Peter Alexander DMCA Notice
Mark Bunker
fun while it lasted. People were able to comment in real time while
watching the movie, creating their own Rocky Horror Picture Show or MST3K.
From: "Peter Alexander" <tfc...@gmail.com>
Date: March 23, 2008 1:56:19 PM EDT
To: take...@mogulus.com
Subject: DMCA Notification, "The Profit"
Date: March 22, 2008
Recipient Information
Max Hoat, Copyright Agent
Mogulus LLC
636 Broadway, Floor 3
New York, NY 10012
Email: take...@mogulus.com
Sent via: Email
Sender Information
Peter N. Alexander
801 Normandy Trace Rd.
Tampa, FL 33602
Email: kngp...@aol.com
(813) 314-9033
To Whom It May Concern:
The following information is presented for the purposes of removing web
content that infringes on our copyright per the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act. We appreciate your enforcement of copyright law and support of our
rights in this matter.
Be aware that if you ignore this notice, you (as a Provider covered by the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act) forfeit the Act's immunity from monetary
damages, which range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed and up to
$150,000 per work for willful infringement. Attorney's fees and costs can
also be recovered.
Identification of Copyrighted Work
The copyrighted work at issue is the video that appears on
http://www.mogulus.com/xenutv1 and its related pages. The page in question
is streaming "The Profit," a motion picture which is copyrighted by Peter N.
Alexander. Distribution rights are assigned exclusively to Courage
Productions, LLC.
What you (the Provider) need to do now:
1) reply to the Complainant (Us) and/or the Authorized Agent thereof that
this notification has been received, within 24 hours.
2) send your customer written notification, along with a copy of this
notification, requesting removal of the infringing material and requiring
confirmation of the removal be sent to you (the Provider) within 24 hours;
3) disable access to the infringing material or the customer's account if
the customer fails to remove the infringing material and/or fails to inform
you (the Provider) of the removal within 24 hours of notification;
4) send the Complainant (Us) and /or the Authorized Agent thereof notice
of the customer's counter notification and your (the Provider) intent to
re-enable access to the material or the account within 14 days of your (the
Providers) receipt of any customer counter notification, assuming the
counter notification meets the requirements of the DMCA Act.
Copyright Owner Contact Information
Peter N. Alexander
801 Normandy Trace Rd.
Tampa, FL 33602
Email: kngp...@aol.com
(813) 314-9033
Copyright Owners Statement
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described
above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the
copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the
notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized
to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed.
Peter Alexander
Out_Of_The_Dark
> The Interactive Profit Experience at XENU TV has been taken down. It was
> fun while it lasted. People were able to comment in real time while
> watching the movie, creating their own Rocky Horror Picture Show or MST3K.
>
> Date: March 23, 2008 1:56:19 PM EDT
> To: taked...@mogulus.com
> Subject: DMCA Notification, "The Profit"
>
> Date: March 22, 2008
>
> Recipient Information
> Max Hoat, Copyright Agent
> Mogulus LLC
> 636 Broadway, Floor 3
> New York, NY 10012
>
> Sent via: Email
>
> Sender Information
> Peter N. Alexander
> 801 Normandy Trace Rd.
> Tampa, FL 33602
> (813) 314-9033
>
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> The following information is presented for the purposes of removing web
> content that infringes on our copyright per the Digital Millennium Copyright
> Act. We appreciate your enforcement of copyright law and support of our
> rights in this matter.
>
> Be aware that if you ignore this notice, you (as a Provider covered by the
> Digital Millennium Copyright Act) forfeit the Act's immunity from monetary
> damages, which range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed and up to
> $150,000 per work for willful infringement. Attorney's fees and costs can
> also be recovered.
>
> Identification of Copyrighted Work
>
> is streaming "The Profit," a motion picture which is copyrighted by Peter N.
> Alexander. Distribution rights are assigned exclusively to Courage
> Productions, LLC.
>
> What you (the Provider) need to do now:
>
> 1) reply to the Complainant (Us) and/or the Authorized Agent thereof that
> this notification has been received, within 24 hours.
> 2) send your customer written notification, along with a copy of this
> notification, requesting removal of the infringing material and requiring
> confirmation of the removal be sent to you (the Provider) within 24 hours;
> 3) disable access to the infringing material or the customer's account if
> the customer fails to remove the infringing material and/or fails to inform
> you (the Provider) of the removal within 24 hours of notification;
> 4) send the Complainant (Us) and /or the Authorized Agent thereof notice
> of the customer's counter notification and your (the Provider) intent to
> re-enable access to the material or the account within 14 days of your (the
> Providers) receipt of any customer counter notification, assuming the
> counter notification meets the requirements of the DMCA Act.
>
> Copyright Owner Contact Information
>
> Peter N. Alexander
> 801 Normandy Trace Rd.
> Tampa, FL 33602
> (813) 314-9033
>
> Copyright Owners Statement
>
> I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described
> above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the
> copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
>
> I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the
> notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized
> to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
> infringed.
>
> Peter Alexander
He's bluffing you. You don't have the manuscript on your site. Tell
him to PROVE the movie is copyrighted. Peter only has copyright on the
manuscript. Courtage Productions LCC is supposed to hold the copyright
but I have not found that the motion picture was ever registered .
