The Misinformed Person's Guide To Copyright or...
12 String
I am speaking from my personal experience after having some of my
architectural drawings stolen by the dean of the architectural school I
graduated from. I decided to write this as a separate news article so it
could be easily found and read after reading comments from others in other
news articles noting how interesting it is to observe how the lies and
misinformation continue to surround copyrighted works.
Fundamentally speaking, what I am about to explain is that -- INITIALLY --
there is absolutely no difference between copyright for architectural
drawings, software, sound recordings or anything else which may be
copyrighted. Any and all of the circumstantial differences which could and
would matter must be argued once into the federal courts where one must go
to litigate a claim.
What follows is all everybody needs to know in a nutshell which I will then
follow with a short explanation noting I won't be wasting my time arguing
with morons because as I said, I learned this the hard way and it has cost
me dearly to learn. You learn it for free...
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COPYRIGHT UNTIL YOU GET INTO A FEDERAL COURT AND
A FEDERAL JUDGE ACKNOWLEDGES -- THE CLAIM OF INFRINGMENT -- BECAUSE THEN AND
ONLY THEN DO THE COURTS PROCEED TO HEAR THE MERIT OF THE CLAIM.
Read that and understand what it means as you read and understand the other
facts I am going to reveal because this is the way it really is in what has
become the jewnited states.
Declaring a copyright with the little symbols (and there is a special symbol
for sound recordings you should know) and having the declaration of a
copyright acknowledged in a federal court are not the same thing.
The only way to have a declaration acknowledged is to be allowed to enter
the federal courts.
The only way to have a declaration acknowledged is to be allowed to enter
the federal courts.
The only way to have a declaration acknowledged is to be allowed to enter
the federal courts.
The only way to have a declaration acknowledged is to be allowed to enter
the federal courts.
The only way to have a declaration acknowledged is to be allowed to enter
the federal courts.
GET IT?
Only a federal judge can acknowledge or deny the merit of the claim and
grant the permission to proceed and yes, I said permission as little do most
of us know (and even worse choose to accept) we Americans no longer have any
rights in the jewnited states as our nation has been usurped by domestic
enemies and foreign powers but more about that some other time perhaps who
control "permissions." How long it will take to be required to have a
license to take a sh!t is anybody's guess but trust me... somewhere there is
some pig or group of pigs trying to figure out how to get it passed into
law.
Secondly, it is a misleading fallacious lie that copyright registration is
no longer needed to copyright some work. A fallacy of composition as it is
called by logicians. Because something is partly true does not mean a sound
conclusion can be reached when some other facts may be false.
This is the way copyright really works these days thanks to guess who? SONNY
F*CKING BONO that greasy little pig who became a filthy politician and had
most of the copyright laws f*cked up for the benefit of the jew owned and
controlled corporate record companies that funded his political campaigns.
As I understand it here's the fundamental "gotcha" the little c*cksucker had
passed into law which hardly anybody actually knows about...
It is true a copyright need not be registered however failure to pay the
federal government a fee to register the copyright within 90 days of the
work being first reduced to practice will prevent entry into the federal
courts to have the claim heard and that is the only wayt to proceed to
further litigation.
What is "first reduced to practice?" That is the date AND TIME the work was
first made known to another human being meaning anybody and for any reason
and that doctrine is why they say copyright need not be registered. So get
the difference clear in your head. One thing does not neccessarily mean
another. Reducing to practice and declaring something does not make it true.
It only serves as a point in time to support the allegation. The act of
paying the fee and registering is required to enter the federal court to ask
that the allegations be heard and determined. Get it?
Now, we can actually register a claim of copyright anytime after the 90 days
of reduction to practice and then be allowed into the federal court but
here's the "gotcha" on that...
The unregistered but "declared" copyright only enables the presumed owner to
establish a period in time when the work was first reducted to practice as
I've explained -- BUT -- if the work is not registered within 90 days of
having been reduced to practice NO LAWYER'S FEES AND NO PENALTIES can or
will ever be awarded if the claim is then proven to have been infringed.
Only the direct losses incurred by an infringment can then be awarded.
I will repeat using different words for those with reading comprehension
problems:
1.) NO REGISTRATION MEANS NO PERMISSION TO ENTER THE FEDERAL COURTS.
