name... University... I'll call you tomorrow and we'll chat about this.

You can't provide anything that tells me that copying people's work is legal.

Last I looked, I never DID say that... In fact, I specifically said... Do you want it a fourth time?

Link. Email. Wall.

Sadly, I doubt that you've infringed enough copyrights to make it worth a client's money. But that doesn't make your behavior right.

"My behavior?"

I thought we were talking about someone posting a link here... And talking about forwarding email.

Do you have me confused with someone else? Just how many people are in that head of yours, professor jerk?

Moreover, since Sec. 411 provides for registration after infringement in certain circumstances, it would be a pretty clean case.

I beg to differ. Prove it.

...And the rottweiler barks louder and louder...

Sooner or later, NE, someone throws a shoe at the stupid mutt.