Tom N
> The Interactive Profit Experience at XENU TV has been taken down. It was
> fun while it lasted. People were able to comment in real time while
> watching the movie, creating their own Rocky Horror Picture Show or MST3K.
>
> Date: March 23, 2008 1:56:19 PM EDT
> To: taked...@mogulus.com
> Subject: DMCA Notification, "The Profit"
>
> Date: March 22, 2008
>
> Recipient Information
> Max Hoat, Copyright Agent
> Mogulus LLC
> 636 Broadway, Floor 3
> New York, NY 10012
>
> Sent via: Email
>
> Sender Information
> Peter N. Alexander
> 801 Normandy Trace Rd.
> Tampa, FL 33602
> (813) 314-9033
>
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> The following information is presented for the purposes of removing web
> content that infringes on our copyright per the Digital Millennium Copyright
> Act. We appreciate your enforcement of copyright law and support of our
> rights in this matter.
>
> Be aware that if you ignore this notice, you (as a Provider covered by the
> Digital Millennium Copyright Act) forfeit the Act's immunity from monetary
> damages, which range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed and up to
> $150,000 per work for willful infringement. Attorney's fees and costs can
> also be recovered.
>
> Identification of Copyrighted Work
>
> is streaming "The Profit," a motion picture which is copyrighted by Peter N.
> Alexander. Distribution rights are assigned exclusively to Courage
> Productions, LLC.
>
> What you (the Provider) need to do now:
>
> 1) reply to the Complainant (Us) and/or the Authorized Agent thereof that
> this notification has been received, within 24 hours.
> 2) send your customer written notification, along with a copy of this
> notification, requesting removal of the infringing material and requiring
> confirmation of the removal be sent to you (the Provider) within 24 hours;
> 3) disable access to the infringing material or the customer's account if
> the customer fails to remove the infringing material and/or fails to inform
> you (the Provider) of the removal within 24 hours of notification;
> 4) send the Complainant (Us) and /or the Authorized Agent thereof notice
> of the customer's counter notification and your (the Provider) intent to
> re-enable access to the material or the account within 14 days of your (the
> Providers) receipt of any customer counter notification, assuming the
> counter notification meets the requirements of the DMCA Act.
>
> Copyright Owner Contact Information
>
> Peter N. Alexander
> 801 Normandy Trace Rd.
> Tampa, FL 33602
> (813) 314-9033
>
> Copyright Owners Statement
>
> I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described
> above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the
> copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
>
> I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the
> notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized
> to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
> infringed.
>
> Peter Alexander
What kind of an idiot thinks that a post on the Usenet is a legal
document?
Can you chew gum and walk at the same time?
Tom Newton
Anonymous
Tom, You have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old. He copied a
DMCA takedown notice he received via email to post it here for all to see.
capricious
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, more appropriately, what idiot WOULDN'T. What, do you need Mark
to fax you a copy for you to believe it?
Why are you still around here anyways? Your stupid trolling ass needs
to find a new bridge to live under cuz I am getting god damn sick and
tired of having to kill file your retarded ass from every god damn
computer I use. You're a fucking idiot, any way you slice it. Mark
Bunker is a very legitimate source, and if you'd like, I'm sure he'd
be more than happy to prove the authenticity of the letter received,
IF IT EVEN MATTERED.
You Scientologist kids REALLY, REALLY need to learn about critical
analysis. I keep telling Jonathan to read it, and he refuses. It is
a simple scientific method of determinining legitimacy of anything.
Key things to consider:
1. What motivation does he have to lie??? Where is the personal
gain?
2. Is Mark someone known to spout lies? Is his, of all people's
reputation, even questionable?
3. What motivation do YOU have to lie? What are YOUR personal gains?
4. Are YOU someone known to spout lies? Is your reputation in any
remote good standing with anyone here, next to your transvestite
friends, Jon and Barb?
I think that about sums it up. Question #3 is still the most
important one no one has yet to answer, especially you, Mr. Rootin
Tootin Tom Newton.
So if your only goal is to come around here and call everyone liars
without any basis to back it up, how on earth do you expect anyone to
read anything you say and not laugh? For someone who "is a CEO" and
"is a millionaire" you are really fucking stupid. I'm 27 years old
and could run laps around you intellectually, logically,
mathmatically, and any other way. You're a waste of space and the
oxygen you breathe could be put to better use feeding fires in the
rain forrest. THAT's how ridiculously retarded and pathetic you truly
are.
JAFAW
"Mark Bunker" <markb...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:WqSFj.2141$L52...@fe20.usenetserver.com...
Aw, isn't that cute, he's even setup a special email account especially for
DMCAs, tfc...@gmail.com
beech...@gmail.com
Alexander have to be involved in a takedown notice?
Out_Of_The_Dark
> If Courage Productions owns the copyright, wouldn't both Minton and
> Alexander have to be involved in a takedown notice?
That was my point in my post above. Peter does not hold the copyright
on the motion picture. Only on the manuscript. He's about equal to the
Eurythmics having their song sung in the movie when it comes to
copyright.
Thing is, I can't find that anyone copyrighted the motion picture but
the court states that it is an asset of Courage Productions LCC, that
entity would have DMCA rights, not the script writer
JAFAW
"Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:25e86b4f-dbf9-428a...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Maybe, as a partner of Courage Productions, he has to be seen to be acting
in its best interests (which is the thing he and cowbag keep moaning about
Minton allegedly not doing).