2.) NO REGISTRATION WITHIN 90 DAYS OF HAVING BEEN REDUCED TO PRACTICE MEANS
ONCE HAVING REGISTERED TO BE PERMITTED INTO THE FEDERAL COURTS MEANS LOSS OF
ANY CLAIM FOR AWARD OF LAWYER'S FEES AND LOSS OF ANY PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE
ASSESSED AGAINST THE INFRINGING PARTY.
When I learned my work was stolen and used to build something in the city I
live in I called and spoke with more than a dozen lawyers throughout the
Midwest. I got more than a dozen different answers and learned (actually
relearned) most lawyers who advertise they are specialists in this area of
law are lying fraudulent slime.
So I put my thinking cap on and started calling lawyers in Silicon Valley
(San Jose, California) which is where most if not all of the serious
activity to copyright and license intellectual property for software
development has occurred throughout the jewnited states. On the third firm
or so I finally got a young guy on the phone who explained the actual facts
to me. The same facts I am explaining here.
The bottom line is money, money, money and who controls it. We can all thank
that greasy little pig Sonny Bono for having the copyright laws f*cked up
the way they are now as the little prick was in fact the California Senator
who was funded by the jew pigs who own and control the corporate recording
industries.
As I was an ignorant dummy at the time and like so many of us lied to and
misled by the domestic enemies who have taken our nation, our freedoms and
our liberties away I had not registered my works and I had not done so
within 90 days of reduction to practice. While I could now register at any
time I could only "win" the actual losses which I would still have to prove
in a federal court.
The actuall losses due me were $14,000 in design fees paid to the favored
architect who was given my proposal and drawings to rework and have
constructed. The actual costs involved in litigation would have greatly
exceeded the $14,000 so I am f*cked and guess what? So are each and every
one of you unless you got tens of thousands of dollars to pay lawyers. More
than a hundred thousand in fact which is what you will be compelled to pay
to a lawyer(s) for typical copyright infringement litigation. Much much more
for complex litigation.
I hope readers and especially musicians understand what that little
c*cksucker Sonny Bono and the jew rats he worked for have done to the people
of America.
So here it is in a nutshell, if you think you have something worth
copyrighting you better pay up and register within 90 days of reducing to
practice. Secondly, you better have a lot of money like at least $100,000
which is apparently the absolute minimum one can expect to pay to BEGIN a
copyright infringment claim in the federal courts.
Finally, if you even make it that far you damn well better make sure you
first have a lawyer with real experience in this aspect of the so-called law
as most if not all lawyers are lying fascists who will play you like a cheap
guitar.
Otherwise, shut the f*ck up is what you will be told.
So go forth, trust what I say to be true and factual or think and claim I am
yet another babbling idiot on the Internet. The smart person who may have
something valuable to protect will read my comments and will trust what I
explained to the extent that and if it really matters as a means to do
business protecting their works they will do the work to verify my comments
by finding a lawyer who actually knows the facts as they were revealed to me
and verify everything I said as I may have missed or forgotten a nuance here
and there.
I did not verify Bono's exact role in this but I believe it to be true as
explained to me as Bono did become a filthy politician, Bono was funded by
the jew controlled recording industry and Bono did have copyright laws
changed recently.
Is it a fallacy then to conclude every musician and every other creative
person should make a trip at least once in their life to visit and piss on
the grave of Sonny Bono? Trust but verify.
Keith Adams
face and see what you get? You got some of your stupid little drawings
stolen.Boo hoo.
So a federal judge can only decide copyrights. If you have unquestionable
proof of when you wrote or drew something then dont you think it will sway a
decision?
"12 String" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46b60a5c$0$29637$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Keith Adams
As soon as you touch pen to paper or finger to keyboard any given work is
copywritten. I know this because I've had a bunch of my work published. The
only other question is that of dates. You wrote it....they wrote
it.....which has proof of writing it first?
"12 String" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46b60a5c$0$29637$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
12 String
P.S. to you too reminding you and anybody else I won't be bothered arguing
with anybody that is deluded and has demonstrated he (or she) has sh!t for
brains. Like I said, the smart person who has something to gain or lose as
the case may be must verify everything I said and will find out that I am a
fallible human being and may make mistakes but I do not lie, I do not
embellish, and I do not exagerate.
Don Evans
Keith Adams wrote:
> Hey fuck you man. Jew this and Jew that. Take it up with some Jews
> face to face and see what you get? You got some of your stupid little
> drawings stolen.Boo hoo.
