| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
I'm deeply ashamed to have on my hobby group RAT not only obdurate
thieves of the RDH, but a very large group of vocal, immoral apologists for these thieves who use smoke and personal abuse to cover up the fact that they must know, if they read all the literature they claim to have read, that neither they nor the thieves can prove the RDH4 is out of copyright. In the last week we have seen more lying twists and turns -- performed by sudden self-declared "copyright experts" to make an immoral theft committed by Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky sound right -- than in an entire corkscrew factory. The facts are these: 1. It is incumbent on the party wishing to publish a book as out of copyright or in the public domain to prove that it is in the public domain. The copyright owners of the RDH, Reed, are known and have been known for ten years. No effort has been made by the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky to approach to approach Reed and acquire a license, which is the first thing honest people do. No effort has been made by the fellow travellers and apologists for thieves such as Bret Ludwig and the anonymous Flipper to approach Reed and determine the facts because they don't want to draw attention to their little friends the thieves. They are all taking the attitude that they can steal anyone's property and then dare them to come claim it back -- soiled and diminished, of course. 2. After new reciprocity arrangements in 2004 between Australia and the USA to bring them in line with the EU arrangements, the copyright of a book by an Australian author is virtually universally for 70 years from his death, given only that he was alive on 1 January 1957. That Reed was able to copyright in 1997 a reprint of the RDH4 leads presumptively to the conclusion that one or more relevant authors of the RDH were alive on New Year's Day 1957; it would be perverse to assume that all the authors of a multi-author book like the RDH were dead less than four years after first publication. Therefore the question of copyright of the earliest edition of the RDH4 in 1953 doesn't even arise until 2037 at the earliest. That's the authoritative version, the King James Bible of copyright law, the thing reduced to its utter essence. Any wishful weaselling about a million unlikely concatenations of events, and doubletalk about superceded versions of copyright laws, both of them smokescreens blown by Flipper, or triumphalist crap that repeated thefts pass ownership of the stolen property to the thieves, as proposed by the proven and confessed thief Bret Ludwig, are just more illustrations of why amateurs shouldn't mess in the deep waters of copyright law. None of the apologia for thieves can overcome the facts of copyright, numbered 1 and 2 above, where these two immoral clowns, and the rest of the amateurs and dabblers, should review them often. If you can't understand all the implications, then that lack of understanding defines you as an amateur and you should shut the **** up. I have earned my living by copyrights for fifty years this year, and in that time I have met some mildly irritating idiots and expensive ignoramuses, but never a set of such self-serving, self-deluding, lying, thieving crooks as on RAT in this instance. Andre Jute Embarrassed to know some of you |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to share RAT with copyright thieves and their apologists
On Sep 30, 11:40 am, Andre Jute wrote:
I'm deeply ashamed to have on my hobby group RAT not only obdurate thieves of the RDH, but a very large group of vocal, immoral apologists for these thieves who use smoke and personal abuse to cover up the fact that they must know, if they read all the literature they claim to have read, that neither they nor the thieves can prove the RDH4 is out of copyright. In the last week we have seen more lying twists and turns -- performed by sudden self-declared "copyright experts" to make an immoral theft committed by Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky sound right -- than in an entire corkscrew factory. The facts are these: 1. It is incumbent on the party wishing to publish a book as out of copyright or in the public domain to prove that it is in the public domain. The copyright owners of the RDH, Reed, are known and have been known for ten years. No effort has been made by the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky to approach to approach Reed and acquire a license, which is the first thing honest people do. No effort has been made by the fellow travellers and apologists for thieves such as Bret Ludwig and the anonymous Flipper to approach Reed and determine the facts because they don't want to draw attention to their little friends the thieves. They are all taking the attitude that they can steal anyone's property and then dare them to come claim it back -- soiled and diminished, of course. 2. After new reciprocity arrangements in 2004 between Australia and the USA to bring them in line with the EU arrangements, the copyright of a book by an Australian author is virtually universally for 70 years from his death, given only that he was alive on 1 January 1957. That Reed was able to copyright in 1997 a reprint of the RDH4 leads presumptively to the conclusion that one or more relevant authors of the RDH were alive on New Year's Day 1957; it would be perverse to assume that all the authors of a multi-author book like the RDH were dead less than four years after first publication. Therefore the question of copyright of the earliest edition of the RDH4 in 1953 doesn't even arise until 2037 at the earliest. That's the authoritative version, the King James Bible of copyright law, the thing reduced to its utter essence. Any wishful weaselling about a million unlikely concatenations of events, and doubletalk about superceded versions of copyright laws, both of them smokescreens blown by Flipper, or triumphalist crap that repeated thefts pass ownership of the stolen property to the thieves, as proposed by the proven and confessed thief Bret Ludwig, are just more illustrations of why amateurs shouldn't mess in the deep waters of copyright law. None of the apologia for thieves can overcome the facts of copyright, numbered 1 and 2 above, where these two immoral clowns, and the rest of the amateurs and dabblers, should review them often. If you can't understand all the implications, then that lack of understanding defines you as an amateur and you should shut the **** up. I have earned my living by copyrights for fifty years this year, and in that time I have met some mildly irritating idiots and expensive ignoramuses, but never a set of such self-serving, self-deluding, lying, thieving crooks as on RAT in this instance. Andre Jute Embarrassed to know some of you |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to share RAT with copyright thieves and their apologists
On Sep 30, 12:59 pm, the proven and confessed thief Bret Ludwig
wrote: On Sep 30, 1:40 pm, Andre Jute wrote: I'm deeply ashamed to have on my hobby group RAT not only obdurate thieves of the RDH, but a very large group of vocal, immoral apologists for these thieves who use smoke and personal abuse to cover up the fact that they must know, if they read all the literature they claim to have read, that neither they nor the thieves can prove the RDH4 is out of copyright. In the last week we have seen more lying twists and turns -- performed by sudden self-declared "copyright experts" to make an immoral theft committed by Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky sound right -- than in an entire corkscrew factory. The facts are these: 1. It is incumbent on the party wishing to publish a book as out of copyright or in the public domain to prove that it is in the public domain. The copyright owners of the RDH, Reed, are known and have been known for ten years. No effort has been made by the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky to approach to approach Reed and acquire a license, which is the first thing honest people do. No effort has been made by the fellow travellers and apologists for thieves such as Bret Ludwig and the anonymous Flipper to approach Reed and determine the facts because they don't want to draw attention to their little friends the thieves. They are all taking the attitude that they can steal anyone's property and then dare them to come claim it back -- soiled and diminished, of course. Bull****, bull****, bull****. But how can it be bull**** if it is the law, Bratwig? The law is clearly as I state it. You can find the issue of onus of proof on any copyright site. No one has made any secret of this. The posters MAY have written the company and asked and may not and quite frankly the matter is between the two of them. Feel free, by all means, to send them a letter and let them know this is happening, although you and I both know they do. Any publishing company of any size has people paid full time to ferret out copyright violations and if you don't believe me post something that IS protected and see what happens. You and your ISP will find out tout suite. The only reasonable conclusion is that ALL the books on the popular servers such as BAMA and pmillett.com are kosher. In fact Pete Millett did accidentally put one title up that was in copyright, he was asked to remove it, and he did so promptly. What more can you ask???? TRANSLATION: The thief Bret Ludwig, speaking also for the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, says, "We'll steal whatever we want and we dare the owners to come claim their property.: 2. After new reciprocity arrangements in 2004 between Australia and the USA to bring them in line with the EU arrangements, the copyright of a book by an Australian author is virtually universally for 70 years from his death, given only that he was alive on 1 January 1957. That Reed was able to copyright in 1997 a reprint of the RDH4 leads presumptively to the conclusion that one or more relevant authors of the RDH were alive on New Year's Day 1957; it would be perverse to assume that all the authors of a multi-author book like the RDH were dead less than four years after first publication. Therefore the question of copyright of the earliest edition of the RDH4 in 1953 doesn't even arise until 2037 at the earliest. That's the authoritative version, the King James Bible of copyright law, the thing reduced to its utter essence. Bull****. If my server is not in Australia, Australian law matters only to the degree my country will reciprocate with enforcement of the law. This translates as, Bret says, "We'll steal whatever we want, where we want, and we dare the owners to come claim their property." Yo, moron, I just told you, the USA has already agreed that the Australian and EU 70 year rule is good, and the USA have also agreed to enforce it. Your buddies Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky are thieves, you, Bret Ludwig, are a proven and confessed thief here inciting other thieves to theft, and so on; I'll name the apologists for thieves again when they appear in this thread. Apparently Ludwig, a notorious xenophobe adn racist, doesn't think Washington should stop him and his pals stealing foreign copyrights: Australia has a lot of ****ed up laws that are communist and indecent as we all know. As do most other countries including the USA. In plain English, Bret Ludwig says, "We'll steal whatever copyrights we want from countries we don't like, we **** on our own country's reciprocity agreements with those countries, and we dare the owners to come claim their property." Any wishful weaselling about a million unlikely concatenations of events, and doubletalk about superceded versions of copyright laws, both of them smokescreens blown by Flipper, or triumphalist crap that repeated thefts pass ownership of the stolen property to the thieves, as proposed by the proven and confessed thief Bret Ludwig, are just more illustrations of why amateurs shouldn't mess in the deep waters of copyright law. None of the apologia for thieves can overcome the facts of copyright, numbered 1 and 2 above, where these two immoral clowns, and the rest of the amateurs and dabblers, should review them often. If you can't understand all the implications, then that lack of understanding defines you as an amateur and you should shut the **** up. I have earned my living by copyrights for fifty years this year, and in that time I have met some mildly irritating idiots and expensive ignoramuses, but never a set of such self-serving, self-deluding, lying, thieving crooks as on RAT in this instance. Andre Jute Embarrassed to know some of you Then get the **** off this newsgroup, you insane mountebank. Just the fax, Mam. Here are two of those facts, Bratwig: One: I was on RAT before you and I shall be here after you crawl back into the sewer that spewed you up. Two: I know about copyright law and you don't, which makes you the mountebank. Unsigned out fear that someone might think I know the thief Bret Ludwig |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to share RAT with copyright thieves and their apologists
On Sep 30, 2:37 pm, the proven and confessed thief Bret Ludwig
wrote: This translates as, Bret says, "We'll steal whatever we want, where we want, and we dare the owners to come claim their property." No dare is involved. Just a request for notification. Translation: thief Bret Ludwig, and the thieves Greg, Tim Williams and Choky, say, "We are above the law." Yo, morons, the law doesn't entitle you to steal and then demand the owners notify you that they want their property back. The RDH4 is in copyright and the current copyright owners cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 reprinted it through the Newnes division as recently as, guess what, 1997, just like it says in every one of those copies. Each one of those copies is a notification. You are thieves. You are not above the law. You are not Robin Hoods. You are just slimy muggers. Yo, moron, I just told you, the USA has already agreed that the Australian and EU 70 year rule is good, and the USA have also agreed to enforce it. Your buddies Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky are thieves, you, Bret Ludwig, are a proven and confessed thief here inciting other thieves to theft, and so on; I'll name the apologists for thieves again when they appear in this thread. Two US sites have RDH 4 up and have for two or three years. If they were infringing they'd have been C&D'd and kicked off their ISP if they did not comply. Same old story we get from the thieves Ludwig, Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, and their apologists like Flipper, Worthless Peter Wieck, and other undesirables: "If we steal it often enough, it becomes our property." Apparently Ludwig, a notorious xenophobe adn racist, doesn't think Washington should stop him and his pals stealing foreign copyrights: Australia has a lot of ****ed up laws that are communist and indecent as we all know. As do most other countries including the USA. In plain English, Bret Ludwig says, "We'll steal whatever copyrights we want from countries we don't like, we **** on our own country's reciprocity agreements with those countries, and we dare the owners to come claim their property." I'm going to let you read all of this paragraph, and then demonstrate that every second word is a lie: In the world of normal people, if a not for profit web site inadvertently infringes, the infringed sends the infringee a notice, and the infringor simply takes it down. When the alleged infringee has had it up for a decade and no such notice is received you may be reasonably sure it in fact does not infringe. Let's see how many lies even a thief like Ludwig can fit into a single short paragraph: In the world of normal people, Lie No 1. Normal people do not steal. Normal people do not gloat about their thefts. Bret Ludwig does. He gloated publicly about thefts from Apple Corporation, from the estate of Dr Harvey Rosenberg, and of my copyright which he stole again after I warned him just to prove he could. if a not for profit web site Lie No 2. The purpose of copyright theft is irrelevant. Lie No 3. The site under discussion belongs to thief Gregg. It is *not* a not-for-profit site. Gregg tries to get progamming work off the site. But no one would go there, so he illegally offers the stolen RDH4 for download to attract traffic. Gregg thus fraudulently, with the help of the other thieves Tim Williams and Choky, and promoted by the thief Bret Ludwig, and protected by the apologists for thieves Flipper et al, uses the stolen property of the RDH4 to advertise his business and enhance his income. That is no different from stealing someone's wage packet from his desk drawer. inadvertently infringes, Lie No 4. There is nothing "inadvertent" about the theft of the RDH4 by the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky. The stole it deliberately, deliberately withheld the title page and copyright page so that the edition cannot be checked, they lie about not knowing that the copyright holder is Reed (how can they not know ten years after the Newnes edition?), they abuse those who try to tell them, they make it very difficult to deliver a cease and desist order, etc, etc, all the symptoms of fraudulent conversion of someone else's property. the infringed sends the infringee a notice, Lie No 5. If Bret Ludwig does not know that the statement above is perversion of the law of property in any democracy, what is he doing outside an insane asylum? This is clearly a lie invented for the benefit of copyright thieves. and the infringor simply takes it down. Lie No 6. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky have been repeatedly told where to find the copyright owner and shown that the copyright is current. They have also been told it is their duty to prove that they have a public domain right, which they can fulfill simply by writing to the apparent copyright holder and asking if the book is in copyright. They have not taken the sloten RDH4 down, they have not told us they are contacting Reed. Oh no, instead they have abused us, giving us every reason to believe they will continue their disgraceful theft. They are smug and triumphant about it, not even bothering to argue the legality. When the alleged infringee has Lie No 7. Nothing alleged about the theft of the RDH4 by Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, or the thefts by Bret Ludwig described above. These are proven beyond any doubt by the actions and words of the thieves; they have confessed to these thefts, Ludwig on RAT and Gregg on his netsite. had it up for a decade Lie No 8. The thief Gregg put up the RDH4, by his own account, in 2003; that is not a decade ago. Professionally offered CD copies available before then were issued under license from the copyright holder. and no such notice is received Lie No 9. Ludwig keeps trying to imply that there is an obligation on a property owner to tell thieves that he owns the property, with the further implication that if they then vacate the property they should be held blameless for their thieving. We are not deceived. This is the standard form of: "We'll steal what we like and dare the owners to come demand their property back." you may be reasonably sure it in fact does not infringe. Lie No 10. No. All you may be certain of is that the copyright owner either hasn't noticed the thief yet, or hasn't yet decided of which thief to make an example. Ludwig is trying to hold himself up as an authority on copyright law. He lies; he doesn't the first thing about the law. What Ludwig knows about this copyright *theft*. So there we go. Into a short paragraph Bret Ludwig has managed to cram no fewer than ten lies. The simple fact is that RDH 4 is not protected by copyright. The simple and obvious fact is that a book that has been reprinted so often and has been in print for half a century, most recently reprinted in 1997, is most likely in copyright. That's any book. But the RDH4 in the most recent edition gave you another *big* nudge about who now owns the copyright; every one of the thousand of copies carried this notice: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 You say it is, but reality says it isn't. Translation: "If we steal it often enough, it becomes our property." No alleged infringor has been notified by anyone. Nobody needs to be notified. One day a demand for restitution and damages just arrives. I hope it is soon. You are just too stupid to argue with any further, McCoy. You don't have any answers, Ludwig, just lies and the lust for what belongs to others. Run, thief, run. I know about copyright law, and you don't, Bret Ludwig. QED. Andre Jute Embarrassed to know some of you |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Sep 30, 1:40 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
