[mick]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:51:06 +0200, Rudy wrote:

snip

yep, but the point is, such a harmonization can only be *henceforth*
never applicable to anything 'already out there'.


So...
(I've no legal or copyright background, but this is how it looks to me)

quote from Universal Copyright Convention 1971
ARTICLE VII

This Convention shall not apply to works or rights in works which, at the
effective date of this Convention in a Contracting State where protection
is claimed, are permanently in the public domain in the said Contracting
State.
/quote

quote from Berne Convention
Article 18

(1) This Convention shall apply to all works which, at the moment of its
coming into force, have not yet fallen into the public domain in the
country of origin through the expiry of the term of protection.

(2) If, however, through the expiry of the term of protection which was
previously granted, a work has fallen into the public domain of the
country where protection is claimed, that work shall not be protected
anew.
/quote

If RDH4 was still in copyright in Australia in 1952 then it isn't taken
out of copyright in the US by either of the above (The Berne Convention
1989 replaced the Universal Copyright Convention). In that respect the
legislation is, effectively, in retrospect. "Harmonization" is achieved
by not granting *additional* privileges to everyone. Works keep their
original copyright as granted in the country where they are first
published.

The Universal Copyright Convention introduced the requirement for re-
registration to maintain existing copyright but this was removed again by
the Berne Convention. (The UCC was a stopgap measure as the US was
reluctant to change its existing antiquated copyright system. They
eventually signed the BC in 1989 and joined the civilised world ;-) )


but let Andre produce a credible link stating/illuminating clearly:

1 publishing a followup edition 'magically' resets the copyright on
the previous edition(s)
2 copyright, or for that matter: any law, that retroactively changes
existing law



1) I dunno about that one and I wouldn't want to risk fighting it out
with a publishing company! AFAIK any remaining time left to run on an
earlier version simply continues, with the old & new versions
overlapping. In that respect, some parts of the old version will
effectively be copyrighted again as part of the new edition. I read
somewhere that individual works and group works hold different
copyrights; that a group work is actually copyrighted as a whole, not as
its parts. (sorry, no link for this one at the mo).

2) It doesn't need to - it only needs to specify that the original law
ruling at the time is still current in specific circumstances. In this
case it is clear from the wording that the original copyright status is
retained.

Andre has a point though, if a version has indeed been recognised as a
particular copyrighted version:

If the copyright notice has been removed from the internet-circulated
version(s) then AFAIK that, in itself, is illegal. Once again, AFAIK it
is always illegal to remove such notices from publications unless a
specific licence has been granted to do so, even if the work is in the
public domain. I can't imagine that a version has been published without
*any* copyright notice!

Of course, if the person(s) posting it were sure of their legal position
at the time then why would they remove it anyway? If they are sure of it
now, why not just restore the missing copyright notice and end the
argument?

IANAL so all this is just speculation on my part.

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 3, 11:51 am, "Rudy" wrote:
"mick" wrote in message

news : On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:52:50 -0500, flipper wrote:
:
: snip
:
: None of that matters, dimwit, because, as I've told you many times
: already. I've not said one damn thing about them and have specifically
: said I'm speaking of U.S. law.
:
:
: So does the Berne Convention, apparently:
: (ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
: Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_an d_Artistic_Works)
:
: quote
: The United States initially refused to become party to the Convention,
: since it would have required major changes in its copyright law,
: particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of general requirement
: for registration of copyright works and elimination of mandatory
: copyright notice. This led to the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952,
: to accommodate the wishes of the US. But on March 1, 1989, the US "Berne
: Convention Implementation Act of 1988" came into force and the United
: States became a party to the Berne Convention, making the Universal
: Copyright Convention obsolete.
: /quote
:
: --
: Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
: Web:http://www.nascom.infohttp://mixpix.batcave.net

thanks Mick.

yep, but the point is, such a harmonization can only be *henceforth*
never applicable to anything 'already out there'.

Crap. You haven't been following the threads. We are not interested in
the law as you and Flipslop make it up as you go; we are interested in
the law as it is written and practiced -- and altered from time to
time with effect both forward and backward.

but let Andre produce a credible link stating/illuminating clearly:

I'm not running a tutorial for slackarse drug addicts. Do your own
research.

1 publishing a followup edition 'magically' resets the copyright on the
previous edition(s)

I didn't say that. It is your statement. If you want proof, provide
it.

When you have discovered precisely what I said, and digested the
subtleties behind what I said, come by here again and I shall explain
to you how it works.