Out_Of_The_Dark
> "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
He's had since 2003 to act in the best interests of the film but he
chose wait until now? He even forgot to renew registration of Courage
Productions LCC and the state of Florida administratively dissolved
it, which makes Alexander personally libel for any lawsuits, so if
anything, he's trying to protect his butt after messing up.
Michael Pattinson
wrote:
Does that mean the copyright is owned by a defunct corporation??
Funky Donny
A futile manouevre. It's already availabe in the form of torrents, and
via eDonkey/eMule. The cat has forgotten it was ever in a bag.
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> > He's had since 2003 to act in the best interests of the film but he
> > chose wait until now? He even forgot to renew registration of Courage
> > Productions LCC and the state of Florida administratively dissolved
> > it, which makes Alexander personally libel for any lawsuits, so if
> > anything, he's trying to protect his butt after messing up.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. It's an administrative action taken for not being registered with
the state of FL. Courage Prodiuctions LCC is a limited liability
company is not a corporation. Peter was the manager of it. All he has
to do is register it late and it will be reinstated. Until he does
this, he's personally liable for debts incurred in the name of the LCC
during the time it's been administratively dissolved.
Courage Productions LCC is still an entity with assets that are under
the court order from 2002 that froze them until arbitration occurred.
Peter stopped pushing for arbitration after Minton lost the appeal for
it. I think it was a matter of money in pursuing if further because
they were opposed in their differences on what records would be made
available and where arbitration would take place and by whom.
The ball was in Peter's court and he let it drop. Thing is, there is a
court order from Minton v Alexander case in Pinellas Co and right now,
it shows that Peter failed to manage the LCC and the assets he was
court ordered to freeze until the arbitration matter was resolved.
Kind of complicated. More so because unless he copyrighted it this
week, there is no record of the motion picture being copyrighted at
the US copyright office
Zinj
mon...@business.com says...
<snip>
> A futile manouevre. It's already availabe in the form of torrents, and
> via eDonkey/eMule. The cat has forgotten it was ever in a bag.
On the bright side of the (not-so-bright) 'Courage' Productions, it
eliminates the possibility of people interactively commenting on the
film while they watch it.
Good move! :)
Zinj
--
Scientology may be the first 'religion' best comprehended by forensic
accountants.
barb
Great advice. NOT. Why do you seem to feel it necessary to interject
yourself into things that clearly have not a damn thing to do with you?
Every hear MYOB? You should try it sometime.
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
I can haz Legion?
“I think that the protections that we enjoy for freedom of worship exist
so long as we don’t step over the line. When religious worship and
belief cross over into things like fraud, victimization of others and
the disruption of the political arena, that protection is no longer
appropriate.”
--Robert Goff
Professor Emeritus, UCSC
jonath...@gmail.com
This is also my advice to you, Barb Graham, as you are not a
Scientologist and never were one. You admitted on this newsgroup that
you only made it to page 20 of DMSMH!
Barb Graham is an internet troll and nothing more.
While I still believe that Out_Of_The_Dark/"Mary McConnell" is an evil
monster who wishes suicide onto others, she claims to be an ex-
Scientologist. Some of her comments indicate that she was a glib one,
but I believe she actually went into a church or read a book.
So, while I prefer Barb Graham as a person over Mary, Mary's posts are
actually on-topic. Mary's intense hatred for Scientology and
Scientologists is genuine. Barb Graham's hate is merely imitation and
posturing.
Zinj
markb...@cox.net says...
> The Interactive Profit Experience at XENU TV has been taken down. It was
> fun while it lasted. People were able to comment in real time while
> watching the movie, creating their own Rocky Horror Picture Show or MST3K.
Can you revive the comments section? I doubt that talking about the no-
longer-mystery-sandwich qualifies as 'infringement' :)
At worst, it might get a 'little foot stamping' letter.
Mark Bunker
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2251f973...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
People are chatting on the channel night and day. We've gone back to our
regular programming but I believe people would still be interested in
talking about the film if you stopped by.
Since it's an irc channel and I don't log it, the comments come and go.
tikk
For someone who has no idea what they're talking about, you assert
yourself as an authority with some regularity, both above, elsewhere in
this thread, and on this newsgroup generally. Perhaps this reply below
can serve as a public service message, to inform others that you should
not be taken seriously.
Without getting too deep into particulars, for which I don't presently
have the time, registration of copyright is not necessary to claim
copyright. While registration is often a good idea (for a variety of
reasons), registration has not been necessary to claim infringement for
some decades. Thus, the fact that you can't find evidence of the film's
copyright having been registered is utterly meaningless.
Second, as the DMCA notice points out, Peter Alexander owns the
copyright to the film, as its director, and the LLC merely possesses the
distribution rights, which is a subset of the entire bundle of
copyrights. Peter does not need the LLC's principals to cooperate in
order to send out a DMCA notice because he possesses the underlying
copyright, as the film's director (and to be more exact, the motion
picture copyright is a derivative work of the manuscript, the copyright
of which Alexander also possesses).