I'm deeply ashamed to have on my hobby group RAT not only obdurate thieves of the RDH, but a very large group of vocal, immoral apologists for these thieves who use smoke and personal abuse to cover up the fact that they must know, if they read all the literature they claim to have read, that neither they nor the thieves can prove the RDH4 is out of copyright. And With respect, all that you are due: I am pleasantly surprised that given your general behavior in this and various other news-groups that you are actually and genuinely capable of "shame" at any level even one pretended-to. That was, for the record, something that I thought was outside your emotional repertoire. But, as to the actual theft-of-copyright, we have _ONLY_ your representations thereof that such a theft has actually occurred, and offered without a scintilla of actual proof on your part. Again, and note for the record,*PROOF* means information readily *and directly* verified from third-party sources, not merely endless, brainless and mindless repetition on your part. So, to use a common "Americanism": Put the hell up, or shut the hell up. That you choose to engage with an individual very nearly as crippled as you are in this debate and further feel that points scored against such a cripple has any meaningful result in any world other than that enclosed by your navel (you do have a navel, don't you?) is further evidence of the pathetic weakness of the case you have focused your entire attention upon these last several days. Once again, you haven't a scintilla of actual, verifiable proof of any of your contentions. You have this naive, stupid, limited, inane, silly, obtuse belief that by mere repetition your case will gain strength or credibility. Sorry, wrong place, wrong time. Please go away. You are one of the few creatures on this earth who would improve it by leaving it. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
I'm inclined to believe Bret is right from simple logic. Since
several sites have RDH 4 (and have for a long time) but do not have any Terman works,, or the Audio Cyclopedia, or Shea's Amplifier handbook, or many other desireable books, and will not post them because of their own insistence that they are under copyright and that they would get in trouble, the only logical conclusion is that RDH 4 is not copyright and the other books mentioned are. If they were thieves why would they stop at RDH 4? And, since there is no charge to download them, of what benefit would it be to them? |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Sep 30, 6:16 pm, RapidRonnie wrote:
I'm inclined to believe Bret is right from simple logic. Since several sites have RDH 4 (and have for a long time) but do not have any Terman works,, or the Audio Cyclopedia, or Shea's Amplifier handbook, or many other desireable books, and will not post them because of their own insistence that they are under copyright and that they would get in trouble, the only logical conclusion is that RDH 4 is not copyright and the other books mentioned are. 1. This is once more the argument, "We have stolen it so often, it is now our property." 2. It is significant that all the books you list that are not stolen are American while the RDH is an Australian book. Moreover, it is a book whose copyright holder was becoming dormant over a period of years. So it isn't surprising that the copyright owner didn't object. 3. Unfortunately for you and Bratwig, that there is no objection is no justification for theft, and absoloutely no reason to conclude the book is out of copyright. All that you can conclude is that the owners haven't acted yet against the net-thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky. 4. I have already several times listed all the reasons to assume that the RDH is in copyright. 5. The presumption of the law is that the book is in copyright unless the wannabe public domain distributors can prove it is out of copyright. It is really simple for the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams, and Choky, and all their apologists like Bret Ludwig, and now you, to write to Reed, the known copyright holder cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 and ask them if they have given up the copyright. (And don't give me the smartarse chatter about how I should do it. The law, and commonsense, is that the accused thieves and their hangerson should do it.) If they were thieves why would they stop at RDH 4? And, since there is no charge to download them, of what benefit would it be to them? Perhaps they share Bret Ludwig's xenophobic, racist attitude that all other nations exist solely to be the victims of theft by Americans. Andre Jute Relentless rigour |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com I'm deeply ashamed to have on my hobby group RAT not only obdurate thieves of the RDH, but a very large group of vocal, immoral apologists for these thieves who use smoke and personal abuse to cover up the fact that they must know, if they read all the literature they claim to have read, that neither they nor the thieves can prove the RDH4 is out of copyright. Don't let the door bang you on the butt on your way out, Andre. ;-) |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to share RAT with copyright thieves and their apologists
flipper wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:24:10 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 30, 12:59 pm, the proven and confessed thief Bret Ludwig wrote: On Sep 30, 1:40 pm, Andre Jute wrote: I'm deeply ashamed to have on my hobby group RAT not only obdurate thieves of the RDH, but a very large group of vocal, immoral apologists for these thieves who use smoke and personal abuse to cover up the fact that they must know, if they read all the literature they claim to have read, that neither they nor the thieves can prove the RDH4 is out of copyright. In the last week we have seen more lying twists and turns -- performed by sudden self-declared "copyright experts" to make an immoral theft committed by Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky sound right -- than in an entire corkscrew factory. The facts are these: 1. It is incumbent on the party wishing to publish a book as out of copyright or in the public domain to prove that it is in the public domain. The copyright owners of the RDH, Reed, are known and have been known for ten years. No effort has been made by the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky to approach to approach Reed and acquire a license, which is the first thing honest people do. No effort has been made by the fellow travellers and apologists for thieves such as Bret Ludwig and the anonymous Flipper to approach Reed and determine the facts because they don't want to draw attention to their little friends the thieves. They are all taking the attitude that they can steal anyone's property and then dare them to come claim it back -- soiled and diminished, of course. Bull****, bull****, bull****. But how can it be bull**** if it is the law, Bratwig? The law is clearly as I state it. You can find the issue of onus of proof on any copyright site. Because fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point on view, 'Jutes Law' is not the law of any country. Good golly, and you pretend to argue morality with me, Flipflop? Civics 101: the owner of property does not have to prove anything to thieves invading his property. That is a basic assumption of every property law. But, since we\re speaking of Australian copyright law, and you insist on your right to be exposed as unsophisticated or even stupid, here we go: "the onus in infringement proceedings is on the defendant to show that copyright does not subsist or is not owned by the person stated in the notice" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...p_of_copyright Hmm. It looks like Jute's Law is the law in every civilized counry, including Ausralia. In this case it means that to escape liability the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky must prove the RDH is in the public domain , which they haven't even tried to do. We'd also be happy to accept proof from any of the apologists for thieves like you, Slipshod, sorry, I mean Flipflop, oh, damn, Flipper! We all know now that it is an impossible proof, because all those authors of the RDH weren't dead less than a handful of years after publication, and the copyright lasts for 70 years after the last of them died/dies. We all know now that the copyright holder is cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 and that Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky are thieves of the copyright property of a known copyright holder. snip of incessant bogus repitition We notice you don't have any answers, only abuse. Unsigned out of contempt for an incompetent apologist for thieves |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to share RAT with copyright thieves and their apologists
flipper wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:14:59 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: flipper wrote: On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:24:10 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 30, 12:59 pm, the proven and confessed thief Bret Ludwig wrote: On Sep 30, 1:40 pm, Andre Jute wrote: I'm deeply ashamed to have on my hobby group RAT not only obdurate thieves of the RDH, but a very large group of vocal, immoral apologists for these thieves who use smoke and personal abuse to cover up the fact that they must know, if they read all the literature they claim to have read, that neither they nor the thieves can prove the RDH4 is out of copyright. In the last week we have seen more lying twists and turns -- performed by sudden self-declared "copyright experts" to make an immoral theft committed by Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky sound right -- than in an entire corkscrew factory. The facts are these: 1. It is incumbent on the party wishing to publish a book as out of copyright or in the public domain to prove that it is in the public domain. The copyright owners of the RDH, Reed, are known and have been known for ten years. No effort has been made by the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky to approach to approach Reed and acquire a license, which is the first thing honest people do. No effort has been made by the fellow travellers and apologists for thieves such as Bret Ludwig and the anonymous Flipper to approach Reed and determine the facts because they don't want to draw attention to their little friends the thieves. They are all taking the attitude that they can steal anyone's property and then dare them to come claim it back -- soiled and diminished, of course. Bull****, bull****, bull****. But how can it be bull**** if it is the law, Bratwig? The law is clearly as I state it. You can find the issue of onus of proof on any copyright site. Because fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point on view, 'Jutes Law' is not the law of any country. Good golly, and you pretend to argue morality with me, Flipflop? You're the morality chest thumper. Civics 101: the owner of property does not have to prove anything to thieves invading his property. That is a basic assumption of every property law. But, since we\re speaking of Australian copyright law, I live in the U.S. and U.S. law applies here. Living in the US isn't a license to steal.. I have explained to you several times that reciprocity agreements mean that Australian books are protected in the US to the same extent as they would be in Australia. and you insist on your right to be exposed as unsophisticated or even stupid, here we go: "the onus in infringement proceedings is on the defendant to show that copyright does not subsist or is not owned by the person stated in the notice" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...p_of_copyright Hmm. It looks like Jute's Law is the law in every civilized counry, including Ausralia. In this case it means that to escape liability the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky must prove the RDH is in the public domain , Only if you get them in an Australian Court. I see. You think that living in the US is a license to steal. Actually, you're wrong. They can be charged wherever they live, including the US. which they haven't even tried to do. Maybe because you ain't an Australian Court, nor a legitimate copyright claimant to the work in question, nor anyone with the slightest shred of authority on the matter. Why do I need some enforceable authority to be disgusted at thieves stealing and scum defending them for spurious reasons? Put in plain English, since you do so love making 'translations', nobody need 'prove' a damn thing to you. Well, if you think you need not prove anything to me, Slipshod, what are you doing in this thread? We'd also be happy to accept proof from any of the apologists for thieves like you, Slipshod, sorry, I mean Flipflop, oh, damn, Flipper! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._copyright_law "For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Library of Congress Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated in 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain." I've already dealt with this meretrious piece of crap: "Ugh. You're an amateur, Slipshod, and one with poor comprehension of your mother tongue at that. You cannot even do simple arithmetic. "There was no need for registration. The RDH was not published in the USA until 1967 and 1967 + 28 = 1995, well after the renewal requirement was abolished. Tough luck self righteous name calling smoke blower. And tomorrow I shall still be righteous and you will stand exposed as a slimy, and pretty incompetent, apologist for thieves. Are those enough names for you? We all know now that it is an impossible proof, because all those authors of the RDH weren't dead less than a handful of years after publication, and the copyright lasts for 70 years after the last of them died/dies. Irrelevant in this country to works published in 1953. Wasn't published in the US until 1967. You should check the facts sonny. But let's look at it from another angle: Irrelevant in this country to works published in 1953. Actually, perfectly relevant under the AUSFTA. It doesn't matter which way you cut it, sonny, the RDH4 is protected under both Australian law and American law. There are some exceptions. For instance, you claim that the RDH4 is work for hire (it isn't, but never mind); in that case, under AUSFTA, it is possibly protected by American law for 95 years from 1967. Suck on that, sonny. We all know now that the copyright holder is cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Their copyright notice is on their work. No. Their ownership of the copyright to the RDH4 is proclaimed by that notice. Your attempts at sophistry are as slipshod as your research. and that Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky are thieves of the copyright property of a known copyright holder. Well, then, Mr. Mao 'Good Citizen', why don't you fire a letter off to who you think holds a copyright telling them of the infringement? Why should I? I'm not a policeman. If you or the other clowns who claim the book is in the public domain want to prove it once and for all, dob in the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky to Reed and see what happens to your little lightfingered friends. Because you're not accomplishing one damn thing babbling in here about it. I didn't start this; Ludwig put the copyright thefts, which until then I'd been studiously avoiding noticing, in my face. You scum are the ones keeping this alive. Everyone but you already took the point that Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky are thieves. Beyond establishing that, I'm just along for the ride. Well, except for insulting and ****ing off just about every one in the place. Not at all. I'm kicking only deserving butts. The guys with brains are staying well clear (they've seen me work before) because they don't want to be splashed by the blood of thieves and their immoral front- men; who knows what disease one can pick up such moral degenerates? snip of incessant bogus repitition We notice you don't have any answers, only abuse. What a joke. The incessant name caller claims he's 'abused'. As for answers, I've explained to you more than once that U.S. law applies in the U.S., as well as the details (and just did again), but you're deaf, dumb, and blind to any form of rational thought. Slipshod, you don't know **** about copyright law, your hit and run methods miss the essence, never mind the subtleties, and your justifications (like living in the US being a reason to steal -- Jesus, don't you reread what you write?) are either ludicrous or sick. You're defending thieves, period. You don't engage in 'discussion' or 'debate'. You make self righteous declarations and then try to verbally stomp the hell out of anyone who dares have even the slightest difference of opinion. Every time we go round, I tell you something about copyright law you didn't know before. Does that sound like a "stomping"? I don't think so. But don't expect me to be patient with slow learners. Unsigned out of contempt for an incompetent apologist for thieves Oh my, I feel so 'hurt' that you didn't 'sign' it. Boo hoo. You're a waste of time, Slipshod. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Sep 30, 9:53 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Perhaps they share Bret Ludwig's xenophobic, racist attitude that all other nations exist solely to be the victims of theft by Americans. Andre Jute Relentless rigour And Once again, you are using the Bellman's Proof - proof by repetition - but you are not offering one scintilla of independently verifiable proof. The only "relentless rigour" you are displaying at this point is the tiresome product of your own arrogance and ossified thinking process. Keep in mind that despite your fervent wishes to the contrary, most of us in this group function under some iteration of "English Law" which has amongst its first principles that the burden of proof rests on the accuser. So, go ahead. Prove something. For once. You haven't even started on actual proof so far, just your representations and closely held beliefs, offered without substantiation or source. Quoting from the law is meaningless if it does not apply. And that is what you must prove... that it applies and that it applies in exactly this case, and do so by citing independently verifiable sources that prove just that. Can't do it? Then shut up and go away. Sit on your fingers until something actually having to do with tubes comes to what is left of your dim, dusty little mind. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