> So a federal judge can only decide copyrights. If you have
> unquestionable proof of when you wrote or drew something then dont
> you think it will sway a decision?
Yep ... it's called prior art. If you can show you had it first, you're a
long way toward enforcing your rights. And ... don't bother arguing with
this guy. This guy's an anti-semetic putz.
Don
Patrick Keenan
news:FMednRAmefS2wSvb...@comcast.com...
>
>
> Keith Adams wrote:
>> Hey fuck you man. Jew this and Jew that. Take it up with some Jews
>> face to face and see what you get? You got some of your stupid little
>> drawings stolen.Boo hoo.
>> So a federal judge can only decide copyrights. If you have
>> unquestionable proof of when you wrote or drew something then dont
>> you think it will sway a decision?
>
> Yep ... it's called prior art. If you can show you had it first, you're a
> long way toward enforcing your rights. And ... don't bother arguing with
> this guy. This guy's an anti-semetic putz.
>
> Don
It appears the short story is, he didn't take steps to protect his work,
didn't attempt to exercise his rights, so of course The Jews are to blame.
-pk
<Snippage>
Lewis
Well... I've always been in the habit of copywriting my material as
quickly as possible for the very reasons you expressed so
ineloquently. Protection from theft is one thing. Hearing about it
from a talentless, antisemetic, brownshirted, goose-steppin' Nazi
fuckwad is quite another. Go fuck yourself asswipe. And take your
delusions of superiority grandeur with you... back to the fucking
fatherland.
Drop very dead....
Lewis
dv...@altavista.com
Looking beyond this tool's tired anti-semitic BS, he actually makes a
good point. He's not saying the originality of said work would be in
question, just that the way the legal process is stuctured it would
take a lot of cash to get to argue your point *if* it hadn't been
registered.
Of course, his diatribes make it hard to take him seriously.
-d
rct
Another creative genius, so damn smart and schpecial he didn't even
bother to protect what it is he does, like so many other talented and
schpecial people out there. It didn't mean enough for you to bother
with copyrighting it though did it?
Extra points for the anti-semitic bent. That'll get you and yer kids
far in this life. I can only sincerely hope you roll the quad or blow
up the barbecue or something like that to shorten the misery of anyone
around you.
rct
12 String
my comments -- except -- for the continued misunderstanding of the role of
the Zionist jews and the extent which they have infiltrated and control the
jewnited snakes for nefarious purposes..
Maybe you don't know their role in 9-11 or are dishonest and deny the fact
that the jews were involved in the planning and operation of that event.
Maybe you don't remember or know about Jonathan Pollard and what he did and
whom he worked for and you clearly certainly didn't lose any family members
murdered by jews who the traitorous former President Johnson and his other
jew pals in the jewnited snakes tried to sink the U.S. Liberty by conducting
a false flag operation they intended to use to blame on Egypt (Muslims) so
Israel could use the jewnited snakes military machine to destroy the Arab
states and steal their resources. Just like they are doing now in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Murdering American sailors by shooting them dead like ducks in the water
which the jew pigs did -- using aircraft bought and paid for and given to
the jews Americans by the way -- and there is no question the jews did so
after blowing the sailors off the U.S.S. Liberty while flying under a false
flag which is only part of the story many deluded Americans must learn and
finally accept as the truth and who our real enemies are.
And it ain't Osama boys and girls.
Its somebody named like Yehuda Schlomo and if you don't believe me maybe you
should consult the guy we call Jesus who said the same thing about the same
pigs and dogs both then and now (as He called them) but that might be asking
too much of the small minded uneducated peons that seem to prefer killing
the messenger. Just like the same jews who call themselves jews but are not
did last time when they had the Nazarene tortured and hung on a cross.
At least try to learn the facts because your reacting like a bunch of
emotional screaming b!tches. Start by finding out the truth about the U.S.S.
Liberty for example. Some of the survivors are still around speaking and
doing interviews with Internet broadcasting networks like Genesis
Communications Network and the Republican Broadcasting Network.
What does it hurt to listen and learn? But this is all just a digression and
has little to do with copyright isn't that correct? Where is that squeeky
little pig Sonny Bono buried anyway?
<dv...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:1186413439.8...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
jtees4
wrote:
You'd sound a lot smarter if you could have left out the racist
comments...both jew and italian.