Copyright is naturally bestowed upon the author to a work upon the
work's creation (formerly, upon publication); and directors are
ordinarily considered the authors of motion pictures. Directors of large
motion pictures are ordinarily not considered the authors (and thus
copyright holders) because they sign work-for-hire agreements, assigning
their rights to the movie studio from the outset. But here, on a small
motion picture both written directed by Peter Alexander, Alexander would
naturally possess the copyright to the film, and the LLC would possess
whichever rights he assigned or licensed to it.
~ tikk
beech...@gmail.com
> Great advice. NOT. Why do you seem to feel it necessary to interject
> yourself into things that clearly have not a damn thing to do with you?
>
> Every hear MYOB? You should try it sometime.
>
Look, Barb... I like and respect you very much here on ARS. I know I'm
a newly-minted critic, and have no history here. However, this is a
public board, and regardless of the various internal factions, some
people will disagree. Telling someone to STFU is kind of silly in this
arena. For every poster, there are infinitely more lurkers. If someone
posts here, they must know that not everybody will agree, and those
that don't agree aren't necessarily Satan incarnate.
I frequently disagree virulently with some of my best friends in the
world (about politics, not Scientology, but you get the picture).
The kind of nonsense that's going on here is just that... nonsense.
What, are we in middle school again?
"ZOMG! You're friends with so-and-so, so I'm not friends with you
anymore!!"
C'mon... I think we're all better than that. At least, I hope we are.
And by "we", I mean critics of Scientology, not "we" in some weird
cabal sense.
Not trying to start a flame war, that was beginning without any help
from me.
But we all (posters and lurkers) need to be honest here. The movie The
Profit has split the old-time critics into camps. The CoS has
succeeded in dividing the critics in a great schism, and the warring
factions seem to be perfectly OK with that. How sad is that, when you
think about it?
Quite frankly, we're all being used here.
anon7571
"tikk" <tr...@tikk.net> wrote in message
news:47e84466$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
I believe even e-mails are automatically copyrighted by the mere fact of the
author having written them, without a need to register them.. Posts to
newsgroups are a different matter because they were made to a public forum
and therefore are de facto in the public domain. But then, IANAL.
Henri Ladd
You are correct sir. However, after having put copyright notices on
hundreds of television projects, I have come to learn from all the
producers that it is essential that in the credits, proper claim of
copyright is fixed to the videotape or film credits. It must take the
form of either a circle-C, or the spelt out form of "Copyright" followed
by the year, either Arabic or Roman numeral, then followed by the
copyright holder.
I did not see this on the YouTube presentation. It most probably was
truncated by whoever uploaded it to the Internet... because it would be
a travesty if Courage Productions left it off.
If copyright notice was left off, there might be a serious case that it
may have fallen in to the public domain.
tikk
You're wrong too. While notice of copyright affords the copyright holder
benefits (and is a good idea for a variety of reasons), it is not
mandatory and has not been mandatory since 1989, when the US updated the
1976 Act to comply with the Berne Convention, which the US had just
signed, and which did away with notice requirements. Lack of notice will
not inject the work into the public domain.
~ tikk
Scientology is a cult
@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> This is also my advice to you, Barb Graham, as you are not a
> Scientologist and never were one.
And Jonathan, you are not a Scientologist because you were kicked out.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
R. Hill
> fun while it lasted. People were able to comment in real time while
> watching the movie, creating their own Rocky Horror Picture Show or MST3K.
>
> Date: March 23, 2008 1:56:19 PM EDT
> To: taked...@mogulus.com
> Subject: DMCA Notification, "The Profit"
>
> Date: March 22, 2008
>
<snip>
Removed from Youtube too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qgc6hpTEAo
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Courage
Productions LLC"
Eldon
You're mostly right Barb. However, there is some precedent about
registration. Theoretically, you can only collect monetary damages if
a work is deposited and registered with the copyright office.
But maybe there's something in the (flawed) DMCA that changed that.
I'm not sure and don't have the time to research it.
This is moot CYA stuff anyway. The torrent is going great guns at
Pirate Bay, and if the video were hosted at, say, XS4ALL in Holland,
that's where they would have to sue.
The Internet's a real bitch that way. Consider the recent Wikileaks
case (brought by a Swiss bank in US federal court) in which the judge
dissolved his own injunction because it only made matters worse. :-)
banchukita
>
> - Show quoted text -
was the YouTube version the final edit, intended for distribution?
Eldon
Right. But lack of registration does (in most cases at least) affect
the ability to collect damages. As I said above, this might have been
changed by the DMCA, or at least that could be an argument.
>
> ~ tikk
Eldon
That depends on the contract between Peter and Courage Productions.
For example, if it said he would get a royalty percentage out of the
income, he had a monetary interest just from assigning his copyright.
Eldon
> On Mar 24, 2:30 pm, "Mark Bunker" <markbun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > The Interactive Profit Experience at XENU TV has been taken down. It was
> > fun while it lasted. People were able to comment in real time while
> > watching the movie, creating their own Rocky Horror Picture Show or MST3K.
>
> > From: "Peter Alexander" <tfcd...@gmail.com>
> > Date: March 23, 2008 1:56:19 PM EDT
> > To: taked...@mogulus.com
> > Subject: DMCA Notification, "The Profit"
>
> > Date: March 22, 2008
>
> <snip>
>
> Removed from Youtube too:
Oh, well. watching it once in low res was enough to get the idea --
and although I liked several out of hundreds of scenes, it isn't a
flick I want to see twice in order to study the subtle nuances anyway,
because there are none.