2 copyright, or for that matter: any law, that retroactively changes
existing law

You're not too bright, are you, Rudy? Tax laws retroactively change
existing law all the time. Examples of copyright laws acting
retrospecitvely abound; the enitre experience of the USA under the
Berne Convention and successor agreements is a massive set of
examples. The Australian law extending copyright from fifty years
after the death of the author to seventy years is another with
retroactive effect; it affects the RDH4, for instance. You can look up
the references yourself; I know these things because I have earned my
living by copyright for fifty years this year; I say again, I am not
running a copyright tutorial and I owe you nothing.

good luck, AJ

I don't need luck. Knowledge and experience is far more useful in the
tricky waters of copyright -- as the unlucky experience of that
risible dabbler Flipslop proves!

R

Meanwhile, you might reflect on the fact that the thieves Gregg. Tim
Williams and Choky cut away the title page and copyright page of the
copy of the RDH4 that they posted. That is in itself a criminal act
but it is more significant than that. Can you guess why it makes your
off-centre questions irrelevant? (Not that I won't answer the question
I didn't answer when you quote me correctly, but the answer won't help
you or the thieves much towards proving the RDH4 is out of copyright,
quite the contrary.)

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 3, 6:06 pm, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:34:45 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

I've debunked your farkle multiple times but since your brain is akin
to a bent needle on a broken record I see no value into continuing the
futile effort of trying to input data to 2 bit ROM.

Run, rabbit, run.

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 3, 6:07 pm, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:34:45 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

I've debunked your farkle multiple times but since your brain is akin
to a bent needle on a broken record I see no value into continuing the
futile effort of trying to input data to 2 bit ROM.

Run, rabbit, run.

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 3, 6:08 pm, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:14:36 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

I've debunked your farkle multiple times but since your brain is akin
to a bent needle on a broken record I see no value into continuing the
futile effort of trying to input data to 2 bit ROM.

Run, rabbit, run.

[mick]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:29:51 -0500, flipper wrote:

snip

To the issue at hand, The Berne Convention only 'applies' to the extent
of passed U.S. Law codifying portions agreed to and in the manner
Congress deemed appropriate. (I.E. you can't necessarily determine U.S.
Law by reading the Berne Convention)


Btw, for an expired copyright to be enforceably 'restored' (I.E. collect
statutory damages ) in the U.,S., under the Berne Convention agreement,
the copyright owner must have filed an intent to enforce (restore) with
the U.S. copyright office and a claimed 'infringer' has 12 months to
cease (perhaps longer depending on "continuing infringement"
considerations)

snip


Please can you answer this one for me then?

(Re the presumably present copyright notice)
"Of course, if the person(s) posting it were sure of their legal position
at the time then why would they remove it anyway? If they are sure of it
now, why not just restore the missing copyright notice and end the
argument?"

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 4, 3:49 pm, mick wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:29:51 -0500, flipper wrote:

snip

Please can you answer this one for me then?

(Re the presumably present copyright notice)
"Of course, if the person(s) posting it were sure of their legal position
at the time then why would they remove it anyway? If they are sure of it
now, why not just restore the missing copyright notice and end the
argument?"

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web:http://www.nascom.infohttp://mixpix.batcave.net

I can help you, Mick. I waited out of courtesy just in case Flipper
was changing his ways and would answer constructively. He chose not
to; I didn't expect him to; I was right and made a few bucks betting
on my judgement of his flawed character.

Canadian law, from which Gregg claims to derive his authority to give
the RDH4 away free of charge, contains all the possibilites
(absolutely contrary to the smoke Flipslop blows). Here are the
relevant extracts from the Canadian Copyright Board site at
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/c...tect-e.html#11

****General rule
The general rule is that copyright lasts for the life of the author,
the remainder of the calendar year in which the author dies, and for
50 years following the end of the calendar year.

****Joint authorship
In the case of a work which has more than one author, the term will be
measured using the life of the author who dies last and 50 years
following the end of that calendar year.

So (ignoring the effect of reciprocity agreements because we don't
need them to make a case that theft has been committed) copyright in
the RDH4 under Canadian will run for the balance of the *50 years*
counting from the beginning of the year *after the last author died*.
(Or dies, as it is indeed possible, indeed likely, that someone among
the younger authors may still be alive, and we wish him a hale and
hearty much longer life.)

1. Gregg's claim that the copyright is for 50 years *from publication*
(the only other possible date) is exposed as a lie. The term is 50
years from when the last author dies. Some of those authors may in
fact still be alive, so that the 50 years haven't even started
counting down.

2. The RDH4 that Gregg stole is *not* the 1953 edition as he claims;
that is a lie. He stole, and steals as we write this, the last
*revised and enlarged* edtiion. I have compared the *last* section of
the RDH4 Gregg stole with the 1997 Newnes edition and they are
identical: it is simply a matter of the number of pages, the later
editions being longer than the 1953 edition.