Bret Ludwig wrote: On Sep 30, 1:40 pm, Andre Jute wrote: I'm deeply ashamed to have on my hobby group RAT not only obdurate thieves of the RDH, but a very large group of vocal, immoral apologists for these thieves who use smoke and personal abuse to cover up the fact that they must know, if they read all the literature they claim to have read, that neither they nor the thieves can prove the RDH4 is out of copyright. In the last week we have seen more lying twists and turns -- performed by sudden self-declared "copyright experts" to make an immoral theft committed by Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky sound right -- than in an entire corkscrew factory. The facts are these: 1. It is incumbent on the party wishing to publish a book as out of copyright or in the public domain to prove that it is in the public domain. The copyright owners of the RDH, Reed, are known and have been known for ten years. No effort has been made by the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky to approach to approach Reed and acquire a license, which is the first thing honest people do. No effort has been made by the fellow travellers and apologists for thieves such as Bret Ludwig and the anonymous Flipper to approach Reed and determine the facts because they don't want to draw attention to their little friends the thieves. They are all taking the attitude that they can steal anyone's property and then dare them to come claim it back -- soiled and diminished, of course. Bull****, bull****, bull****. No one has made any secret of this. The posters MAY have written the company and asked and may not and quite frankly the matter is between the two of them. Feel free, by all means, to send them a letter and let them know this is happening, although you and I both know they do. Any publishing company of any size has people paid full time to ferret out copyright violations and if you don't believe me post something that IS protected and see what happens. You and your ISP will find out tout suite. The only reasonable conclusion is that ALL the books on the popular servers such as BAMA and pmillett.com are kosher. In fact Pete Millett did accidentally put one title up that was in copyright, he was asked to remove it, and he did so promptly. What more can you ask???? Just because nobody appears to have persued ppl posting RDH4 online doesn't mean that its not illegal. We just would like to know what the real status of RDH4 copyright is. Andre says it'd be in the public domain after 2037. You are saying its in the public domain now, and has been for awhile. Where is the proof? 2. After new reciprocity arrangements in 2004 between Australia and the USA to bring them in line with the EU arrangements, the copyright of a book by an Australian author is virtually universally for 70 years from his death, given only that he was alive on 1 January 1957. That Reed was able to copyright in 1997 a reprint of the RDH4 leads presumptively to the conclusion that one or more relevant authors of the RDH were alive on New Year's Day 1957; it would be perverse to assume that all the authors of a multi-author book like the RDH were dead less than four years after first publication. Therefore the question of copyright of the earliest edition of the RDH4 in 1953 doesn't even arise until 2037 at the earliest. That's the authoritative version, the King James Bible of copyright law, the thing reduced to its utter essence. Bull****. If my server is not in Australia, Australian law matters only to the degree my country will reciprocate with enforcement of the law. Australia has a lot of ****ed up laws that are communist and indecent as we all know. As do most other countries including the USA. I could say that the USA has a lot of "****ed up laws" which thankfully Australia does not have. For example, we have what are strict gun control laws, and compared to the carnage in the USA with Americans shooting Americans, Australia is a much safer place to live with regard to guns. The Communists of Australia have NEVER been able to get their numbers above a small token cohort of anti establishmentist wingers who have always been unable to get support from the wider community, and laws we have do not have any history due to the legacy of any past communist legislators who made it into parliament. Some may equate Labour Party policy as being communist, but really Labour has never been much different to the Democrats in the US, and not a bad thing, considering the the swing away from Rebublicans at present. ( I cannot be any briefer in comparing US politics to Oz, and obviously have left out about 10 million words to give approximate credence to my simplistic statements ). While communists were often the lone voice of social conscience at times in Oz history rather like the Greens are now, most ppl in Oz could see there was ZERO benefit in adopting policies of Russia or China in earlier decades. Even during the Depression, when the hope that communism could "save us" was likely to appeal, most people saw right through communism, along with the nationalism in Germany, Italy, and Japan. Unlike the McCarthy era where in the US the Communists were persued as vermin by authorities, Oz has had tolerance. We actually have had a long history of tolerance, and our country has been a democracy for much longer than many others. Where a difference of opinion exists, we tend to talk it out over a beer in a pub, agree to disagree, and have a vote on the issues. We have never needed to have a civil war to solve statewide differences of opinions. The worst thing we did was build 5 different railway guages in different states, and this most stupid arrangement was due to absurd laws made by people diabolically opposed to communism ( and indeed to any idea of national community and co-operation ) Maybe if we'd have had a few commos who made it into state and fed governments, perhaps they may have prevented the stupidities of their alternatives. It is the height of arrogance to belittle the laws of another country while the ones of your own could be argued to be so onerous and insubstantial. Pull the log out of your eye before poking a stick into another's. Feel welcome to spend a few years in Oz, and perhaps your views may become more fairly educated. Any wishful weaselling about a million unlikely concatenations of events, and doubletalk about superceded versions of copyright laws, both of them smokescreens blown by Flipper, or triumphalist crap that repeated thefts pass ownership of the stolen property to the thieves, as proposed by the proven and confessed thief Bret Ludwig, are just more illustrations of why amateurs shouldn't mess in the deep waters of copyright law. None of the apologia for thieves can overcome the facts of copyright, numbered 1 and 2 above, where these two immoral clowns, and the rest of the amateurs and dabblers, should review them often. If you can't understand all the implications, then that lack of understanding defines you as an amateur and you should shut the **** up. I have earned my living by copyrights for fifty years this year, and in that time I have met some mildly irritating idiots and expensive ignoramuses, but never a set of such self-serving, self-deluding, lying, thieving crooks as on RAT in this instance. Andre Jute Embarrassed to know some of you Then get the **** off this newsgroup, you insane mountebank. Why make a command to another that is 100% likely to be ignored? I invite you to calm down, and think logically how you could provide proof for your position. I won't hold my breath, and forecast that nobody will proove anything; But i've always considered that full resolution of a problem never ever occurs..... Andre has merely alleged ppl are stealing RDH4 and are in breach of copyright laws. I'd like to see a letter from the owner of RDH4 copyright stating what is the real status of that copyright. I don't expect perfection in groups or the people in them, and shame isn't an emotion I can easily feel over this RDH4 issue. The more intimately people get to know each other, the more they see reasons to be embarrassed or ashamed; its an unavoidable part of life. Our Government has agreed to go along with George Bush in his very ill managed war in Iraq. Thousands of Iraquis have died, and 4 millions out of 22 milions have left Iraq, and face a very uncertain future. Its all over oil of course. I could say I am ashamed and embarrassed to be associated with all the people of the US because of where their leaders have led us, but I am not; my goodwill takes some shaking to knock it over. I meet the nicest people who think greenhouse isn't happening. Some believe in God, and in the afterlife in Heaven. If they knew me well, maybe they'd condemn me for my sins, but I have not the time to care, and I certainly don't have time to search for something to loathe in others, and have time only scrape a living from capitalizing on my efforts rather than depending on a commo government to hand me my living. We had a nice public holiday here today, and I laced up two new bicycle wheels. People say those rotten Socialists and Communists invented public holidays, but they don't want to give up having the days off. Arguments about RDH4 copyright were not on my mind. But the shops were mainly all open, so not everyone had the day off. People in Oz have a choice about it. Patrick Turner. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
Peter Wieck wrote: On Sep 30, 9:53 pm, Andre Jute wrote: Perhaps they share Bret Ludwig's xenophobic, racist attitude that all other nations exist solely to be the victims of theft by Americans. Andre Jute Relentless rigour And Once again, you are using the Bellman's Proof - proof by repetition - but you are not offering one scintilla of independently verifiable proof. The only "relentless rigour" you are displaying at this point is the tiresome product of your own arrogance and ossified thinking process. Keep in mind that despite your fervent wishes to the contrary, most of us in this group function under some iteration of "English Law" which has amongst its first principles that the burden of proof rests on the accuser. So, go ahead. Prove something. For once. You haven't even started on actual proof so far, just your representations and closely held beliefs, offered without substantiation or source. Quoting from the law is meaningless if it does not apply. And that is what you must prove... that it applies and that it applies in exactly this case, and do so by citing independently verifiable sources that prove just that. Can't do it? Then shut up and go away. Sit on your fingers until something actually having to do with tubes comes to what is left of your dim, dusty little mind. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA And where Peter, is any proof of anything about the real and actual status of copyright of RDH4 in your posts? People can scream their heads off and swear all day long at Andre raising doubts about the legality of downloading RDH4. That achieves zero. Its better that all those who disagree with Andre simply seek the proof required to end the angst. Patrick Turner. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 1, 9:23 am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Its better that all those who disagree with Andre simply seek the proof required to end the angst. Patrick: Last I looked, we are not living under Roman Law (burden of proof rests on the accused). Andre raised the spectre, it is incumbent upon him to prove his contentions. So far, he has been remarkably reticent in doing so, but not so reticent in accusing individuals of actionable crimes. Where I come from, that is Libel. At this moment, I know of at least four (4) sources of RDH4 published on the web "for-free", one of which happens to be through Rutgers University. One would doubt that Rutgers, being a state-related institution (and in RCA's home state) would lend itself to that were copyright an issue. So, I see repeated evidence that copyright is not an issue in this case. I do see a copyrighted RDH4 being published currently at about $80 a clip, but it specifically includes updated material, revisions, additions and considerable commentary *NOT* part of the original RDH4. I expect that the copyright applies to that material, which makes perfect sense. So, the evidence at hand from here in the US is that there is (at least) one version of RDH4 that appears to be fair game. Andre makes a blanket statement to the contrary. The burden of proof is on him to prove his statement and not by mere repetition that it is so. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to share RAT with copyright thieves and their apologists
Once more Flipper gives us the pretense that American copyright law is
more restrictive than Australian copyright law. I already answered that silly, ignorant argument in a post in the thread "RDH and Audio Cyclopedia": On Oct 1, 12:03 am, flipper wrote: Go to hell Oh dear. Lost the argument then, sonny? The facts are that American copyright since the Sonny Bono law of 1978 had been more generous to authors than Australian law but that in 2004 with the AUSFTA (a free trade agreement between the two nations), the Australian position was brought into line with the American position, which had long since more closely reflected the EU position. Among other things the 70-year rule (copyright runs for 70 years after the author's death) was extended to all works still in copyright in Australia as well as in the USA, where it already existed. Flipper's slipshod contortions to prove that American copyright law is more restrictive than Australian is exactly the opposite of the truth. The RDH4 was in copyright in 2004 and the term was accordingly extended to some period extending to 70 years after the death of the last author. That moment cannot arrive before 2024 at the earliest (only under the assumption that all the authors were dead at publication -- very unlikely); for the *substantially revised* edition that the thieves stole, it is likely that the earliest date at which the RDH4 can enter the public domain is 2038. It may even be possible under American law, since it was a corporately owned book, to claim the protection of the 95-year term from publication for such books, and then it will be a fine matter to decide if the first public domain date is 2048 or 2062. We are now in 2007. The RDH is in copyright for *at least* another 17 years, possibly even for another nearly half-century. Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky and all their mirrors are thieves both of the copyright belonging to cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 and of the physical property of the setting which they have stolen and are giving away for their own profit. Flipper, Phread, Krueger, Worthless Peter Wieck, and all the other apologists for the thieves are committing an immoral act. Andre Jute Expert. Moral. Plainspeaking. PS For students of the slimier manifestations of deceit, this from Flipper takes the cake. First, I say: The copyright owner has been identified: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Then Flipper claims Their copyright notice is on their work. What he's trying to do here is to distinguish the 1997 Newnes edition as a separate copyright property. It isn't, it is a continuation of the first copyright holder. It is the proof that the RDH is in copyright, and it ties that copyright to a particular legitimate owner. I keep showing it to Flipper but be keeps refusing to engage with the concept because the moment there is an identifiable copyright holder, the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky are guilty, and so are their mirrors, and so are their apologists like Flipper himself. Here's the full exchange with the anonymous Flipper: On Oct 1, 12:45 am, flipper wrote: On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:56:05 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: flipper wrote: On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:14:59 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: flipper wrote: On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:24:10 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: On Sep 30, 12:59 pm, the proven and confessed thief Bret Ludwig wrote: On Sep 30, 1:40 pm, Andre Jute wrote: I'm deeply ashamed to have on my hobby group RAT not only obdurate thieves of the RDH, but a very large group of vocal, immoral apologists for these thieves who use smoke and personal abuse to cover up the fact that they must know, if they read all the literature they claim to have read, that neither they nor the thieves can prove the RDH4 is out of copyright. In the last week we have seen more lying twists and turns -- performed by sudden self-declared "copyright experts" to make an immoral theft committed by Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky sound right -- than in an entire corkscrew factory. The facts are these: 1. It is incumbent on the party wishing to publish a book as out of copyright or in the public domain to prove that it is in the public domain. The copyright owners of the RDH, Reed, are known and have been known for ten years. No effort has been made by the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky to approach to approach Reed and acquire a license, which is the first thing honest people do. No effort has been made by the fellow travellers and apologists for thieves such as Bret Ludwig and the anonymous Flipper to approach Reed and determine the facts because they don't want to draw attention to their little friends the thieves. They are all taking the attitude that they can steal anyone's property and then dare them to come claim it back -- soiled and diminished, of course. Bull****, bull****, bull****. But how can it be bull**** if it is the law, Bratwig? The law is clearly as I state it. You can find the issue of onus of proof on any copyright site. Because fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point on view, 'Jutes Law' is not the law of any country. Good golly, and you pretend to argue morality with me, Flipflop? You're the morality chest thumper. Civics 101: the owner of property does not have to prove anything to thieves invading his property. That is a basic assumption of every property law. But, since we\re speaking of Australian copyright law, I live in the U.S. and U.S. law applies here. Living in the US isn't a license to steal.. No one said it did and abiding by U.S. copyright law is not 'stealing'. I have explained to you several times that reciprocity agreements mean that Australian books are protected in the US to the same extent as they would be in Australia. Yes, you've repeated that falsehood many times and it's still just as false as it was the first time. It was not in effect at the time and it is not retroactive and I've explained to *you* that it is quite possible for something to be out of copyright in one country while not in the other. and you insist on your right to be exposed as unsophisticated or even stupid, here we go: "the onus in infringement proceedings is on the defendant to show that copyright does not subsist or is not owned by the person stated in the notice" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...wnership_of_co... Hmm. It looks like Jute's Law is the law in every civilized counry, including Ausralia. In this case it means that to escape liability the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky must prove the RDH is in the public domain , Only if you get them in an Australian Court. I see. You think that living in the US is a license to steal. It's very simply And Australian courts adjudicate Australian law, not U.S. courts. Actually, you're wrong. They can be charged wherever they live, including the US. Not under Australian Law they can't. And the meaning of my comment stands regardless of the court. *That* is where 'proof' may be required, not to you. which they haven't even tried to do. Maybe because you ain't an Australian Court, nor a legitimate copyright claimant to the work in question, nor anyone with the slightest shred of authority on the matter. Why do I need some enforceable authority to be disgusted at thieves stealing and scum defending them for spurious reasons? You can be disgusted with your own toe nails for all I care but no one is obligated to provide you with 'proof' of a damn thing. Put in plain English, since you do so love making 'translations', nobody need 'prove' a damn thing to you. Well, if you think you need not prove anything to me, Slipshod, what are you doing in this thread? You really have difficulty understanding the difference between 'obligatory' and voluntary, do you? We'd also be happy to accept proof from any of the apologists for thieves like you, Slipshod, sorry, I mean Flipflop, oh, damn, Flipper! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._copyright_law "For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Library of Congress Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated in 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain." I've already dealt with this meretrious piece of crap: And falsely. "Ugh. You're an amateur, Slipshod, and one with poor comprehension of your mother tongue at that. You cannot even do simple arithmetic. "There was no need for registration. The RDH was not published in the USA until 1967 and 1967 + 28 = 1995, well after the renewal requirement was abolished. Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code Chapter 1 Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright 101. Definitions "Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." You simply don't know what the hell you're blowing smoke about. Tough luck self righteous name calling smoke blower. And tomorrow I shall still be righteous Make that self righteous name calling smoke blower and you'll finally have gotten something right. and you will stand exposed as a slimy, and pretty incompetent, apologist for thieves. Are those enough names for you? Someone expressing an opinion is only a "slimy, and pretty incompetent, apologist for thieves" to self righteous name calling smoke blowers. We all know now that it is an impossible proof, because all those authors of the RDH weren't dead less than a handful of years after publication, and the copyright lasts for 70 years after the last of them died/dies. Irrelevant in this country to works published in 1953. Wasn't published in the US until 1967. You should check the facts sonny. But let's look at it from another angle: Sorry 'sonny' Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code Chapter 1 Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright 101. Definitions "Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." Irrelevant in this country to works published in 1953. Actually, perfectly relevant under the AUSFTA. Didn't exist in 1953 It doesn't matter which way you cut it, sonny, the RDH4 is protected under both Australian law and American law. You haven't a clue. There are some exceptions. For instance, you claim that the RDH4 is work for hire (it isn't, but never mind); in that case, under AUSFTA, Didn't exist in 1953. it is possibly protected by American law for 95 years from 1967. Suck on that, sonny. 