I'll watch Sunset Boulevard or Citizen Kane for the umteenth time
instead, thanks.
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
>
>
>
>
> > Every hear MYOB? You should try it sometime.
>
> > --
> > Barb
> > Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
> > I can haz Legion?
>
> > "I think that the protections that we enjoy for freedom of worship exist
> > so long as we don't step over the line. When religious worship and
> > belief cross over into things like fraud, victimization of others and
> > the disruption of the political arena, that protection is no longer
> > appropriate."
>
> > --Robert Goff
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
MYOB
Bwhahahaha! what a hypocrite you are, too!
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Barb, pot kettle black. It's pathetic how you've turned into such a
bitter protector of the GypsyQueen. Why aren't you busy doing
something useful? Your Narcononvictims board is nearly inactive and my
mailbox is full with requests for help. That should tell you something.
Out_Of_The_Dark
> On Mar 24, 7:22 pm, barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Great advice. NOT. Why do you seem to feel it necessary to interject
> > yourself into things that clearly have not a damn thing to do with you?
>
> > Every hear MYOB? You should try it sometime.
>
> Look, Barb... I like and respect you very much here on ARS. I know I'm
> a newly-minted critic, and have no history here. However, this is a
> public board, and regardless of the various internal factions, some
> people will disagree. Telling someone to STFU is kind of silly in this
> arena. For every poster, there are infinitely more lurkers. If someone
> posts here, they must know that not everybody will agree, and those
> that don't agree aren't necessarily Satan incarnate. < <
Beecher5..., thanks for coming to the defense of decency and manners
but you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Barb's first words out of the womb were probably STFU!
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter Alexander didn't own copyrights to the film before it came on
the net. He may have gotten it since then but there was no copyright
to it and certainly not to him alone. Even the film says it's
copyrighted by Courage Productions! Go look at it, lol!
Post some proof that Peter Alenander holds copyright of the motion
picture. I dare you. If any exisits, it's new and certainly not in
alignment with the court order that froze the assets of Courrage
Productions LCC
ALEXANDER PETER <== MINTON ROBERT COURT 0208684CI 12/2/2002 12383
1950 2002449878
Here are the particulars:
Uniform Case Pinellas Case Section Case Type Type
522002CA008684XXCICI 02008684CI 008 INJUNCTION CI
Style: MINTON ROBERT S
vs. ALEXANDER PETER
Jury Trial STIP NOTH Reason Type Disp.
Y JDMT
Filling Date Appeal Date Judg. Date Reop Date Docket Date
11/01/02 12/02/02 12/04/02
Case/Cat
INJUNCTION
10 Docket Entries, 12/04/02 to 11/27/02
Pages Date P/D Docket Entry Ver
12/04/02 PLAINTIFF REOPEN CASE/OTHER N
12/04/02 PLAINTIFF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE . F
12/03/02 PLAINTIFF NOTICE OF EMERGENCY HEARING 112702 @11:15 F
12/02/02 PLAINTIFF MANDATORY INJUNCTION OR12383PG1950-004 F
12/02/02 PLAINTIFF JUDGMENT N
12/02/02 PLAINTIFF NOTICE NON-COMPLIANCE OF ADM. ORDER 86-44 F
12/02/02 PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY COVER LETTER F
11/27/02 PLAINTIFF TRANSCRIPTION OF PROCEEDINGS RETURN ON TEMP
INJUNCTION F
11/27/02 PLAINTIFF AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS H MCGOWAN F
11/27/02 PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR INDIRECT CIVIL CONTEMPT
Here's the Appeal case at Pinellas:
ALEXANDER PETER ==> MINTON ROBERT COURT 0208684CI 7/7/2003 12878 554
2003277542
note what it says in part:
[..]" Soon thereafter, invoking his rights under the operating
agreement, he petitioned for an injunction and other equitable relief
against Mr. Alexander and sought to restrain him from alienating,
assigning, or hiding the assets of the company, directly or
indirectly, until an accounting could be conducted and the assets of
the LLC equitably divided. Section 8.2 of the agreement provides that
each party has the right, upon reasonable request, "for purposes
reasonably related to the interest of that [party]," to inspect and
copy any of the company's books and records, and any party may require
a review and or audit." [..]
[''] "Accordingly, we reverse the nonfinal order and remand with
directions to grant Mr. Alexander's motion to compel arbitration and
to stay all other pending matters in the circuit court until the
arbitration process is complete."
--------------------------
That injunction freezing all assets of Courage Productions, LCC.
includes the film as an asset and the injunction is still in effect
whether Alexander denies it or not.
Peter only has authority as the manager of the LCC, he's not an owner
of the film. His duty is to protect the assets according to law and
the court ordered injunction, above.
The complete appeal doc and facts about the both cases are posted here
in a reply of mine to you, of which you ignore answering:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/12f3faf88be1eb31?dmode=source
Alot of DMCA notices go out, in this case, it's a bluff until proven
otherwise.
Out_Of_The_Dark
There is no contract on the copyrights of the film because Peter would
have contested the injunction of 12/02/02 that was put in place when
Minton sued him.