3. The later expanded and revised editions are effectively protected
in toto by the copyright of the new and revised material. It is
standard practice to make a new copyright date in revised and expanded
editions. (As an example, my Writing a Thriller has been twice revised
and expanded and each time got a new copyright date, for a total of
three copyright dates.)

4. Someone must have been alive to make the revisions and write the
material in the expansions for 1967. Even if everyone involved died in
that year, copyright under Canadian law extends to a minimum of 1967 +
50 + 1 or 2018, eleven years from now.

5. That is ample motive for a deliberate thief like Gregg to cut away
the title page and copyright page so that the copy he stole cannot be
identified. Even to those who pretend to believe Gregg's lie that the
50 years is from publication rather than, as in law, fifty years after
the death of the last author, it would look very odd if the claims 50
years from 1953 and the copy he offers says 1967 -- or worse, 1997.
Y'see, the 1997 Newnes edition carried the name of the victim of the
Gregg's barefaced theft, the current copyright holder and his
copyright notice:
cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997

6. The moment the thief Gregg shows that title page, which reads
"Newnes", and that copyright page, which reads
cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997
his lie that he doesn't know who owns the copyright collapses.

7. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky have been told repeatedly
over the last fortnight that Reed owns the copyright. We know they
know, because Choky came on RAT to abuse me for telling them. They
have not removed the stolen RDH4. To my mind that confirms that they
were deliberate thieves in the beginning, deliberately lied about the
matters above, and intend remaining deliberate thieves despite being
exposed in the most telling manner possible.

8. Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky are thieves. There is no excuse for
their theft, and their lies and abusive behaviour are aggravating
circumstances.

9. It is a criminal act to remove a title page and copyright notice,
regardless of the copyright status of the work. Gregg, Tim Williams
and Choky are criminals.

10. It is a criminal act to make false statements about copyrighted or
copyrightable intellectual property. Gregg surely looks guilty of that
one as well. The whole nasty gang of bullyboys trying to make his
accusers go away are accomplices.

11. In the counries in which the thief Gregg's mirrors offer the
stolen RDH4, copyright is the now nearly-universal 70 years after the
death of the last author, so copyright of the RDH4 cannot run out
before 2038 at the earliest. They are all thieves by definition; there
are no alternative interpretations.

12. The thief Gregg and his gang have committed a second theft that we
haven't discussed yet. A book like the RDH is expensive to set in
type. Reed/Newnes bought the lithographic plates from Amalgamated
Wireless Valve and printed their edition from that. Gregg stole that
setting as well as the copyright. The only way to avoid stealing the
setting whether the book is in or out of copyright is to retype the
entire book (OCR won't cut the mustard: that uses the setting).

13. All Gregg's mirrors make themselves guilty of all Gregg's other
crimes as well by providing mirror-space.

I don't think there is any doubt that Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky,
and all the mirrors, are thieves. They are criminals, period.

Andre Jute
Elementary, my dear Watson

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 4, 7:18 pm, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:49:45 GMT, mick
wrote:



On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:29:51 -0500, flipper wrote:

snip

To the issue at hand, The Berne Convention only 'applies' to the extent
of passed U.S. Law codifying portions agreed to and in the manner
Congress deemed appropriate. (I.E. you can't necessarily determine U.S.
Law by reading the Berne Convention)

Btw, for an expired copyright to be enforceably 'restored' (I.E. collect
statutory damages ) in the U.,S., under the Berne Convention agreement,
the copyright owner must have filed an intent to enforce (restore) with
the U.S. copyright office and a claimed 'infringer' has 12 months to
cease (perhaps longer depending on "continuing infringement"
considerations)

snip

Please can you answer this one for me then?

(Re the presumably present copyright notice)
"Of course, if the person(s) posting it were sure of their legal position
at the time then why would they remove it anyway? If they are sure of it
now, why not just restore the missing copyright notice and end the
argument?"

I can't say why people do things, you'd have to ask the person
involved.

You might even find that the question itself is invalid because it
presents the fallacy of presuming to know 'all the possibilities'.

I won 1800 Euro, over two grand US, betting that you would once more
blow smoke for thieves, Flipslop.

All the possibilities are indeed known in the case of the copyright
theft of the RDH4 by Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky. I shall explain
that in my own reply to Mick.

Andre Jute
Prescient

[Rudy]

"Andre Jute" wrote
: Crap.
: You're not too bright, are you, Rudy? :

I'm finding that more and more these days i have to rely on
auxiliary sources of illumination
that what ya mean ?

: good luck, AJ
:
: I don't need luck.

great, you've just made me win a princely 7 figure bet :-)

carry on...
Knowledge and experience is far more useful in the
: tricky waters of copyright -- as the unlucky experience of that
: risible dabbler Flipslop proves!
:

:
: Andre Jute
:
:-)
R.