Copyright violation?? Steve Souza
Jim Griffin
Would be very interested to know more about your version of Copyright
violation.
Are you implying that every thing you write on a public site is
"protected"??
With the greatest respect sir....I would be willing to bet that your
statement is a false threat against the man you so rudely refer to as
"animal" Dave.
Perhaps the person feeding you the information...your boss...or the person
that is pulling your strings...is mis-informing you. But you write what he
instructs you to write.
Perhaps I could help the gentleman that you so rudely refer to as "Animal
dave".
DAVE, Perhaps you could contact me,and I could help you compile the Facts.
JIM Griffin
Onorio Catenacci
In article <Je%r4.26484$fy1....@tundra.ops.attcanada.net>,
no...@seascape.ns.ca says...
> Mr. Souza,
> Would be very interested to know more about your version of Copyright
> violation.
Hi Jim,
Pardon me for jumping in. I'm not taking sides but I do think I can
render the service of injecting some facts into this discussion.
I am not a lawyer; however, here are the facts (to save the trouble of
researching):
*** Begin Quote ***
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
False. Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the
owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly,
as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the
public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants
permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly
wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and
forward network where all the thousands of copies made are
done at the command (rather than the consent) of the
poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the
former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't
true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly
granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one
posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the
public domain. Furthermore it is very
difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly
stated licence that the copier was aware of.
Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post
the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all
the copies are pirate, and no implied licence or theoretical
reduction of the copyright can take place.
(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting someting
into the public domain, and there are some fine points on
this issue regarder older copyright law versions. However, none of this
applies to an original article posted to USENET.
*** End Quote ***
From "Copyright Myths FAQ: 10 big myths about copyright explained"
By Brad Templeton
Oh, and so I'm covered legally:
(from the same FAQ)...
*** Begin Quote ***
Permission is granted to freely copy this
document in electronic form, or to print for
personal use. If you had not seen a notice
like this on the document, you would have to
assume you did not have permission to copy it.
This document is still protected by you-know-
what even though it has no copyright notice.
*** End Quote ***
If you want to see the entire FAQ, check here:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
By the way, lest anyone doubt Mr. Templeton's qualifications or knowledge
of copyright, he's a publisher of an electronic newspaper. He knows
about copyright because it's part of his job.
Basically, if Steve wants to deny Dave permission to quote his postings,
he's completely within his rights as a copyright holder.
Can we get back to discussing pigeons now?
--
Onorio Catenacci
Jim Griffin
You write:"Can we get back to discussing pigeons now?".....
-----------------------------------------
I am discussing what is related to the topic of Dave's right to question
what is true,false,good or bad information about Pigeons.
What is the big concern about straying off the hard and fast rule of
discussing....Nothing....other than 100% pigeons?
I think you are confusing this "newsgroup", with some other mailing lists.
RE Copyright: You are being much too over zealous.
Do you think....or does Steve honestly expect anyone to believe that what
is copied from a "bird newsgroup",would be seriously considered by a
judge,or even be considered by a copyright lawyer????
What damages were caused to Steve?
Souza threatening Dave with "copyright violation"........is an attempt at
being a Bully.
Steve Souza
> RE Copyright: You are being much too over zealous.
> Do you think....or does Steve honestly expect anyone to believe that what
> is copied from a "bird newsgroup",would be seriously considered by a
> judge,or even be considered by a copyright lawyer????
> What damages were caused to Steve?
> Souza threatening Dave with "copyright violation"........is an attempt at
> being a Bully.
Actually Jim...
Since my vocation is that of a professional, commercial photographer, and I
deal with Copyright violations on the net and the REAL WORLD every day... I
know much more about Copyrights than you think.
You have no clue what you're talking about... No bullying, no harassment,
simply a factual statement about the law, and a promise. The issue does NOT
relate to "damages" and there is no bearing on that in the law. It's a simple
matter of "permission" or not, in WRITING, from the Copyright holder.
But here's the true acid test, made to many over the years, and no one has
ever taken me up on it, not even on a NG post...
You (or anyone) can steal one of my Copyrighted works (photograph, text,
whatever), post it to a web site (as Animal Dave suggested), and tell me that
you in fact stole it from me without my permission... provide me with your
name and address, phone, etc... in public, in response to this challenge.
I promise you, if you do so, I will sue you, and win in US Federal court, for
costs and damages in excess of $20,000 to $100,000 per incident, image, or
text.
You apparently did not go to, and read, the reference I provided to the LOC
for the text of the Copyright laws.
-s2-
Dave
Steve Souza babbled:
> <snip>
> Since my vocation is that of a professional, commercial photographer, and I
> deal with Copyright violations on the net and the REAL WORLD every day... I
> know much more about Copyrights than you think.
>
> You have no clue what you're talking about...
Well, Souza, you would do well to follow Mark Twain's advice: "It's better to
keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."
Since your "real world" seems to be one of evil and greed, you may have missed,
or lack the capability to understand, certain provisions, as quoted in a
Stanford University bulletin: "The relevant portion of the copyright statute
provides that the 'fair use' of a copyrighted work, including reproduction 'for
purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research'
is not an infringement of copyright." My "fair use" is further validated
because no profit motive is involved. I, and the Urban Wildlife Society, are
not only nonprofit, but are also not funded.