Alexander as holder of a copyright would have to sue Courage
Productions LCC just like the Eurythmics would , for unauthorized use
of their copyrighted material, if this film were out illegally. His
contract for the right to use the copyrighted manuscript in the film
is one thing but there is no copyright on the motion picture as a
thing in itself, unless he got one very recently ( which still
would'nt protect him against the injunction tht froze the film as an
assett of Courage Productions. See below for details.
Bob Minton, Miscavige's minion, threatens "The Profit" again
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/12f3faf88be1eb31?dmode=source
John Dorsay
Why don't you host it yourself, Mary? Server space is cheap. I
will happily contribute to the cost if you want to go ahead and do
this good deed. I expect others will too.
If it's a bluff, surely there is no cause for concern.
John
Out_Of_The_Dark
See! Contrary copyright claims. I'd like to see the DMCA letter from
the LCC on that. I'd like to see the document that proves Peter holds
copyright as the DMCA letter Bunker received impiles.
The thing is, it would have been easier and more truthful to do to
stop the film from showing was just to show the darn court ordered
injunction of 12/02/02 in Minton v Alexander, that froze the assets of
the LCC, as the film is an asset of Courage Produtions LCC.
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> > Alot of DMCA notices go out, in this case, it's a bluff until proven
> > otherwise.
>
> Why don't you host it yourself, Mary? Server space is cheap. I
> will happily contribute to the cost if you want to go ahead and do
> this good deed. I expect others will too.
>
> If it's a bluff, surely there is no cause for concern.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
John, I am not condoning anyone showing the movie. Not at all. It
should not have bneen released in the first place because it violated
an injunction from the Minton v Alexander case. The issue is that
someone screwed up. Peter was NOT the copyright holder of that film
when it was released. It is an asset of Courage Productions LCC and
even if he's now filed the proper paperwork as manager of the LCC, is
was not protected during the time it was released and was never
cnsidered a copyrighted asset belonging to Peter Alexander alone.
To release it and then hit everyone who showed it with declarations
that threir showing it is a copyrighted violation is bad enough but
for Peter to state he is the copyright owner, when the LCC is shown in
court records and on the film itself as copyright owner, is just
foolish. Now the YouTube version shows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qgc6hpTEAo
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Courage
Productions LLC "
Please don't put words in my mouth.
John Dorsay
> On Mar 25, 12:10 pm, John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Out_Of_The_Dark wrote:
>> > On Mar 24, 8:16 pm, tikk <tr...@tikk.net> wrote:
>> >> Out_Of_The_Dark wrote:
>> >> > On Mar 24, 2:30 pm, "Mark Bunker" <markbun...@cox.net> wrote:
...
>> >> >> From: "Peter Alexander" <tfcd...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> Date: March 23, 2008 1:56:19 PM EDT
>> >> >> To: taked...@mogulus.com
>> >> >> Subject: DMCA Notification, "The Profit"
...
>> >> >> The following information is presented for the purposes of removing web
>> >> >> content that infringes on our copyright per the Digital Millennium Copyright
>> >> >> Act. We appreciate your enforcement of copyright law and support of our
>> >> >> rights in this matter.
>>
>> >> >> Be aware that if you ignore this notice, you (as a Provider covered by the
>> >> >> Digital Millennium Copyright Act) forfeit the Act's immunity from monetary
>> >> >> damages, which range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed and up to
>> >> >> $150,000 per work for willful infringement. Attorney's fees and costs can
>> >> >> also be recovered.
...
>> >> >> I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described
>> >> >> above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the
>> >> >> copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
...
Over to Mary
>> >> > He's bluffing you. You don't have the manuscript on your site. Tell
>> >> > him to PROVE the movie is copyrighted. Peter only has copyright on the
>> >> > manuscript. Courtage Productions LCC is supposed to hold the copyright
>> >> > but I have not found that the motion picture was ever registered .
...
Back to Mary
>> > Peter Alexander didn't own copyrights to the film before it came on
>> > the net. He may have gotten it since then but there was no copyright
>> > to it and certainly not to him alone. Even the film says it's
>> > copyrighted by Courage Productions! Go look at it, lol!
>> > Post some proof that Peter Alenander holds copyright of the motion
>> > picture. I dare you. If any exisits, it's new and certainly not in
>> > alignment with the court order that froze the assets of Courrage
>> > Productions LCC
...
>> > Alot of DMCA notices go out, in this case, it's a bluff until proven
>> > otherwise.
I respond to Mary
>> Why don't you host it yourself, Mary? Server space is cheap. I
>> will happily contribute to the cost if you want to go ahead and do
>> this good deed. I expect others will too.
>>
>> If it's a bluff, surely there is no cause for concern.
Mary again
> John, I am not condoning anyone showing the movie. Not at all. It
> should not have bneen released in the first place because it violated
> an injunction from the Minton v Alexander case. The issue is that
> someone screwed up. Peter was NOT the copyright holder of that film
> when it was released. It is an asset of Courage Productions LCC and
> even if he's now filed the proper paperwork as manager of the LCC, is
> was not protected during the time it was released and was never
> cnsidered a copyrighted asset belonging to Peter Alexander alone.