28 years from first publication, renewable for a second term, if specifically reregistered. Alterd in 1976 and again in 1992. The net result is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...w#Duration_of_... For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Library of Congress Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated in 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain. We all know now that the copyright holder is cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Their copyright notice is on their work. No. You think it's printed on thin air or floating in the aether? Their ownership of the copyright to the RDH4 is proclaimed by that notice. Your attempts at sophistry are as slipshod as your research. The notice is explicit and printed on ... read more » |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 1, 5:50 am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote: On Sep 30, 1:40 pm, Andre Jute wrote: I'm deeply ashamed to have on my hobby group RAT not only obdurate thieves of the RDH, but a very large group of vocal, immoral apologists for these thieves who use smoke and personal abuse to cover up the fact that they must know, if they read all the literature they claim to have read, that neither they nor the thieves can prove the RDH4 is out of copyright. In the last week we have seen more lying twists and turns -- performed by sudden self-declared "copyright experts" to make an immoral theft committed by Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky sound right -- than in an entire corkscrew factory. The facts are these: 1. It is incumbent on the party wishing to publish a book as out of copyright or in the public domain to prove that it is in the public domain. The copyright owners of the RDH, Reed, are known and have been known for ten years. No effort has been made by the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky to approach to approach Reed and acquire a license, which is the first thing honest people do. No effort has been made by the fellow travellers and apologists for thieves such as Bret Ludwig and the anonymous Flipper to approach Reed and determine the facts because they don't want to draw attention to their little friends the thieves. They are all taking the attitude that they can steal anyone's property and then dare them to come claim it back -- soiled and diminished, of course. Bull****, bull****, bull****. No one has made any secret of this. The posters MAY have written the company and asked and may not and quite frankly the matter is between the two of them. Feel free, by all means, to send them a letter and let them know this is happening, although you and I both know they do. Any publishing company of any size has people paid full time to ferret out copyright violations and if you don't believe me post something that IS protected and see what happens. You and your ISP will find out tout suite. The only reasonable conclusion is that ALL the books on the popular servers such as BAMA and pmillett.com are kosher. In fact Pete Millett did accidentally put one title up that was in copyright, he was asked to remove it, and he did so promptly. What more can you ask???? Just because nobody appears to have persued ppl posting RDH4 online doesn't mean that its not illegal. We just would like to know what the real status of RDH4 copyright is. Andre says it'd be in the public domain after 2037. There are various possibilities with various editions. There was a first RDH4 in 1953 and that could run out of copyright any time after 2024. The revised and enlarged edition could have been first published as late as 1967 (I don't know the precise history there) and that come into the public domain 70 years after the death of the last author who contributed towards it, so theoreticaly from 2038 onwards (you start counting the 70 years from the year after the author dies). If what Flipper claims is right, the RDH4 could even be entitled in the hands of a quick lawyer to the US protection for corporately-owned literary works of 95 years from publication, which would put the date back to 2048-2062. Poor Bratwig; by opening this debate up by putting those thefts in my face, has achieved exactly the opposite effect: everyone now knows the RDH4 is in copyright and will remain so for a very long time. Anyone with any business sense would have known this from the hint I keep publishing: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Professional publishers do not waste their time with short-lived rights... You are saying its in the public domain now, and has been for awhile. Where is the proof? The evidence is all the other way. 2. After new reciprocity arrangements in 2004 between Australia and the USA to bring them in line with the EU arrangements, the copyright of a book by an Australian author is virtually universally for 70 years from his death, given only that he was alive on 1 January 1957. That Reed was able to copyright in 1997 a reprint of the RDH4 leads presumptively to the conclusion that one or more relevant authors of the RDH were alive on New Year's Day 1957; it would be perverse to assume that all the authors of a multi-author book like the RDH were dead less than four years after first publication. Therefore the question of copyright of the earliest edition of the RDH4 in 1953 doesn't even arise until 2037 at the earliest. That's the authoritative version, the King James Bible of copyright law, the thing reduced to its utter essence. Bull****. If my server is not in Australia, Australian law matters only to the degree my country will reciprocate with enforcement of the law. Australia has a lot of ****ed up laws that are communist and indecent as we all know. As do most other countries including the USA. I could say that the USA has a lot of "****ed up laws" which thankfully Australia does not have. For example, we have what are strict gun control laws, and compared to the carnage in the USA with Americans shooting Americans, Australia is a much safer place to live with regard to guns. You don't even need to go to gun law to know that Australian law is more thoughtful and better balanced. In my opinion, a law that many may find petty and irritating, is the greatest of all the gifts of Australian lawmakers, as fine a bunch of no-nonsense intellectual as you can hope to meet. The law I like so much is the one which forces people to vote in elections on pain of a fine. The fine is trivial but the principle is brilliant. It breeds involvement in the political process of the nation. It gives everyone a stake. It is responsible in a good part for Australians walking tall and wide. The Communists of Australia have NEVER been able to get their numbers above a small token cohort of anti establishmentist wingers who have always been unable to get support from the wider community, and laws we have do not have any history due to the legacy of any past communist legislators who made it into parliament. Some may equate Labour Party policy as being communist, but really Labour has never been much different to the Democrats in the US, and not a bad thing, considering the the swing away from Rebublicans at present. ( I cannot be any briefer in comparing US politics to Oz, and obviously have left out about 10 million words to give approximate credence to my simplistic statements ). While communists were often the lone voice of social conscience at times in Oz history rather like the Greens are now, most ppl in Oz could see there was ZERO benefit in adopting policies of Russia or China in earlier decades. Even during the Depression, when the hope that communism could "save us" was likely to appeal, most people saw right through communism, along with the nationalism in Germany, Italy, and Japan. Unlike the McCarthy era where in the US the Communists were persued as vermin by authorities, Oz has had tolerance. We actually have had a long history of tolerance, and our country has been a democracy for much longer than many others. Where a difference of opinion exists, we tend to talk it out over a beer in a pub, agree to disagree, and have a vote on the issues. We have never needed to have a civil war to solve statewide differences of opinions. The worst thing we did was build 5 different railway guages in different states, and this most stupid arrangement was due to absurd laws made by people diabolically opposed to communism ( and indeed to any idea of national community and co-operation ) Maybe if we'd have had a few commos who made it into state and fed governments, perhaps they may have prevented the stupidities of their alternatives. It is the height of arrogance to belittle the laws of another country while the ones of your own could be argued to be so onerous and insubstantial. Pull the log out of your eye before poking a stick into another's. Feel welcome to spend a few years in Oz, and perhaps your views may become more fairly educated. Immigration won't let Bratwig in. Damn right too. Any wishful weaselling about a million unlikely concatenations of events, and doubletalk about superceded versions of copyright laws, both of them smokescreens blown by Flipper, or triumphalist crap that repeated thefts pass ownership of the stolen property to the thieves, as proposed by the proven and confessed thief Bret Ludwig, are just more illustrations of why amateurs shouldn't mess in the deep waters of copyright law. None of the apologia for thieves can overcome the facts of copyright, numbered 1 and 2 above, where these two immoral clowns, and the rest of the amateurs and dabblers, should review them often. If you can't understand all the implications, then that lack of understanding defines you as an amateur and you should shut the **** up. I have earned my living by copyrights for fifty years this year, and in that time I have met some mildly irritating idiots and expensive ignoramuses, but never a set of such self-serving, self-deluding, lying, thieving crooks as on RAT in this instance. Andre Jute Embarrassed to know some of you Then get the **** off this newsgroup, you insane mountebank. Why make a command to another that is 100% likely to be ignored? I invite you to calm down, and think logically how you could provide proof for your position. I won't hold my breath, and forecast that nobody will proove anything; But i've always considered that full resolution of a problem never ever occurs..... This situation is resolved, Patrick. Those three thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky stole the copyright of the RDH4 from cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 They and their mirrors are thieves. Their apologists are immoral scum. What we have now is immoral scum explaining to me how unpopular I am for telling the truth out loud. Watch me worry. Andre has merely alleged ppl are stealing RDH4 and are in breach of copyright laws. I'd like to see a letter from the owner of RDH4 copyright stating what is the real status of that copyright. I've been very careful not to aks them Patrick. I imagine those three thieves have wives and children. I wouldn't want to be in the way when a major publisher decides to make an example of someone. Andre Jute Creator I don't expect perfection in groups or the people in them, and shame isn't an emotion I can easily feel over this RDH4 issue. The more intimately people get to know each other, the more they see reasons to be embarrassed or ashamed; its an unavoidable part of life. Our Government has agreed to go along with George Bush in his very ill managed war in Iraq. Thousands of Iraquis have died, and 4 millions out of 22 milions have left Iraq, and face a very uncertain future. Its all over oil of course. I could say I am ashamed and embarrassed to be associated with all the people of the US because of where their leaders have led us, but I am not; my goodwill takes some shaking to knock it over. I meet the nicest people who think greenhouse isn't happening. Some believe in God, and in the afterlife in Heaven. If they knew me well, maybe they'd condemn me for my sins, but I have not the time to care, and I certainly don't have time to search for something to loathe in others, and have time only scrape a living from capitalizing on my efforts rather than depending on a commo government to hand me my living. We had a nice public holiday here today, and I laced up two new bicycle wheels. People say those rotten Socialists and Communists invented public holidays, but they don't want to give up having the days off. Arguments about RDH4 copyright were not on my mind. But the shops were mainly all open, so not everyone had the day off. People in Oz have a choice about it. Patrick Turner. |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 1, 7:09 am, Worthless Peter Wieck wrote:
On Oct 1, 9:23 am, Patrick Turner wrote: Its better that all those who disagree with Andre simply seek the proof required to end the angst. Patrick: Last I looked, we are not living under Roman Law (burden of proof rests on the accused). Andre raised the spectre, it is incumbent upon him to prove his contentions. So far, he has been remarkably reticent in doing so, but not so reticent in accusing individuals of actionable crimes. Where I come from, that is Libel. What's this, Worthless, janitor logic? Property belongs to the presumptive owner. Thieves found in possession must explain how they came by it. Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky are thieves by their own account on Gregg's netsite. Their mirrors are thieves by the same account and by the laws of the land where the mirrors are situated. I don't need proof: they have admitted the theft by cutting the proof of ownership off the copy they distribute. In any event, you have clearly not understood that the law on copyright demands that the wannabe public domain distributor must prove that the property is no longer in copyright. At this moment, I know of at least four (4) sources of RDH4 published on the web "for-free", This is the dumb argument we keep seeing from immoral scum like you, Worthless: "We have stolenit so often, now it is ours." one of which happens to be through Rutgers University. One would doubt that Rutgers, being a state-related institution (and in RCA's home state) would lend itself to that were copyright an issue. LOL. This meretricious bit of fluff is so transparent, you should go into the poor-quality plastic business, Worthless. We all know that no university knows how many copyright thefts their students and staff commit daily. All that the name of Rutgers on one of the mirrors means is that no one has yet told Rutgers that they are accomplices to a crime. So, I see repeated evidence that copyright is not an issue in this case. I do see a copyrighted RDH4 being published currently at about $80 a clip, but it specifically includes updated material, revisions, additions and considerable commentary *NOT* part of the original RDH4. "We have stolenit so often, now it is ours." -- Worthless Wiecky. Actually, dickhead, the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky stole the revised and expanded edition of the RDH4, not the thinner 1953 edition. And in the process they also stole the physical setting of the book. They're double thieves, and so are their mirrors. And their apologists, like you and the equally slipshod if slightly brighter Flipper, are immoral accomplices, which is a polite way of say slime. I expect that the copyright applies to that material, which makes perfect sense. So, the evidence at hand from here in the US is that there is (at least) one version of RDH4 that appears to be fair game. Andre Since when are you on first name terms with me, dickhead? makes a blanket statement to the contrary. The burden of proof is on him to prove his statement and not by mere repetition that it is so. Oh, I have voluntarily provided the proof again and again and again. But I don't have to. The law is that the thieves must prove ownership. But here is the proof of their theft once more, for those qualified to understand what it means" cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Thanks, Worthless, for the opportunity once more to describe the thieves and their apologists as what they are, thieves and scum. I bet these thieves are hoarse from praying aloud that their "friends" would get some brains and shut the **** up. |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 1, 10:54 am, Andre Jute wrote:
makes a blanket statement to the contrary. The burden of proof is on him to prove his statement and not by mere repetition that it is so. Oh, I have voluntarily provided the proof again and again and again. But I don't have to. The law is that the thieves must prove ownership. But here is the proof of their theft once more, for those qualified to understand what it means" Repetition. Repetition. Repetition. But, no actual facts specific to the issue at hand. Typical smoke and mirrors, chaff and diversion. Andre, you are one loose screw, dood boer, as it were. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:09:24 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Oct 1, 9:23 am, Patrick Turner wrote: Its better that all those who disagree with Andre simply seek the proof required to end the angst. Patrick: Last I looked, we are not living under Roman Law (burden of proof rests on the accused). Andre raised the spectre, it is incumbent upon him to prove his contentions. So far, he has been remarkably reticent in doing so, but not so reticent in accusing individuals of actionable crimes. Where I come from, that is Libel. Unfortunately, where copyright is concerned, the burden of proof of public ownership does rest with the "accused". ;-) The Berne Convention makes all works copyright automatically, so you have to prove that the work is either out of copyright or (in the UK) that the copyright holder cannot reasonably be traced. At this moment, I know of at least four (4) sources of RDH4 published on the web "for-free", one of which happens to be through Rutgers University. One would doubt that Rutgers, being a state-related institution (and in RCA's home state) would lend itself to that were copyright an issue. So, I see repeated evidence that copyright is not an issue in this case. I do see a copyrighted RDH4 being published currently at about $80 a clip, but it specifically includes updated material, revisions, additions and considerable commentary *NOT* part of the original RDH4. I expect that the copyright applies to that material, which makes perfect sense. So, the evidence at hand from here in the US is that there is (at least) one version of RDH4 that appears to be fair game. Andre makes a blanket statement to the contrary. The burden of proof is on him to prove his statement and not by mere repetition that it is so. I'm finding this intriguing... Applegate (http://www.applegate.co.uk/company/10/90/125.htm) reveals the following: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing (REPP) Halley Court Jordan Hill Oxford OX2 8EI Tel: 01865 311366 FAX: 01865 310043 No URL given. Another site (Hero) gives this: Heinemann World - the world wide web site of Reed Educational and Professional Publishing. Following the above link leads to this web site for educational books: http://www.harcourt.co.uk/Home.aspx and this address: Harcourt, Halley Court, Jordan Hill, Oxford, OX2 8EJ, UK Tel: +44 1865 888084 www.harcourt.co.uk Note that the FAX number, phone number & postcode don't tie up with those on applegate and that there is no mention of Heinemann World on the site. Of course, they may have forgotten to update Applegate... I suspect that anyone attempting to find the current copyright holder would be stonewalled with "This isn't really our department. We'll ring you back later when we have researched this" and no followup reply. Once there have been a few big moves in a business it gets increasingly difficult to get this sort of information. There's nothing like adding a bit more complication to the mix. :-) From that gem of accuracy, Wikipedia: ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...opyright_lasts quote So when can one conclude that a book is in the public domain? In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain. In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, *except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country* (see How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed for more details). /quote So, if the original publication was Australian then US law may not apply, no matter how old the book is. More from Wikipedia re the Berne Convention: quote The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms, as the European Union did with the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. For photography, the Berne Convention sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it hasn't been shown within 50 years after the creation. Countries under the older revisions of the treaty may choose to provide their own protection terms, and certain types of works (such as phonorecords and motion pictures) may be provided shorter terms. Although the Berne Convention states that the copyright law of the country where copyright is claimed shall be applied, article 7.8 states that "unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work", i.e. an author is normally not entitled a longer copyright abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give a longer term. This is commonly known as "the rule of the shorter term". Not all countries have accepted this rule. /quote So, assuming for the moment that REPP's copyright is valid, it seems to me that the copyright lasts for the term valid in Australia (if it is less than 70 years after the last author's death) but is subject to English law. This could be good news: (ref: http://blog.librarylaw.com/libraryla...news_orph.html) quote The United Kingdom has a provision that affects a small subset of orphan works, namely those for which it is reasonable to assume the copyright has already expired. The law provides that there is no infringement where the copyright owner cannot be found by a reasonable inquiry and where the date the copyright expired is uncertain but it is reasonable to assume that the copyright has expired.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, Sec. 57 (Eng.); see also Copyright and Related Rights Act, No. 28, 2000 Sec. 88 (Ir.); Laws of Hong Kong, Chapter 528: Copyright Ordinance, June 27, 1997 Sec. 66, available at http://www.justice.gov.hk/Home.htm . /quote Of course, it needs a "reasonable inquiry" to be made in the first place! I don't want to get involved... grin -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