> You apparently did not go to, and read, the reference I provided to the LOC
> for the text of the Copyright laws.
While you're referring to the law, you might want to familiarize yourself with
the laws regarding libel, which you so liberally violate.
Dave Roth
Urban Wildlife Society
Steve Souza
> Steve Souza wrote:
>
>> Since my vocation is that of a professional, commercial photographer, and I deal with
>> Copyright violations on the net and the REAL WORLD every day... I know much more about
>> Copyrights than you think.
>>
>> The issue does NOT relate to "damages" and there is no bearing on that in the law. It's
>> a simple matter of "permission" or not, in WRITING, from the Copyright holder.
>>
>> You have no clue what you're talking about...
>
>
> Since your "real world" seems to be one of evil and greed, you may have missed,
> or lack the capability to understand, certain provisions, as quoted in a Stanford
> University bulletin:
It's always funny to read from people who have no talent or ability, who think that those
who create intellectual property, have no rights to have it protected by the existing
Federal Laws. I suppose you would have all writers, painters, singers, actors, and any
other person who creates something, simply starve so that people like you can steal their
hard work, and use it for free... Think again. (or are you actually going to take me up on
the challenge to steal my work, and tell me about it in public?)
Maybe you missed the part in college that specifically differentiates between "opinions"
from people who have their head up their posterior, and think that quoting from a college
newsletter has the strength of law... and actual legal FACT. Try reading the ACTUAL law,
not some opinion, yours or some Stanford students. Fair Use does NOT allow for quoting
portions of an original work beyond snippets.
> My "fair use" is further validated because no profit motive is involved. I, and the
> Urban Wildlife Society, are not only nonprofit, but are also not funded.
"profit motive" is not an issue... People like you and ignorant (and even stupid) people
who think they know the law but don't, are the ones who end up in jail, and/or pay huge
fines in excess of $100,000 for violating Federal Copyright statutes... Try looking at:
ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/h2265.ih.txt
Which includes:
SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.
(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after the undesignated paragraph relating to the term `display', the following
new paragraph:
`The term `financial gain' includes receipt of anything of value, including the receipt of
other copyrighted works.'.
(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read
as follows:
`(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
`(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; or
`(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, of 1 or more
copies, of 1 or more copyrighted works, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of
title 18.'
Are you prepared to provide a new smart ass reply?
Dave
Pigeon Killer, Exploiter, and Abuser Steve Souza blustered:
>
<snip>
> It's always funny to read from people who have no talent or ability, who think that those
> who create intellectual property, have no rights to have it protected by the existing
> Federal Laws. I suppose you would have all writers, painters, singers, actors, and any
> other person who creates something, simply starve so that people like you can steal their
> hard work, and use it for free... Think again. (or are you actually going to take me up on
> the challenge to steal my work, and tell me about it in public?)
Your arrogance holds no bounds. You started yet another of your asinine
misinformation campaigns in response to my idea to compile relevant publicly
archived discussion group messages for use on my web site as part of an
expose'. To support your feeble position, you concoct an extremely unlikely
scenario where an idiotic violator, at your invitation, openly admits criminal
intent and flagrantly steals commercial property for selfish personal gain.
That's supposed to be the same as my fair use of freely published material?
Yeah, right.
> Maybe you missed the part in college that specifically differentiates between "opinions"
> from people who have their head up their posterior, and think that quoting from a college
> newsletter has the strength of law... and actual legal FACT. Try reading the ACTUAL law,
> not some opinion, yours or some Stanford students. Fair Use does NOT allow for quoting
> portions of an original work beyond snippets.
Are you a lawyer? If so, please post your diploma and other credentials. If
not, please formally admit, here and now, that you are rendering legal opinion
which constitutes practicing law without a license.
You quote only the portions of very complex law that support your self-serving
and misleading contentions. Where are your quotes of other applicable and
explanatory statutes and codes, case law, precedents, and canons that serve to
interpret, determine, and justly apply the law? Do you really expect everyone
who reads your drivel to believe that the law is as simple and clear cut as you
claim? If that is indeed the case, why are so many lawyers charging so much
money to represent so many people and why are there so many different levels of
trial and appeals courts?
>
<snip>
> "profit motive" is not an issue... People like you and ignorant (and even stupid) people
> who think they know the law but don't, are the ones who end up in jail, and/or pay huge
> fines in excess of $100,000 for violating Federal Copyright statutes... Try looking at:
>
<snip>
Here's a challenge for you: When I quote your statements on my web site,
please feel free to sue me. I would welcome the opportunity to not only have a
judgment rendered against you, including your payment of my legal costs, but
also to countersue you for various causes of action and draw more public
attention to you and your ilk.
> Are you prepared to provide a new smart ass reply?
No need. You do enough of that all by yourself. I'll just stick to providing
smart replies and leave the ass role to you.
Dave
Steve Souza
> Do you really expect everyone ... to believe that the law is as simple and clear cut as you
> claim?