>
> To release it and then hit everyone who showed it with declarations
> that threir showing it is a copyrighted violation is bad enough but
> for Peter to state he is the copyright owner, when the LCC is shown in
> court records and on the film itself as copyright owner, is just
> foolish. Now the YouTube version shows
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qgc6hpTEAo
> "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Courage
> Productions LLC "
> Please don't put words in my mouth.
My apologies.
John
tikk
Your steadfastly ignorant yet assertive bluster notwithstanding, I
explained above precisely why he does hold the underlying copyright to
the motion picture above. Whatever license Courage holds had to be
granted by Alexander.
Copyright in a work is not a single right but rather a series of
alienable rights, one of which--the distribution right--Courage holds.
As a holder of the distribution right, Courage has the right to assert a
claim just Alexander would and does. Alexander appears to have asserted
the DMCA claim in his capacity as managing partner of Courage. He does
not need Minton's cooperation in order to assert the claim in his
capacity as managing partner of Courage (to answer implications
elsewhere in this thread).
That he would make this request in his capacity as Courage managing
partner is not surprising, given that Minton/McGowan will likely come
complaining to Alexander, alleging that he's damaging the sole asset of
Courage by giving it away for free on the internet (which will be
ironic, given Minton's 'unclean hands' in preventing the film's release).
This is one of the reasons Alexander was forced to send out DMCA
takedowns--not only to protect the film's value, but to protect himself
from Bob and Scientology, who do not have the film's best interests in
mind, but, as I've maintained in the past, who see it as a useful
catspaw. Otherwise, Minton would go to arbitration and be done with this.
Even the film says it's
> copyrighted by Courage Productions! Go look at it, lol!
> Post some proof that Peter Alenander holds copyright of the motion
> picture. I dare you.
I explained how copyright law works earlier and above but you obviously
prefer your inaccurate self-serving version. The director of a motion
picture retains copyright until otherwise assigned. Alexander would not
have assigned the entire copyright to Courage under a work-for-hire
agreement because there was never any reason to do so--Minton was not
the owner of a studio that could guarantee distribution, he was merely
the film's investor. And even if Alexander did, hypothetically, sign a
work-for-hire agreement, he'd still be able to make a copyright
infringement claim on behalf of Courage because he's its managing
partner. But that's not what he's claiming--he's claiming that Courage
possesses the distribution rights to a copyright he himself holds, which
would be enough to allow the manaaging partner in Courage to send out a
DMCA claim.
In the face of this, you call Alexander a liar and demand proof of an
entirely natural occurrence, and paste circumstantial idiocy having
nothing whatsoever to do with the question of copyright ownership, as if
it proved your delusion. But you know nothing about copyright law and
you're without any ability to interpret legal documents and decisions,
from everything I've read from you.
I have no time or inclination to entertain all your hallucinations. I'm
merely posting on this thread to demonstrate to others why you should
not be taken seriously. You are often profoundly inaccurate with regard
to your legal assertions; your energy and persistence would be almost
admirable if you weren't so reckless and malicious. I'm just here to
tell anyone that's listening that you'd be better off ignored.
~ tikk
jonath...@gmail.com
> jonathon8...@gmail.com wrote in news:d8cc8b44-ee3b-4a0f-a386-5d0120126f63
> @x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > This is also my advice to you, Barb Graham, as you are not a
> > Scientologist and never were one.
>
> And Jonathan, you are not a Scientologist because you were kicked out.
>
That makes no sense. How can someone be kicked out of a religion?
People throw around the word "Scientology" as though it means both the
religion and the church simultaneously. This is incorrect. Scientology
is the name of the religion. The Church of Scientology is the name of
the church.
In any case, I have at least taken some courses and read some books.
People like Barb Graham and Jerald Alan Rowlett have no legitimate
reason to be on this newsgroup.
beech...@gmail.com
>
> In any case, I have at least taken some courses and read some books.
> People like Barb Graham and Jerald Alan Rowlett have no legitimate
> reason to be on this newsgroup.
Pfft. That's like saying only Catholics are allowed to comment on
priests diddling kids.
henri
<xscilen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[''] "Accordingly, we reverse the nonfinal order and remand with
>directions to grant Mr. Alexander's motion to compel arbitration and
>to stay all other pending matters in the circuit court until the
>arbitration process is complete."
>--------------------------
>That injunction freezing all assets of Courage Productions, LCC.
>includes the film as an asset and the injunction is still in effect
>whether Alexander denies it or not.
No, you don't know what you're talking about. You pasted text proving
the opposite. The court has compelled arbitration and STAYED ALL
PENDING MATTERS. It has REVERSED the trial court. It notes that
Minton PETITIONED for an injunction at the trial court, and indicates
NOWHERE that any such injunction was granted. To word-clear for
you, the appeals court THREW OUT what the trial court did and told
it to STOP DOING WHAT IT WAS DOING because the proper forum,
the ONLY forum, was in arbitration.
If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk as if you do.
Anyone who listens to a word you say on this subject is doing themselves
a grave disservice.
It's astounding how you can read a very clearly worded ruling and get it
completely opposite of reality.
http://www.2dca.org/opinion/June%2013,%202003/2D02-5544.pdf
is the actual ruling for anyone who wants to inhale the fresh air of reality.