The authorised version of RDH4 copyright Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 1, 12:47 pm, mick wrote:
Patrick Turner: Its better that all those who disagree with Andre simply seek the proof required to end the angst. Worthless Wiecky: Last I looked, we are not living under Roman Law (burden of proof rests on the accused). Andre raised the spectre, it is incumbent upon him to prove his contentions. So far, he has been remarkably reticent in doing so, but not so reticent in accusing individuals of actionable crimes. Where I come from, that is Libel. Now Mick says: Unfortunately, where copyright is concerned, the burden of proof of public ownership does rest with the "accused". ;-) The Berne Convention makes all works copyright automatically, so you have to prove that the work is either out of copyright or (in the UK) that the copyright holder cannot reasonably be traced. Of course, as I have been pointing out all along, the copyright owner can easily be traced by anyone who wants to. cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Reed-Elseviers is one of the largest publishers in the world. Worthless Wiecky then offers the standard mantra of copyright thieves: "We stole it so often, it now belongs to us": At this moment, I know of at least four (4) sources of RDH4 published on the web "for-free", one of which happens to be through Rutgers University. One would doubt that Rutgers, being a state-related institution (and in RCA's home state) would lend itself to that were copyright an issue. So, I see repeated evidence that copyright is not an issue in this case. I do see a copyrighted RDH4 being published currently at about $80 a clip, but it specifically includes updated material, revisions, additions and considerable commentary *NOT* part of the original RDH4. I expect that the copyright applies to that material, which makes perfect sense. So, the evidence at hand from here in the US is that there is (at least) one version of RDH4 that appears to be fair game. Andre makes a blanket statement to the contrary. The burden of proof is on him to prove his statement and not by mere repetition that it is so. cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 That's an awfully powerful statement to anyone who knows what it implies, which is everything, everywhere, and for a chunk of time into the future that may yet run into decades. Mick: I'm finding this intriguing... Applegate (http://www.applegate.co.uk/company/10/90/125.htm) reveals the following: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing (REPP) Halley Court Jordan Hill Oxford OX2 8EI Tel: 01865 311366 FAX: 01865 310043 No URL given. Another site (Hero) gives this: Heinemann World - the world wide web site of Reed Educational and Professional Publishing. Following the above link leads to this web site for educational books:http://www.harcourt.co.uk/Home.aspx and this address: Harcourt, Halley Court, Jordan Hill, Oxford, OX2 8EJ, UK Tel: +44 1865 888084www.harcourt.co.uk Note that the FAX number, phone number & postcode don't tie up with those on applegate and that there is no mention of Heinemann World on the site. Of course, they may have forgotten to update Applegate... For insiders, the incestuous marriages and division swaps of publishers as the conglomerates jockey for market share is a subject of neverending fascination. The Heinnemann textbook division once belong to the Heinemann group which also included my own London publishers of record, the literary house of Secker & Warburg; my agent became first publishing director of Secker and then Deputy Chairman of Heinemann. I must have blinked while Harcourt, a large US publisher was in and out of there... I suspect that anyone attempting to find the current copyright holder would be stonewalled with "This isn't really our department. We'll ring you back later when we have researched this" and no followup reply. Once there have been a few big moves in a business it gets increasingly difficult to get this sort of information. Not at all. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, and all their equally guilty mirrors and all their immoral apologists, need only write to the Rights Director at Newnes, the last division to use the Reed copyright on the RDH4, at the address you give -- and they will be instantly told that the book is in copyright and it is illegal to offer it on the net. There's nothing like adding a bit more complication to the mix. :-) LOL. There's no complication for insiders. It is when amateurs start messing in copyright that it gets to be amusing. Copyright on the surface can be made to look easy, as early on I did make it look for John Byrns when he had a simple question that could be simply answer. But the moment an amateur tries to get a firm hold of some very subtle concepts the quicksands envelops him and sucks him in, as we have been seeing in the floundering of Flipflop Slipshod Flipper for instance. First Flipflop was an instant Pinkertonian expert on Australian copyright law, then he got burned, so now he whines that he lives in the US and is only interested in US copyright law, which I instantly demonstrated he hasn't grasped either. I've been at it fifty years this years, signing my first book contract at 12, and I still don't know all the ins and outs of copyright law, so Pinterton hit-and-run methods on neddy-netsites are guaranteed to make the hitandrunner look stupid, as his own hubris did to Flipflop. From that gem of accuracy, Wikipedia: ;-)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...opyright_lasts quote So when can one conclude that a book is in the public domain? In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain. In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, *except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country* (see How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed for more details). /quote So, if the original publication was Australian then US law may not apply, no matter how old the book is. Oh, the RDH4 was without any doubt in copyright in Australia, which means across the rest of the world including the US, when the AUSFTA (which Flipflop Slipshod claims is irrelevant!) became effective. That means 70 years, starting from the year after the last author dies. More from Wikipedia re the Berne Convention: quote The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms, as the European Union did with the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. For photography, the Berne Convention sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it hasn't been shown within 50 years after the creation. Countries under the older revisions of the treaty may choose to provide their own protection terms, and certain types of works (such as phonorecords and motion pictures) may be provided shorter terms. Although the Berne Convention states that the copyright law of the country where copyright is claimed shall be applied, article 7.8 states that "unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work", i.e. an author is normally not entitled a longer copyright abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give a longer term. This is commonly known as "the rule of the shorter term". Not all countries have accepted this rule. /quote The term of copyright is now 70 years from the author's death in all English-speaking countries that matter. So, assuming for the moment that REPP's copyright is valid, You can bet your house on it, Mick. One of the ten largest publishers in the world do not make newbie mistakes about something as important as copyright. In any event, the law is that they as the publisher and declared copyright holder are the presumptive owners, so anyone else (like the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky) must prove the contrary... it seems to me that the copyright lasts for the term valid in Australia (if it is less than 70 years after the last author's death) but is subject to English law. This could be good news: (ref:http://blog.librarylaw.com/libraryla...news_orph.html) quote The United Kingdom has a provision that affects a small subset of orphan works, namely those for which it is reasonable to assume the copyright has already expired. The law provides that there is no infringement where the copyright owner cannot be found by a reasonable inquiry and where the date the copyright expired is uncertain but it is reasonable to assume that the copyright has expired.\8\ It is not reasonable to assume the copyright has expired on the RDH4. The copyright holders Reed brought out a new edition published by their subsidiary Newnes as recently as 1997. Every copy of this edition contains the copyright notice: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Both Reed and Newnes have entries in all the professional authors' references from both sides of the Atlantic on my shelves. The slightest enquiry in 2003 when Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky stole the RDH4 would have led them to Newnes and Reed. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky don't show either the title page or the reverse on which the copyright information is for their stolen copy of the RDH. One has to wonder why not. Is it because they copied the Newnes reprint of 1997 and thus knew with any enquiry that they were committing theft? Either way, we can confidently assume, and a court will certainly assume, that the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky made no enquiry at all. Their abuse of me for pointing out where they should make the enquiry confirms that they are deliberate, willful thieves who know they are thieves and do not intend changing their thieving ways. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, Sec. 57 (Eng.); see also Copyright and Related Rights Act, No. 28, 2000 Sec. 88 (Ir.); Laws of Hong Kong, Chapter 528: Copyright Ordinance, June 27, 1997 Sec. 66, available athttp://www.justice.gov.hk/Home.htm. /quote Of course, it needs a "reasonable inquiry" to be made in the first place! I don't want to get involved... grin None was made. Does anyone really believe that regulars on RAT and other audio conferences, such as the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, never heard of the Newnes reprint of the RDH4 in a full six years? -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web:http://www.nascom.infohttp://mixpix.batcave.net Nice piece of work, Mick. I was doling the information out a lot more slowly to get the arseholes to expose themselves, but you got all the really important stuff in one fell swoop. There really is no substitute for brains, is there? Andre Jute Expert |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 1, 5:57 pm, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:23:59 GMT, Patrick Turner wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Sep 30, 9:53 pm, Andre Jute wrote: Perhaps they share Bret Ludwig's xenophobic, racist attitude that all other nations exist solely to be the victims of theft by Americans. Andre Jute Relentless rigour And Once again, you are using the Bellman's Proof - proof by repetition - but you are not offering one scintilla of independently verifiable proof. The only "relentless rigour" you are displaying at this point is the tiresome product of your own arrogance and ossified thinking process. Keep in mind that despite your fervent wishes to the contrary, most of us in this group function under some iteration of "English Law" which has amongst its first principles that the burden of proof rests on the accuser. So, go ahead. Prove something. For once. You haven't even started on actual proof so far, just your representations and closely held beliefs, offered without substantiation or source. Quoting from the law is meaningless if it does not apply. And that is what you must prove... that it applies and that it applies in exactly this case, and do so by citing independently verifiable sources that prove just that. Can't do it? Then shut up and go away. Sit on your fingers until something actually having to do with tubes comes to what is left of your dim, dusty little mind. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA And where Peter, is any proof of anything about the real and actual status of copyright of RDH4 in your posts? People can scream their heads off and swear all day long at Andre raising doubts about the legality of downloading RDH4. That achieves zero. Its better that all those who disagree with Andre simply seek the proof required to end the angst. I've posted U.S Law. You posted some carefully selected quotes. You tried to make out that that the RDH4 was work for hire and you misquoted the term of copyright. You're blowing smoke on behalf of thieves, Flipflop. But to the point of 'required', that is a standard sophist tactic, to 'require' what cannot reasonably be provided. As just one example, how does one get a reply from dead people? What would induce a company that is no longer in the business to research 60 year old records for you? And what benefit to them would it be to give 'free legal advise'? Or say anything that could, potentially, be used in a court of law? Are you obdurate or merely stupid, Flipper? You have been told again and again and again that the law on copyright is presumptive: it presumes, without any further action, that the creator is the copyright holder, or that his employer is, or whoever he passed the copyright on to. Since that ownership of a property right is presumptive, those who claim it doesn't exist must prove that it doesn't exist. That is the position of the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, the mirrors of Gregg's netsite, and their apologists like you: If you don't like the ownership of the presumptive owner cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 then prove the book is out of copyright. Andre Jute Expert |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
The authorised version of RDH4 copyright Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 1, 5:42 pm, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:33:35 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: On Oct 1, 12:47 pm, mick wrote: Patrick Turner: Its better that all those who disagree with Andre simply seek the proof required to end the angst. Worthless Wiecky: Last I looked, we are not living under Roman Law (burden of proof rests on the accused). Andre raised the spectre, it is incumbent upon him to prove his contentions. So far, he has been remarkably reticent in doing so, but not so reticent in accusing individuals of actionable crimes. Where I come from, that is Libel. Now Mick says: Unfortunately, where copyright is concerned, the burden of proof of public ownership does rest with the "accused". ;-) The Berne Convention makes all works copyright automatically, so you have to prove that the work is either out of copyright or (in the UK) that the copyright holder cannot reasonably be traced. Of course, as I have been pointing out all along, the copyright owner can easily be traced by anyone who wants to. cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Reed-Elseviers is one of the largest publishers in the world. Worthless Wiecky then offers the standard mantra of copyright thieves: "We stole it so often, it now belongs to us": At this moment, I know of at least four (4) sources of RDH4 published on the web "for-free", one of which happens to be through Rutgers University. One would doubt that Rutgers, being a state-related institution (and in RCA's home state) would lend itself to that were copyright an issue. So, I see repeated evidence that copyright is not an issue in this case. I do see a copyrighted RDH4 being published currently at about $80 a clip, but it specifically includes updated material, revisions, additions and considerable commentary *NOT* part of the original RDH4. I expect that the copyright applies to that material, which makes perfect sense. So, the evidence at hand from here in the US is that there is (at least) one version of RDH4 that appears to be fair game. Andre makes a blanket statement to the contrary. The burden of proof is on him to prove his statement and not by mere repetition that it is so. cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 That's an awfully powerful statement to anyone who knows what it implies, which is everything, everywhere, and for a chunk of time into the future that may yet run into decades. Mick: I'm finding this intriguing... Applegate (http://www.applegate.co.uk/company/10/90/125.htm) reveals the following: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing (REPP) Halley Court Jordan Hill Oxford OX2 8EI Tel: 01865 311366 FAX: 01865 310043 No URL given. Another site (Hero) gives this: Heinemann World - the world wide web site of Reed Educational and Professional Publishing. Following the above link leads to this web site for educational books:http://www.harcourt.co.uk/Home.aspx and this address: Harcourt, Halley Court, Jordan Hill, Oxford, OX2 8EJ, UK Tel: +44 1865 888084www.harcourt.co.uk Note that the FAX number, phone number & postcode don't tie up with those on applegate and that there is no mention of Heinemann World on the site. Of course, they may have forgotten to update Applegate... For insiders, the incestuous marriages and division swaps of publishers as the conglomerates jockey for market share is a subject of neverending fascination. The Heinnemann textbook division once belong to the Heinemann group which also included my own London publishers of record, the literary house of Secker & Warburg; my agent became first publishing director of Secker and then Deputy Chairman of Heinemann. I must have blinked while Harcourt, a large US publisher was in and out of there... I suspect that anyone attempting to find the current copyright holder would be stonewalled with "This isn't really our department. We'll ring you back later when we have researched this" and no followup reply. Once there have been a few big moves in a business it gets increasingly difficult to get this sort of information. Not at all. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, and all their equally guilty mirrors and all their immoral apologists, need only write to the Rights Director at Newnes, the last division to use the Reed copyright on the RDH4, at the address you give -- and they will be instantly told that the book is in copyright and it is illegal to offer it on the net. There's nothing like adding a bit more complication to the mix. :-) LOL. There's no complication for insiders. It is when amateurs start messing in copyright that it gets to be amusing. Copyright on the surface can be made to look easy, as early on I did make it look for John Byrns when he had a simple question that could be simply answer. But the moment an amateur tries to get a firm hold of some very subtle concepts the quicksands envelops him and sucks him in, as we have been seeing in the floundering of Flipflop Slipshod Flipper for instance. First Flipflop was an instant Pinkertonian expert on Australian copyright law, then he got burned, so now he whines that he lives in the US and is only interested in US copyright law, which I instantly demonstrated he hasn't grasped either. I've been at it fifty years this years, signing my first book contract at 12, and I still don't know all the ins and outs of copyright law, so Pinterton hit-and-run methods on neddy-netsites are guaranteed to make the hitandrunner look stupid, as his own hubris did to Flipflop. From that gem of accuracy, Wikipedia: ;-)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...opyright_lasts quote So when can one conclude that a book is in the public domain? In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain. In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, *except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country* (see How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed for more details). /quote So, if the original publication was Australian then US law may not apply, no matter how old the book is. Oh, the RDH4 was without any doubt in copyright in Australia, which means across the rest of the world including the US, when the AUSFTA (which Flipflop Slipshod claims is irrelevant!) became effective. False, as is most of the smoke you blow in this message. Not at all false, and if you think I am in error on any other point, you should specify it, sonny, and not make McCarthyite generalized claims. I'm not wearing that crap, and I'll ride you down every time I see it. AUSFTA had no effect whatsoever on 1953 U.S. copyright law. 1953 US law is entirely irrelevant. The purpose of AUSFTA was among other things to bring Australian copyright lengths up to the US standard. To facilitate that all books that were in copyright in Australia were given the same protection in the US. And to stop you in your tracks before you once more give me that sorry, worn, lying crap about how a book cannot have a longer copyright than permitted by USA law, try this on for size, from your favourite wiki: *except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country* That means that a book that was in copyright in Australia at the time of the AUSFTA is now in copyright to the full extent of the 70-year rule in the States. Suck on that, sonny. Of course, your insistence on the 1953 date is yet more smoke you immorally blow over the thefts of Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky. The later, revised and expanded edition got a new copyright lease simply as a practical matter because the new material protects the whole book. It is the last of these revised and expanded editions that they stole, and it is the whole book they stole so the date can be any time up to publication of the last revised and expanded edition. They ****ed only themselves by ripping away the title page and copyright page before stealing someone else's property. (It is also the detail that defines Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky as deliberate, knowing thieves and fraudulent converters.) Finally, they didn't steal it in the States in the first instance, so your arrogant insistence on the primacy of US law is another smokescreen. You're not doing too well blowing smoke for thieves, Slipslop. I warned you when this began that copyrights are more complicated than they appear to a soundbiter like you, but you were a smartarse. Next time, listen better and talk less. That means 70 years, starting from the year after the last author dies. More from Wikipedia re the Berne Convention: quote The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms, as the European Union did with the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. For photography, the Berne Convention sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it hasn't been shown within 50 years after the creation. Countries under the older revisions of the treaty may choose to provide their own protection terms, and certain types of works (such as phonorecords and motion pictures) may be provided shorter terms. Although the Berne Convention states that the copyright law of the country where copyright is claimed shall be applied, article 7.8 states that "unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work", i.e. an author is normally not entitled a longer copyright abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give a longer term. This is commonly known as "the rule of the shorter term". Not all countries have accepted this rule. /quote The term of copyright is now 70 years from the author's death in all English-speaking countries that matter. So, assuming for the moment that REPP's copyright is valid, You can bet your house on it, Mick. One of the ten largest publishers in the world do not make newbie mistakes about something as important as copyright. In any event, the law is that they as the publisher and declared copyright holder are the presumptive owners, so anyone else (like the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky) must prove the contrary... it seems to me that the copyright lasts for the term valid in Australia (if it is less than 70 years after the last author's death) but is subject to English law. This could be good news: (ref:http://blog.librarylaw.com/libraryla...news_orph.html) quote The United Kingdom has a provision that affects a small subset of orphan works, namely those for which it is reasonable to assume the copyright has already expired. The law provides that there is no infringement where the copyright owner cannot be found by a reasonable inquiry and where the date the copyright expired is uncertain but it is reasonable to assume that the copyright has expired.\8\ It is not reasonable to assume the copyright has expired on the RDH4. The copyright holders Reed brought out a new edition published by their subsidiary Newnes as recently as 1997. Every copy of this edition contains the copyright notice: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Both Reed and Newnes have entries in all the professional authors' references from both sides of the Atlantic on my shelves. The slightest enquiry in 2003 when Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky stole the RDH4 would have led them to Newnes and Reed. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky don't show either the title page or the reverse on which the copyright information is for their stolen copy of the RDH. One has to wonder why not. Is it because they copied the Newnes reprint of 1997 and thus knew with any enquiry that they were committing theft? Either way, we can confidently assume, and a court will certainly assume, that the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky made no enquiry at all. Their abuse of me for pointing out where they should make the enquiry confirms that they are deliberate, willful thieves who know they are thieves and do not intend changing their thieving ways. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, Sec. 57 (Eng.); see also Copyright and Related Rights Act, No. 28, 2000 Sec. 88 (Ir.); Laws of Hong Kong, Chapter 528: Copyright Ordinance, June 27, 1997 Sec. 66, available athttp://www.justice.gov.hk/Home.htm. /quote Of course, it needs a "reasonable inquiry" to be made in the first place! I don't want to get involved... grin None was made. Does anyone really believe that regulars on RAT and other audio conferences, such as the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, never heard of the Newnes reprint of the RDH4 in a full six years? -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web:http://www.nascom.infohttp://mixpix.batcave.net Nice piece of work, Mick. I was doling the information out a lot more slowly to get the arseholes to expose themselves, but you got all the really important stuff in one fell swoop. There really is no substitute for brains, is there? Andre Jute Expert |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 1, 5:48 pm, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:50:02 GMT, Patrick Turner wrote: Bret Ludwig wrote: On Sep 30, 1:40 pm, Andre Jute wrote: I'm deeply ashamed to have on my hobby group RAT not only obdurate thieves of the RDH, but a very large group of vocal, immoral apologists for these thieves who use smoke and personal abuse to cover up the fact that they must know, if they read all the literature they claim to have read, that neither they nor the thieves can prove the RDH4 is out of copyright. In the last week we have seen more lying twists and turns -- performed by sudden self-declared "copyright experts" to make an immoral theft committed by Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky sound right -- than in an entire corkscrew factory. The facts are these: 1. It is incumbent on the party wishing to publish a book as out of copyright or in the public domain to prove that it is in the public domain. The copyright owners of the RDH, Reed, are known and have been known for ten years. No effort has been made by the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky to approach to approach Reed and acquire a license, which is the first thing honest people do. No effort has been made by the fellow travellers and apologists for thieves such as Bret Ludwig and the anonymous Flipper to approach Reed and determine the facts because they don't want to draw attention to their little friends the thieves. They are all taking the attitude that they can steal anyone's property and then dare them to come claim it back -- soiled and diminished, of course. Bull****, bull****, bull****. No one has made any secret of this. The posters MAY have written the company and asked and may not and quite frankly the matter is between the two of them. Feel free, by all means, to send them a letter and let them know this is happening, although you and I both know they do. Any publishing company of any size has people paid full time to ferret out copyright violations and if you don't believe me post something that IS protected and see what happens. You and your ISP will find out tout suite. The only reasonable conclusion is that ALL the books on the popular servers such as BAMA and pmillett.com are kosher. In fact Pete Millett did accidentally put one title up that was in copyright, he was asked to remove it, and he did so promptly. What more can you ask???? Just because nobody appears to have persued ppl posting RDH4 online doesn't mean that its not illegal. We just would like to know what the real status of RDH4 copyright is. Andre says it'd be in the public domain after 2037. You are saying its in the public domain now, and has been for awhile. Where is the proof? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...w#Duration_of_... "For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Library of Congress Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated in 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain. " It's pretty arrogant of you to assume US law applies, Flipflop. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky first stole the RDH4 in England or Canada. There are mirrors of the stolen RDH4 in several jurisdictions. But let us permit you to say your say, Slipshod. You still haven't proved that US law applies, you haven't proved that you're talking about an edition to which that law applies, you haven't proved that the edition you are talking about (1953) wasn't registered. Against that we know that the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky stole the revised, enlarged edition, which may have been published as late as 1967, and for which no reregistration was required. It doesn't matter how much smoke you try to blow over these thieves, Flipflop, they remain thieves until they do the right thing and write to the copyright holder: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 No ifs but maybes or excuses: they are thieves of a copyright held by an identifiable copyright holder. I, for one, would not go to court on the basis of a wikipedia quote but it's a hell of a lot better bet than Andre. LOL. Get a lawyer, sonny. At least that puts a cap on what your ignorance of copyright will cost you. 2. After new reciprocity arrangements in 2004 between Australia and the USA to bring them in line with the EU arrangements, the copyright of a book by an Australian author is virtually universally for 70 years from his death, given only that he was alive on 1 January 1957. That Reed was able to copyright in 1997 a reprint of the RDH4 leads presumptively to the conclusion that one or more relevant authors of the RDH were alive on New Year's Day 1957; it would be perverse to assume that all the authors of a multi-author book like the RDH were dead less than four years after first publication. Therefore the question of copyright of the earliest edition of the RDH4 in 1953 doesn't even arise until 2037 at the earliest. That's the authoritative version, the King James Bible of copyright law, the thing reduced to its utter essence. Bull****. If my server is not in Australia, Australian law matters only to the degree my country will reciprocate with enforcement of the law. Australia has a lot of ****ed up laws that are communist and indecent as we all know. As do most other countries including the USA. I could say that the USA has a lot of "****ed up laws" which thankfully Australia does not have. For example, we have what are strict gun control laws, and compared to the carnage in the USA with Americans shooting Americans, Australia is a much safer place to live with regard to guns. The Communists of Australia have NEVER been able to get their numbers above a small token cohort of anti establishmentist wingers who have always been unable to get support from the wider community, and laws we have do not have any history due to the legacy of any past communist legislators who made it into parliament. Some may equate Labour Party policy as being communist, but really Labour has never been much different to the Democrats in the US, and not a bad thing, considering the the swing away from Rebublicans at present. ( I cannot be any briefer in comparing US politics to Oz, and obviously have left out about 10 million words to give approximate credence to my simplistic statements ). While communists were often the lone voice of social conscience at times in Oz history rather like the Greens are now, most ppl in Oz could see there was ZERO benefit in adopting policies of Russia or China in earlier decades. Even during the Depression, when the hope that communism could "save us" was likely to appeal, most people saw right through communism, along with the nationalism in Germany, Italy, and Japan. Unlike the McCarthy era where in the US the Communists were persued as vermin by authorities, Oz has had tolerance. We actually have had a long history of tolerance, and our country has been a democracy for much longer than many others. Where a difference of opinion exists, we tend to talk it out over a beer in a pub, agree to disagree, and have a vote on the issues. We have never needed to have a civil war to solve statewide differences of opinions. The worst thing we did was build 5 different railway guages in different states, and this most stupid arrangement was due to absurd laws made by people diabolically opposed to communism ( and indeed to any idea of national community and co-operation ) Maybe if we'd have had a few commos who made it into state and fed governments, perhaps they may have prevented the stupidities of their alternatives. It is the height of arrogance to belittle the laws of another country while the ones of your own could be argued to be so onerous and insubstantial. Pull the log out of your eye before poking a stick into another's. Feel welcome to spend a few years in Oz, and perhaps your views may become more fairly educated. Any wishful weaselling about a million unlikely concatenations of events, and doubletalk about superceded versions of copyright laws, both of them smokescreens blown by Flipper, or triumphalist crap that repeated thefts pass ownership of the stolen property to the thieves, as proposed by the proven and confessed thief Bret Ludwig, are just more illustrations of why amateurs shouldn't mess in the deep waters of copyright law. None of the apologia for thieves can overcome the facts of copyright, numbered 1 and 2 above, where these two immoral clowns, and the rest of the amateurs and dabblers, should review them often. If you can't understand all the implications, then that lack of understanding defines you as an amateur and you should shut the **** up. I have earned my living by copyrights for fifty years this year, and in that time I have met some mildly irritating idiots and expensive ignoramuses, but never a set of such self-serving, self-deluding, lying, thieving crooks as on RAT in this instance. Andre Jute Embarrassed to know some of you Then get the **** off this newsgroup, you insane mountebank. Why make a command to another that is 100% likely to be ignored? I invite you to calm down, and think logically how you could provide proof for your position. I won't hold my breath, and forecast that nobody will proove anything; But i've always considered that full resolution of a problem never ever occurs..... Andre has merely alleged ppl are stealing RDH4 and are in breach of copyright laws. I'd like to see a letter from the owner of RDH4 copyright stating what is the real status of that copyright. I don't expect perfection in groups or the people in them, and shame isn't an emotion I can easily feel over this RDH4 issue. The more intimately people get to know each other, the more they see reasons to be embarrassed or ashamed; its an unavoidable part of life. Our Government has agreed to go along with George Bush in his very ill managed war in Iraq. Thousands of Iraquis have died, and 4 millions out of 22 milions have left Iraq, and face a very uncertain future. Its all over oil of course. I could say I am ashamed and embarrassed to be associated with all the people of the US because of where their leaders have led us, but I am not; my goodwill takes some shaking to knock it over. I meet the nicest people who think greenhouse isn't happening. Some believe in God, and in the afterlife in Heaven. If they knew me well, maybe ... read more » |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
The authorised version of RDH4 copyright Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
Flipper has now given up trying to argue about copyright law; he
simply abuses me and cuts away the relevant arguments I make. I have restored them in context so you can see for yourself why Flipper fears this particular logic so much that he doesn't want you to see it: flipper wrote: Mick: So, if the original publication was Australian then US law may not apply, no matter how old the book is. Andre Jute: Oh, the RDH4 was without any doubt in copyright in Australia, which means across the rest of the world including the US, when the AUSFTA (which Flipflop Slipshod claims is irrelevant!) became effective. Flipper: False, as is most of the smoke you blow in this message. Andre Jute Not at all false, and if you think I am in error on any other point, you should specify it, sonny, and not make McCarthyite generalized claims. I'm not wearing that crap, and I'll ride you down every time I see it. Flipper: I've already posted the laws and listening to you repeating, over and over and over, B.S. that's already been proven false is getting boring so we'll just snip it out and be done with it since nothing even remotely resembling rational thought can penetrate that solid lead head of yours. snip of same old B.S. already answered a hundred times Here are the overwhelming arguments that Flipper doesn't want you to see, restored without further comment: AUSFTA had no effect whatsoever on 1953 U.S. copyright law. 1953 US law is entirely irrelevant. The purpose of AUSFTA was among other things to bring Australian copyright lengths up to the US standard. To facilitate that all books that were in copyright in Australia were given the same protection in the US. And to stop you in your tracks before you once more give me that sorry, worn, lying crap about how a book cannot have a longer copyright than permitted by USA law, try this on for size, from your favourite wiki: *except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country* That means that a book that was in copyright in Australia at the time of the AUSFTA is now in copyright to the full extent of the 70-year rule in the States. Suck on that, sonny. Of course, your insistence on the 1953 date is yet more smoke you immorally blow over the thefts of Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky. The later, revised and expanded edition got a new copyright lease simply as a practical matter because the new material protects the whole book. It is the last of these revised and expanded editions that they stole, and it is the whole book they stole so the date can be any time up to publication of the last revised and expanded edition. They ****ed only themselves by ripping away the title page and copyright page before stealing someone else's property. (It is also the detail that defines Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky as deliberate, knowing thieves and fraudulent converters.) Finally, they didn't steal it in the States in the first instance, so your arrogant insistence on the primacy of US law is another smokescreen. You're not doing too well blowing smoke for thieves, Slipslop. I warned you when this began that copyrights are more complicated than they appear to a soundbiter like you, but you were a smartarse. Next time, listen better and talk less. Andre Jute Sauvitor in mod, fortiter in res -- family motto And here is Flipper's entire post, but with *all* his deceitful snips restored: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:50:15 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: On Oct 1, 5:42 pm, flipper wrote: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:33:35 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: On Oct 1, 12:47 pm, mick wrote: Patrick Turner: Its better that all those who disagree with Andre simply seek the proof required to end the angst. Worthless Wiecky: Last I looked, we are not living under Roman Law (burden of proof rests on the accused). Andre raised the spectre, it is incumbent upon him to prove his contentions. So far, he has been remarkably reticent in doing so, but not so reticent in accusing individuals of actionable crimes. Where I come from, that is Libel. Now Mick says: Unfortunately, where copyright is concerned, the burden of proof of public ownership does rest with the "accused". ;-) The Berne Convention makes all works copyright automatically, so you have to prove that the work is either out of copyright or (in the UK) that the copyright holder cannot reasonably be traced. Of course, as I have been pointing out all along, the copyright owner can easily be traced by anyone who wants to. cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Reed-Elseviers is one of the largest publishers in the world. Worthless Wiecky then offers the standard mantra of copyright thieves: "We stole it so often, it now belongs to us": At this moment, I know of at least four (4) sources of RDH4 published on the web "for-free", one of which happens to be through Rutgers University. One would doubt that Rutgers, being a state-related institution (and in RCA's home state) would lend itself to that were copyright an issue. So, I see repeated evidence that copyright is not an issue in this case. I do see a copyrighted RDH4 being published currently at about $80 a clip, but it specifically includes updated material, revisions, additions and considerable commentary *NOT* part of the original RDH4. I expect that the copyright applies to that material, which makes perfect sense. So, the evidence at hand from here in the US is that there is (at least) one version of RDH4 that appears to be fair game. Andre makes a blanket statement to the contrary. The burden of proof is on him to prove his statement and not by mere repetition that it is so. cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 That's an awfully powerful statement to anyone who knows what it implies, which is everything, everywhere, and for a chunk of time into the future that may yet run into decades. Mick: I'm finding this intriguing... Applegate (http://www.applegate.co.uk/company/10/90/125.htm) reveals the following: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing (REPP) Halley Court Jordan Hill Oxford OX2 8EI Tel: 01865 311366 FAX: 01865 310043 No URL given. Another site (Hero) gives this: Heinemann World - the world wide web site of Reed Educational and Professional Publishing. Following the above link leads to this web site for educational books:http://www.harcourt.co.uk/Home.aspx and this address: Harcourt, Halley Court, Jordan Hill, Oxford, OX2 8EJ, UK Tel: +44 1865 888084www.harcourt.co.uk Note that the FAX number, phone number & postcode don't tie up with those on applegate and that there is no mention of Heinemann World on the site. Of course, they may have forgotten to update Applegate... For insiders, the incestuous marriages and division swaps of publishers as the conglomerates jockey for market share is a subject of neverending fascination. The Heinnemann textbook division once belong to the Heinemann group which also included my own London publishers of record, the literary house of Secker & Warburg; my agent became first publishing director of Secker and then Deputy Chairman of Heinemann. I must have blinked while Harcourt, a large US publisher was in and out of there... I suspect that anyone attempting to find the current copyright holder would be stonewalled with "This isn't really our department. We'll ring you back later when we have researched this" and no followup reply. Once there have been a few big moves in a business it gets increasingly difficult to get this sort of information. Not at all. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, and all their equally guilty mirrors and all their immoral apologists, need only write to the Rights Director at Newnes, the last division to use the Reed copyright on the RDH4, at the address you give -- and they will be instantly told that the book is in copyright and it is illegal to offer it on the net. There's nothing like adding a bit more complication to the mix. :-) LOL. There's no complication for insiders. It is when amateurs start messing in copyright that it gets to be amusing. Copyright on the surface can be made to look easy, as early on I did make it look for John Byrns when he had a simple question that could be simply answer. But the moment an amateur tries to get a firm hold of some very subtle concepts the quicksands envelops him and sucks him in, as we have been seeing in the floundering of Flipflop Slipshod Flipper for instance. First Flipflop was an instant Pinkertonian expert on Australian copyright law, then he got burned, so now he whines that he lives in the US and is only interested in US copyright law, which I instantly demonstrated he hasn't grasped either. I've been at it fifty years this years, signing my first book contract at 12, and I still don't know all the ins and outs of copyright law, so Pinterton hit-and-run methods on neddy-netsites are guaranteed to make the hitandrunner look stupid, as his own hubris did to Flipflop. From that gem of accuracy, Wikipedia: ;-)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...opyright_lasts quote So when can one conclude that a book is in the public domain? In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain. In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, *except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country* (see How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed for more details). /quote So, if the original publication was Australian then US law may not apply, no matter how old the book is. Oh, the RDH4 was without any doubt in copyright in Australia, which means across the rest of the world including the US, when the AUSFTA (which Flipflop Slipshod claims is irrelevant!) became effective. False, as is most of the smoke you blow in this message. Not at all false, and if you think I am in error on any other point, you should specify it, sonny, and not make McCarthyite generalized claims. I'm not wearing that crap, and I'll ride you down every time I see it. I've already posted the laws and listening to you repeating, over and over and over, B.S. that's already been proven false is getting boring so we'll just snip it out and be done with it since nothing even remotely resembling rational thought can penetrate that solid lead head of yours. snip of same old B.S. already answered a hundred times [[[RESTORE FLIPPER'S DECEITFUL SNIP:]]] AUSFTA had no effect whatsoever on 1953 U.S. copyright law. 1953 US law is entirely irrelevant. The purpose of AUSFTA was among other things to bring Australian copyright lengths up to the US standard. To facilitate that all books that were in copyright in Australia were given the same protection in the US. And to stop you in your tracks before you once more give me that sorry, worn, lying crap about how a book cannot have a longer copyright than permitted by USA law, try this on for size, from your favourite wiki: *except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country* That means that a book that was in copyright in Australia at the time of the AUSFTA is now in copyright to the full extent of the 70-year rule in the States. Suck on that, sonny. Of course, your insistence on the 1953 date is yet more smoke you immorally blow over the thefts of Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky. The later, revised and expanded edition got a new copyright lease simply as a practical matter because the new material protects the whole book. It is the last of these revised and expanded editions that they stole, and it is the whole book they stole so the date can be any time up to publication of the last revised and expanded edition. They ****ed only themselves by ripping away the title page and copyright page before stealing someone else's property. (It is also the detail that defines Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky as deliberate, knowing thieves and fraudulent converters.) Finally, they didn't steal it in the States in the first instance, so your arrogant insistence on the primacy of US law is another smokescreen. You're not doing too well blowing smoke for thieves, Slipslop. I warned you when this began that copyrights are more complicated than they appear to a soundbiter like you, but you were a smartarse. Next time, listen better and talk less. That means 70 years, starting from the year after the last author dies. More from Wikipedia re the Berne Convention: quote The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms, as the European Union did with the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. For photography, the Berne Convention sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it hasn't been shown within 50 years after the creation. Countries under the older revisions of the treaty may choose to provide their own protection terms, and certain types of works (such as phonorecords and motion pictures) may be provided shorter terms. Although the Berne Convention states that the copyright law of the country where copyright is claimed shall be applied, article 7.8 states that "unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work", i.e. an author is normally not entitled a longer copyright abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give a longer term. This is commonly known as "the rule of the shorter term". Not all countries have accepted this rule. /quote The term of copyright is now 70 years from the author's death in all English-speaking countries that matter. So, assuming for the moment that REPP's copyright is valid, You can bet your house on it, Mick. One of the ten largest publishers in the world do not make newbie mistakes about something as important as copyright. In any event, the law is that they as the publisher and declared copyright holder are the presumptive owners, so anyone else (like the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky) must prove the contrary... it seems to me that the copyright lasts for the term valid in Australia (if it is less than 70 years after the last author's death) but is subject to English law. This could be good news: (ref:http://blog.librarylaw.com/libraryla...news_orph.html) quote The United Kingdom has a provision that affects a small subset of orphan works, namely those for which it is reasonable to assume the copyright has already expired. The law provides that there is no infringement where the copyright owner cannot be found by a reasonable inquiry and where the date the copyright expired is uncertain but it is reasonable to assume that the copyright has expired.\8\ It is not reasonable to assume the copyright has expired on the RDH4. The copyright holders Reed brought out a new edition published by their subsidiary Newnes as recently as 1997. Every copy of this edition contains the copyright notice: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Both Reed and Newnes have entries in all the professional authors' references from both sides of the Atlantic on my shelves. The slightest enquiry in 2003 when Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky stole the RDH4 would have led them to Newnes and Reed. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky don't show either the title page or the reverse on which the copyright information is for their stolen copy of the RDH. One has to wonder why not. Is it because they copied the Newnes reprint of 1997 and thus knew with any enquiry that they were committing theft? Either way, we can confidently assume, and a court will certainly assume, that the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky made no enquiry at all. Their abuse of me for pointing out where they should make the enquiry confirms that they are deliberate, willful thieves who know they are thieves and do not intend changing their thieving ways. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, Sec. 57 (Eng.); see also Copyright and Related Rights Act, No. 28, 2000 Sec. 88 (Ir.); Laws of Hong Kong, Chapter 528: Copyright Ordinance, June 27, 1997 Sec. 66, available athttp://www.justice.gov.hk/Home.htm. /quote Of course, it needs a "reasonable inquiry" to be made in the first place! I don't want to get involved... grin None was made. Does anyone really believe that regulars on RAT and other audio conferences, such as the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, never heard of the Newnes reprint of the RDH4 in a full six years? -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web:http://www.nascom.infohttp://mixpix.batcave.net Nice piece of work, Mick. I was doling the information out a lot more slowly to get the arseholes to expose themselves, but you got all the really important stuff in one fell swoop. There really is no substitute for brains, is there? Andre Jute Expert |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
The sick gloating of the RDH4 thieves Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 1, 7:48 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
Andrew, the indefatiguable reality-denier and horse fellator, says: LOL. Get a lawyer, sonny. At least that puts a cap on what your ignorance of copyright will cost you. Well how much has it cost any of the four sites currently hosting RDH 4?????? Earlier the clowns howled when I spoke of "the triumphalism of the knowing, deliberate thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky". Now here is the same gloating triumphalism from their chief apologist, the proven, confessed thief Bret Ludwig. Ludwig is sneering: "We stole your property and you haven't done anything about it, so suck on it, it is ours". Andre Jute Disgusted, Ruislip |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 1, 8:29 pm, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:14:59 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: I'm quoting U.S. law you self righteous libelist. But the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, didn't commit their copyright theft in the States, Flipflop. And they didn't steal a 1953 edition, Slipslop. Those are just irrelevant distractions, Slipshod, poor-quality smoke. And I've been threatened with libel before. It is the standard response of crooks, thieves and immoral fellowtravelling scum to the truth. I have never seen the inside of a court on libel, and I have in every instance made the slimeball throwing out the threat pay more than he could afford for his attempted assault on freedom of speech. Andre Jute Liberty is indivisible and freedom of speech is both its symbol and its symptom -- Andre Jute, speech to the Media Association, 1971 |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
FLIPPER BLOWS MORE POOR QUALITY SMOKE
JUTE: tthe copyright holder: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 FLIPPER: So you should not copy their work titled "Radiotron Designer's Handbook, Classic Edition." Hasn't a blessed thing to do with the 4'th, 3'rd, 2'nd, or 1'st editions, however. How do you know that? Have you compared them? If not, you're lying on behalf of thieves. I *have* compared the editions. The Newnes edition of 1997, carrying on each copy the copyright owners mark cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 is exactly what it claims to be, a facsimile of the last, 1967 reprint of the RDH4. ****** MORE HEADLINE NEWS: FLIPPER NOW CLAIMS HE IS NOT DEFENDING THE THIEVES GREGG, TIM WILLIAMS AND CHOKY! ENTIRE NEWSGROUP GOES "DUHHHH?" On Oct 1, 8:49 pm, flipper wrote: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:59:18 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: It's pretty arrogant of you to assume US law applies, Flipflop. It's pretty damn stupid of you to think anything but U.S. law applies in the United States. Mick and I have already demonstrated that on copyright law reciprocity agreements set aside US law and substitute the copyright laws of other nations where books first published in those nations are concerned. I've told you before, Flipflop, copyright law is too subtle for amateurs to mix in. Are you such a jerkup in real life too, or are you just a knowall on the net? The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky first stole the RDH4 in England or Canada. There are mirrors of the stolen RDH4 in several jurisdictions. Utterly irrelevant because I've never said one damn thing about them or the sites you list. But we're talking about their theft! Are you now claiming, Flipshod, that you are no longer defending these thieves and claiming, as you did before, that they are not thieves? (You even went as far as to accuse me of libelling their thieving slack asses!) Instead of backpedalling, why not just admit you were out of your depth and walk away with your head held high; at least then no one can accuse you of the immorality of defending known thieves with lies. And anyone with a better than room temperature I.Q. can figure out that when I speak of US law I am speaking of US law and it doesn't take even that much to understand the meaning when I said I didn't know about Canadian law or U.K. law and was not inclined to get into it because you're deaf dumb and blind to any form of logic or rational thought. I just know more about it than you ever will. It is my business to know and I've survived half a century at it. It would be surprising if I did not know vastly more than you do. But let us permit you to say your say, Slipshod. You still haven't proved that US law applies, you haven't proved that you're talking about an edition to which that law applies, you haven't proved that the edition you are talking about (1953) wasn't registered. I said I live in the US and specified U.S. law. What other 'proof' of what I'm talking about does an idiot need? You keep saying this. You become abusive on that ground. But you fail, repeatedly, to demonstrate any relevance to these stetements. We are talking about thieves in other jurisdictions. I specifically reference the 1953 edition. What other 'proof' of what I'm talking about does an idiot need? You've been told repeatedly that the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky did not steal that edition but a later edition. And I have 'proved' it wasn't registered because I pasted the results of the U.S. copyright office database search. Perhaps you have. So what? It is not relevant to the present discussion of a particular set of thefts. Against that we know that the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky stole the revised, enlarged edition, which may have been published as late as 1967, and for which no reregistration was required. You, yourself, said they won't tell you 'which' copy or where they got it so you now claiming to know makes you a liar in either the first accusation or this. No, I didn't say I ever asked them. Gregg claims on his netsite not to know where the copy comes from. But his refusal to show the title page and copyright page is sufficient deceit for us to conclude that he does know where it comes from. Secondly, as to which version it is, that is a simple matter of downloading the last section from Gregg's site and comparing it to the revised, expanded editions in my hands. That comparison makes it clear that Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky stole a later edition than the 1953 one. It is simply a matter of a page count; the revised, expanded edition is by defintion longer. You haven't thought this through, Slipshod. But you call me a liar all the same. That makes you scum. It doesn't matter how much smoke you try to blow over these thieves, Flipflop, they remain thieves No, it just makes you a libeler. Yawn. I have proved that this scum Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky are thieves, and so are all their mirrors, and it follows that those who blow smoke on their behalf, like you, Flipper, are immoral scum. until they do the right thing and write to the copyright holder: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 So you should not copy their work titled "Radiotron Designer's Handbook, Classic Edition." Hasn't a blessed thing to do with the 4'th, 3'rd, 2'nd, or 1'st editions, however. How do you know that? Have you compared them? If not, you're lying on behalf of thieves. I have compared the editions. The Newnes edition of 1997, carryign the copyright owners mark cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 is exactly what it claims to be, a facsimile of the last, 1967 reprint of the RDH4. The rest is just Slipshod's standard abuse. Yawn. Unsigned out of contempt No ifs but maybes or excuses: they are thieves of a copyright held by an identifiable copyright holder. No ifs but maybes or excuses, you're a libeler. I, for one, would not go to court on the basis of a wikipedia quote but it's a hell of a lot better bet than Andre. LOL. Get a lawyer, sonny. I would if I needed one, but since I haven't libeled anybody... At least that puts a cap on what your ignorance of copyright will cost you. Yep, because like anyone with half an ounce of sense I'd consult one before taking any legal action. Your ignorance, however, is unlimited. |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to share RAT with copyright thieves and their apologists
"Andre Jute" wrote Yo, Jute, must be clear one cannot have retroactive law so follow the timeline don't wanna jump to conclusions but seems you've not got a leg to stand on let alone a point My advice, to the benefit of the group and yourself is that you lay low for quite a while you must realise you've got about 0 streetcred over here on RAT in fact, it's plain to 'read' your little tete a tete with LV just 'oozin' relieve, eh ? with time, with being helpful, maybe something genuinely 'bout tubes may get you back some points. Rudy scorekeeper |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