For Federal Copyright laws... YES. They are that simple and clear cut. If you think
differently, simply call the corporate headquarters of someplace like Kinko's, and ask them
about the Copyright lawsuits they lost... when they didn't think is was so simple.
Then, Animal Dave smartly added in:
> When I quote your statements on my web site, please feel free to sue me.
If you quote more than one or two sentences of my Copyrighted text (in violation of my
Intellectual Property rights), and you tell me... YES, I'll sue you, here in CA, and you'll have
to appear here to defend yourself (and lose), or don't appear (and still lose).
I have never lost a Copyright infringement case that I have brought to court. Not one.
-s2-
Dave
Steve Souza wrote:
>
> Animal Dave politely wrote:
>
> > Do you really expect everyone ... to believe that the law is as simple and clear cut as you
> > claim?
>
> For Federal Copyright laws... YES. They are that simple and clear cut. If you think
> differently, simply call the corporate headquarters of someplace like Kinko's, and ask them
> about the Copyright lawsuits they lost... when they didn't think is was so simple.
How many were "fair use" cases? Of those, how many were deemed legitimate, and
"fair use" upheld? Of the remaining, how many were actually litigated, how long
did it take to try them, and how long were the deliberations to render a
verdict? If the law is so simple and clear cut, the answers should bear that
out. Please provide the details so I can research the case law and thus further
expose your pathetic ploy.
>
> Then, Animal Dave smartly added in:
>
> > When I quote your statements on my web site, please feel free to sue me.
>
> If you quote more than one or two sentences of my Copyrighted text (in violation of my
> Intellectual Property rights), and you tell me... YES, I'll sue you, here in CA, and you'll have
> to appear here to defend yourself (and lose), or don't appear (and still lose).
I am informing you right here and now that I will quote from and how much of
whatever you have posted that is relevant and material to exposing you and your
gang as the wicked and pernicious pigeon exploiters you are -- and it will
conform to "fair use", whether you like it or not. An example is attached,
below, which I have previously posted to this NG, and do so again as a reminder
or to those who did not see it then and who would like to know, via your own
words, more about who you are and what you do to pigeons -- and seem to be quite
proud of. So, as I stated before, go ahead and bring on whatever lawsuit you
wish so I can respond and countersue you in the manner I stated. Your taunts
and threats have become too vacuous and tedious to respond to, here, any
further.
>
> I have never lost a Copyright infringement case that I have brought to court. Not one.
Oh, really? How many have you brought? Any? How many of those were "fair
use" cases? Please provide the details so I can review all of them.
Dave
attachment
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Killing Pigeons for Fun & Profit (i.e. Steve Souza)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:11:06 -0700
From: Dave <ani...@goodnet.com>
Organization: Urban Wildlife Society
Newsgroups: rec.pets.birds.pigeons
Since this newsgroup is labeled as pets.~pigeons, you pigeon-friendly folks may
find this quite enlightening.
. . .
Steve Souza wrote:
> With pigeons, we cull/kill the ones that do not fall within the intended genetic
> guidelines. ... If there is a bird that cannot
> race home in record time, or performs with less ability than the rest of the
> team, we can cull/kill him as well.
>
> With humans it is less cut-and-dry... if we find one who does not perform as
> desired, we usually simply put up with him. If he is found to be genetically
> lacking, to the point of being destructive within the rest of the group, we
> cull/kill him as well. ...
>
> As for me, I'll stick to seeking a higher standard. I will continue to cull/kill
> those that I can that are outside of the desired goal. If one seems to be within
> acceptable limits, I will watch closely to see if he really is worth keeping, or
> if instead, he should be terminated for the good of the species.
>
> God put on this earth for us, WE are the dominant species, and we are not to be subject to
> the other, lesser animals
> ...to maintain ...a static 100 birds... 100%
> of the rest, or about 90% of what is bred, will either die, or be
> eliminated. If they don't die due to health problems, or from race
> hazards (wire strikes, hunters, hawks, bad weather, radio waves, or
> actually getting lost), then they will have to be culled in the loft.
>
> If we sent the race horse into the same conditions (drove it to point A,
> and said, "I'll see you at home, good luck", and it had ... to find it's own
> way home across country... we'd see the same kind of loses with horses.
>
> ... some birds are genetically inferior (or
> just stupid), and just don't manage to complete their training (they get
> lost, they follow some other bird home instead, or they decide to land
> in the back yard of a cat owner...).
>
> again... Please don't confuse those who breed and race / show pigeons
> with the "pet owners" who have a few because they love them as family
> members. Just as doctors and cops cannot do their job effectively if
> they get emotionally attached to those they work with... neither can
> animal breeders and sportsmen.
>
> We do not ... get too sentimental when it comes to putting a
> priority on the betterment of the species.
>
> And actually, both personally and professionally, I am completely anal, I have to be, or the
> attention to detail would slip right through the cracks.
>
. . .
There is so much more I could quote but, this should be enough for anyone who
likes pigeons to realize that when reading posts from Steve Souza, one should
consider the source.
Dave Roth
ani...@goodnet.com
http://www.goodnet.com/~animals/pigeons/