Note that I only noticed this prodigious burst of idiocy since Tikk replied to
it. Otherwise, for the sake of my own sanity, I have finally and permanently
killfiled you. Pretty much everything else you had to say was either wrong,
insane, or not even close enough to reality to even be wrong, but since Tikk
disposed of your other delusions, for anyone confused enough to accept them, I
limited myself to this one point
henri
>No, you don't know what you're talking about. You pasted text proving
>the opposite. The court has compelled arbitration and STAYED ALL
>PENDING MATTERS. It has REVERSED the trial court. It notes that
>Minton PETITIONED for an injunction at the trial court, and indicates
>NOWHERE that any such injunction was granted. To word-clear for
>you, the appeals court THREW OUT what the trial court did and told
>it to STOP DOING WHAT IT WAS DOING because the proper forum,
>the ONLY forum, was in arbitration.
Note, this applies whether or not there was an injunction. All such preliminary
rulings are STAYED, pursuant to the Second District Court of Appeals order.
That is, the trial court, which improperly exercised jurisdiction in the first
place, is without ANY AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER with relation to any
dispute between Alexander and Minton with relation to Courage Productions
LLC, until the stay is lifted.
Minton advanced a number of meritless arguments to the contrary and lost.
gandow
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Out_Of_The_Dark
> <xscilen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> [''] "Accordingly, we reverse the nonfinal order and remand with
>> directions to grant Mr. Alexander's motion to compel arbitration and
>>
>
> Anyone who listens to a word you say on this subject is doing themselves
> a grave disservice.
>
>
> Note that I only noticed this prodigious burst of idiocy since Tikk replied to
> it. Otherwise, for the sake of my own sanity, I have finally and permanently
> killfiled you. Pretty much everything else you had to say was either wrong,
> insane, or not even close enough to reality to even be wrong, but since Tikk
> disposed of your other delusions, for anyone confused enough to accept them, I
> limited myself to this one point
LOL. But he answered to the original message.
So the killfile of our Uebermensch works as much as his character and
mood. Just as it is usefull.
TG
Fredric L. Rice
> Tell him to PROVE the movie is copyrighted.
Good fucking grief! You are one profoundly stupid idiot.
---
Anonymous = Herd of Cats Latched on to the Same Wildebeest
"Operation Freakout 2.0 is failing miserably for the cult." - Anonymous
Fredric L. Rice
>Out_Of_The_Dark wrote:
>> He's bluffing you. You don't have the manuscript on your site. Tell
>> him to PROVE the movie is copyrighted. Peter only has copyright on the
>> manuscript. Courtage Productions LCC is supposed to hold the copyright
>> but I have not found that the motion picture was ever registered .
>yourself into things that clearly have not a damn thing to do with you?
Oh man, cousin barb, you are a whole lot more polite to the fucking
idiot pile of stupid shit than I am. What does Mary want Mark to do?
The same things that the Scientology crime syndicate would just LOVE
Mark to do. A swear, that stupid idiot has GOT to me Mary DeMoss in drag.
Quaoar
> On Mar 24, 3:02 pm, beecher5...@gmail.com wrote:
>> If Courage Productions owns the copyright, wouldn't both Minton and
>> Alexander have to be involved in a takedown notice?
>
> That was my point in my post above. Peter does not hold the copyright
> on the motion picture. Only on the manuscript. He's about equal to the
> Eurythmics having their song sung in the movie when it comes to
> copyright.
> Thing is, I can't find that anyone copyrighted the motion picture but
> the court states that it is an asset of Courage Productions LCC, that
> entity would have DMCA rights, not the script writer
Well, in fact, we don't know what Minton and Peter/Patricia negotiated,
do we? Does anyone have a true copy of the bylaws of Courage
Productions, the investment agreement(s) between Minton and
Peter/Patricia? The contract(s) governing the authoring, production and
distribution of "The Profit"?
Nope. No one, including Henri and tikk, have the slightest clue about
the business arrangement(s) between Minton and Peter/Patricia. Absent
documentation, this discussion is moot.
Henri and tikk might have a clue since they are likely paid mouthpieces
for Peter/Patricia. I have confidence that these two know exactly what
the totality of contractual obligations accrue to all parties and are
providing paid disinformation for the world at large.
Q
Eldon
> On Mar 24, 3:02 pm, beecher5...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > If Courage Productions owns the copyright, wouldn't both Minton and
> > Alexander have to be involved in a takedown notice?
>
> That was my point in my post above. Peter does not hold the copyright
> on the motion picture. Only on the manuscript. He's about equal to the
> Eurythmics having their song sung in the movie when it comes to
> copyright.
The Eurythmics would just have to get paid royalties if and when it
was distributed. I think it's mandatory licensing in that case.
> Thing is, I can't find that anyone copyrighted the motion picture but
> the court states that it is an asset of Courage Productions LCC, that
> entity would have DMCA rights, not the script writer
Bullshit. They both would have DMCA rights. The film is called a
"derivative work" of the script.
Out_Of_The_Dark
Right.I only know that there is an injunction freezing the film and
all other assets and that the buttersquashers were all real happy that
the film was out on the net before the DMCA notice came out and a day
later YouTube pulled the film because is was a violation of copyright
by Courage Productions LCC ( not Alexander). Seems to be that someone
is trying to correct their screwed up shore story after the fact.
One day we shall see the agreement. For now, the court order is
available at Pinellas records on line and to anyone who wants it
emailed to them.