Peter Wieck wrote: On Oct 1, 9:23 am, Patrick Turner wrote: Its better that all those who disagree with Andre simply seek the proof required to end the angst. Patrick: Last I looked, we are not living under Roman Law (burden of proof rests on the accused). Andre raised the spectre, it is incumbent upon him to prove his contentions. So far, he has been remarkably reticent in doing so, but not so reticent in accusing individuals of actionable crimes. Where I come from, that is Libel. Andre's given the history about transfer of ownership of RDH4 copyright and the history of aust-US law changes, all somewhat beyond my full comprehension, but all the same quite plausible. Nobody here is forced to believe in anything. I mentioned someone ought to have a copy of a genuine letter from Newnes or someone stating the exact status of RDH4 copyright. I see a legal minefield for anyone publishing without enquiring about legality first. I doubt we have a lawyer amoung our ranks to inform us fully. I see this stoush over this matter is down to legal interpretation, and as I ain't a lawyer, and we have had no reliable legal opinions expressed to end all doubt, I cannot fully side with any views expressed so far. Meanwhile, life moves along, and I am too busy to conduct days of further research. i At this moment, I know of at least four (4) sources of RDH4 published on the web "for-free", one of which happens to be through Rutgers University. One would doubt that Rutgers, being a state-related institution (and in RCA's home state) would lend itself to that were copyright an issue. So, I see repeated evidence that copyright is not an issue in this case. I do see a copyrighted RDH4 being published currently at about $80 a clip, but it specifically includes updated material, revisions, additions and considerable commentary *NOT* part of the original RDH4. I expect that the copyright applies to that material, which makes perfect sense. So, the evidence at hand from here in the US is that there is (at least) one version of RDH4 that appears to be fair game. Andre makes a blanket statement to the contrary. The burden of proof is on him to prove his statement and not by mere repetition that it is so. It seems nobody wants to prove anything. OK, who cares? Copyright status does not much affect tube craft or electron flow behaviour in tubes. Patrick Turner. t Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to share RAT with copyright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 2, 7:45 am, "Rudy" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote Yo, Jute, Yo, Broens, must be clear one cannot have retroactive law so follow the timeline You should put your mind in gear and follow the game. 1. You can actually have retroactive law. But it is irrelevant to any and all these arguments. 2. The question of retroactivity has been brought up, spuriously, with the 1953 edition and in the US. That is not the edition the thieves stole. They didn't steal it in the US. The majority of their mirrors are not in the US. All this American arrogance about 1953 and US copyright is just smoke blown by Flipper to cover up the theft of the RDH4 copyright. 3. There is no question of retroativity here; the RDH was in copyright in the relevant jurisdicitons throughout the relevant period until the period was extended. 4. Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, and all their mirrors are thieves. Those who defend them with spurious arguments, as you are doing, are immoral scum. don't wanna jump to conclusions but seems you've not got a leg to stand on You don't know what you're talking about. I've several times warned Flipper that copyright is awfully subtle. I didn't expect any Dutchmen, who generally have more brains than Americans, to make the same dumb mistake. As for not having a leg to stand on, I've been earning my living by intellectual property, copyrights, for fifty years this year. Seems like I have fifty legs to stand on. Which perhaps explains why I am over the thieves like a centipede and you feel constrained to rush in and abuse me on their behalf. let alone a point See my letter to Iain about why it is important to put down copyright thieves. All that is required for the triumph of thieves is for good men to let themselves be bullied into silence by Ruud Broens and his like. My advice, to the benefit of the group and yourself is that you lay low for quite a while Thank you for your advice. I shall value it at the price I paid for it. you must realise you've got about 0 streetcred over here on RAT Yawn. Now who did I hear that from before, remind me of their names, someone. in fact, it's plain to 'read' your little tete a tete with LV just 'oozin' relieve, eh ? Eh? What's to be "relieve" about? Adversarial polemics is what I do for a living, sonny. with time, with being helpful, maybe something genuinely 'bout tubes may get you back some points. You mean, "respect"? Why should I want the respect of thieves and their incompetent apologists? You're making even less sense than usual Broens, even than when you first came to RAT and were embarrassingly incoherent most of the time. Rudy scorekeeper You should learn to count, sonny. Or, since I suspect a musician can count perfectly well, perhaps you should acquire some honesty or judgement. Andre Jute Darwinist |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
The authorised version of RDH4 copyright Ashamed to have onRAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:33:35 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:
snip Nice piece of work, Mick. I was doling the information out a lot more slowly to get the arseholes to expose themselves, but you got all the Sorry if I spoiled your fun a bit. It saves us from yet another "longest thread" though. :-) -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:16:03 +0000, Patrick Turner wrote:
snip OK, who cares? Copyright status does not much affect tube craft or electron flow behaviour in tubes. Nice one, Patrick. Well said! :-) -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Sep 30, 2:40 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
I'm deeply ashamed to have on my hobby group RAT not only obdurate thieves of the RDH, but a very large group of vocal, immoral apologists for these thieves who use smoke and personal abuse to cover up the fact that they must know, if they read all the literature they claim to have read, that neither they nor the thieves can prove the RDH4 is out of copyright. In the last week we have seen more lying twists and turns -- performed by sudden self-declared "copyright experts" to make an immoral theft committed by Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky sound right -- than in an entire corkscrew factory. The facts are these: 1. It is incumbent on the party wishing to publish a book as out of copyright or in the public domain to prove that it is in the public domain. The copyright owners of the RDH, Reed, are known and have been known for ten years. No effort has been made by the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky to approach to approach Reed and acquire a license, which is the first thing honest people do. No effort has been made by the fellow travellers and apologists for thieves such as Bret Ludwig and the anonymous Flipper to approach Reed and determine the facts because they don't want to draw attention to their little friends the thieves. They are all taking the attitude that they can steal anyone's property and then dare them to come claim it back -- soiled and diminished, of course. 2. After new reciprocity arrangements in 2004 between Australia and the USA to bring them in line with the EU arrangements, the copyright of a book by an Australian author is virtually universally for 70 years from his death, given only that he was alive on 1 January 1957. That Reed was able to copyright in 1997 a reprint of the RDH4 leads presumptively to the conclusion that one or more relevant authors of the RDH were alive on New Year's Day 1957; it would be perverse to assume that all the authors of a multi-author book like the RDH were dead less than four years after first publication. Therefore the question of copyright of the earliest edition of the RDH4 in 1953 doesn't even arise until 2037 at the earliest. That's the authoritative version, the King James Bible of copyright law, the thing reduced to its utter essence. Any wishful weaselling about a million unlikely concatenations of events, and doubletalk about superceded versions of copyright laws, both of them smokescreens blown by Flipper, or triumphalist crap that repeated thefts pass ownership of the stolen property to the thieves, as proposed by the proven and confessed thief Bret Ludwig, are just more illustrations of why amateurs shouldn't mess in the deep waters of copyright law. None of the apologia for thieves can overcome the facts of copyright, numbered 1 and 2 above, where these two immoral clowns, and the rest of the amateurs and dabblers, should review them often. If you can't understand all the implications, then that lack of understanding defines you as an amateur and you should shut the **** up. I have earned my living by copyrights for fifty years this year, and in that time I have met some mildly irritating idiots and expensive ignoramuses, but never a set of such self-serving, self-deluding, lying, thieving crooks as on RAT in this instance. Andre Jute Embarrassed to know some of you Andy, Are you drunk again ??? |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 2, 8:52 pm, flipper wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:49:26 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: On Oct 1, 8:29 pm, flipper wrote: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:14:59 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: I'm quoting U.S. law you self righteous libelist. So you keep saying ever more desperately. Let's see what lies behind the desperation: But the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, didn't commit their copyright theft in the States, Flipflop. And they didn't steal a 1953 edition, Slipslop. Those are just irrelevant distractions, Slipshod, poor-quality smoke. 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. That's a lie. First you claimed to be an expert on Australian copyright law. You erroneously claimed that the RDH4 was in copyright for a fixed period of time because it was made by the employee of a corporate body. That was a gross error, because under Australian law the term of copyright is for a period starting in the year after the author's death, *not* after publication. It is only when I cornered you on successive errors that you retreated step by step to this silly position, "Oh, I'm an American and I only speak of American law, and I can choose a totally irrelevant example and stick to it like **** to a baby's blanket." The number and scope of your errors on copyright are so super- Pinkertonian that it is difficult to believe that you, Flipper, are not a deliberate smoke-blower for thieves, a fellow-traveller and accomplice. And I've been threatened with libel before. No doubt. It is the standard response of crooks, thieves and immoral fellowtravelling scum to the truth. I have never seen the inside of a court on libel, and I have in every instance made the slimeball throwing out the threat pay more than he could afford for his attempted assault on freedom of speech. Calling everyone crooks, thieves and immoral fellowtravelling scum is typical of libelers Do you really think so? I thought "immoral fellowtravelling scum" was rather original. And apt. Look into your heart. Unless of course you're one of the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams or Choky under another name: look into the mirror, Slipshod. Andre Jute Liberty is indivisible and freedom of speech is both its symbol and its symptom -- Andre Jute, speech to the Media Association, 1971 Libel isn't freedom of speech. The truth is. If you don't like it, any good lawyer can find me. Any good lawyer will also tell you don't have a foot to stand on. You're a shill for thieves, anonymous Flipper, nothing less. You're no better than a pimp. Andre Jute |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 2, 9:13 pm, flipper wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:22:56 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: FLIPPER BLOWS MORE POOR QUALITY SMOKE JUTE: tthe copyright holder: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 FLIPPER: So you should not copy their work titled "Radiotron Designer's Handbook, Classic Edition." Hasn't a blessed thing to do with the 4'th, 3'rd, 2'nd, or 1'st editions, however. How do you know that? Because I know copyright law That's a lie. I have demonstrated again and again that you are either ignorant or a deliberate liar, until you are now reduced to cowering in a little 1953 corner of American law, totally irrelevant to the theft or the copyright law in question. and at the time of publishing the terms begin with first publication. That's the second lie. First you claimed to be an expert on Australian copyright law. You erroneously claimed that the RDH4 was in copyright for a fixed period of time because it was made by the employee of a corporate body. That was a gross error, because under Australian law the term of copyright is for a period starting in the year after the author's death, *not* after publication. It is only when I cornered you on successive errors that you retreated step by step to this silly position, "Oh, I'm an American and I only speak of American law, and I can choose a totally irrelevant example and stick to it like **** to a baby's blanket." The number and scope of your errors on copyright are so super- Pinkertonian that it is difficult to believe that you, Flipper, are not a deliberate smoke-blower for thieves, a fellow-traveller and accomplice. Have you compared them? If not, you're lying on behalf of thieves. I *have* compared the editions. The Newnes edition of 1997, carrying on each copy the copyright owners mark c Ltd 1997 is exactly what it claims to be, a facsimile of the last, 1967 reprint of the RDH4. I hope they Xeroxed a good copy. You can blow smartarse smoke all you like, Slipshod. The fact is that the RDH4 is in copyright, that the copyright belongs to a major publisher, cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 and that this publisher through its subsidiary Newnes issued a new edition in 1997. The fact is therefore that your little thieving friends Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky are willful, knowing, deliberate thieves, regardless of the smoke you blow for them.. ****** MORE HEADLINE NEWS: FLIPPER NOW CLAIMS HE IS NOT DEFENDING THE THIEVES GREGG, TIM WILLIAMS AND CHOKY! ENTIRE NEWSGROUP GOES "DUHHHH?" On Oct 1, 8:49 pm, flipper wrote: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:59:18 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: It's pretty arrogant of you to assume US law applies, Flipflop. It's pretty damn stupid of you to think anything but U.S. law applies in the United States. Mick and I have already demonstrated that on copyright law reciprocity agreements set aside US law and substitute the copyright laws of other nations where books first published in those nations are concerned. Nothing "sets aside U.S. law" in the U.S. Except US law, as in for instance reciprocity agreements. Put your mind in gear before you make a fool of yourself, Slipshod. That is basic, first principles, newbie stuff for anyone who wants to deal in copyrights. I've told you before, Flipflop, copyright law is too subtle for amateurs to mix in. Are you such a jerkup in real life too, or are you just a knowall on the net? How sweet. The name caller never fails to live down to your worst expectations. Why should I abide either fools or the accomplices of thieves? Your despicable behaviour in this matter, blowing smoke for thieves, entitles you to no patience for such gross errors of fact and judgement. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky first stole the RDH4 in England or Canada. There are mirrors of the stolen RDH4 in several jurisdictions. Utterly irrelevant because I've never said one damn thing about them or the sites you list. This is a lie. You pretended first to be an expert on Australian copyright law, until you were exposed as a liar, then to be an expert on US copyright law, until you were exposed as a pretender, now you crouch in some irrelevant corner of US copyright law like a whipped cur, whining over and over, "I never tried to bite you, Boss." Besides, if your intention isn't malicious, what are you doing in this thread, which is about the particular theft those three scumballs committed in particular places where the RDH4 is indubitably in copyright? But we're talking about their theft! Are you now claiming, Flipshod, that you are no longer defending these thieves and claiming, as you did before, that they are not thieves? (You even went as far as to accuse me of libelling their thieving slack asses!) Instead of backpedalling, why not just admit you were out of your depth and walk away with your head held high; at least then no one can accuse you of the immorality of defending known thieves with lies. I told you the first time you brought up that canard that I'm not 'defending' anyone but discussing U.S. law. But you're apparently too stupid to comprehend plain English. Oh no, I'm not. You pretended to be an expert on Australian copyright law until you ran smack into the ankles of a longtime practitioner, me, then you backpedalled furiously through some further gross errors to your present whining little hole. All the evidence of that progression stands on RAT in the ten days or so. And anyone with a better than room temperature I.Q. can figure out that when I speak of US law I am speaking of US law and it doesn't take even that much to understand the meaning when I said I didn't know about Canadian law or U.K. law and was not inclined to get into it because you're deaf dumb and blind to any form of logic or rational thought. What about your disastrous foray into Australian copyright law in your attempt to blow smoke over the thefts of Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky. Will you apologize for that or are you still pretending it didn't happen? I just know more about it than you ever will. It is my business to know and I've survived half a century at it. It would be surprising if I did not know vastly more than you do. You're a pompous ass who's primary argument is self aggrandizement. My primary argument is knowledge of copyright law gained in fifty years of experience. But let us permit you to say your say, Slipshod. You still haven't proved that US law applies, you haven't proved that you're talking about an edition to which that law applies, you haven't proved that the edition you are talking about (1953) wasn't registered. I said I live in the US and specified U.S. law. What other 'proof' of what I'm talking about does an idiot need? Name calling won't get you anything, sonny. I'm better at that too than you are. But you still need to explain to us why you chose to come blow smoke over the activities of thieves with this succession of lying, erroneous, irrelevant reductions until we cornered you in this little 1953 doghouse. You keep saying this. You become abusive on that ground. But you fail, repeatedly, to demonstrate any relevance to these stetements. We are talking about thieves in other jurisdictions. I said I live in the US and specified U.S. law. What other 'proof' of what I'm talking about does an idiot need? Sit, Fido. Crawl back into your doghouse, Fido. I specifically reference the 1953 edition. What other 'proof' of what I'm talking about does an idiot need? It's still irrelevant, even in your little doghouse. Nobody wants the 1953 edition when they can steal the revised, expanded edition. You've been told repeatedly that the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky did not steal that edition but a later edition. I specifically reference the 1953 edition. What other 'proof' of what I'm talking about does an idiot need? Woof, woof, woof. Don't you have another tune, Fido? And I have 'proved' it wasn't registered because I pasted the results of the U.S. copyright office database search. Perhaps you have. So what? It is not relevant to the present discussion of a particular set of thefts. I specifically reference the 1953 edition. What other 'proof' of what I'm talking about does an idiot need? Woof to you too, Fido. Against that we know that the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky stole the revised, enlarged edition, which may have been published as late as 1967, and for which no reregistration was required. You, yourself, said they won't tell you 'which' copy or where they got it so you now claiming to know makes you a liar in either the first accusation or this. No, I didn't say I ever asked them. I didn't say a thing about you 'asking'. D'you see, Fido, plain English "tell", which you use, implies that I asked them. Or perhaps English isn't your mother tongue, in which case you should say so and I can make allowances. Gregg claims on his netsite not to know where the copy comes from. But his refusal to show the title page and copyright page is sufficient deceit for us to conclude that he does know where it comes from. Secondly, as to which version it is, that is a simple matter of downloading the last section from Gregg's site and comparing it to the revised, expanded editions in my hands. That comparison makes it clear that Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky stole a later edition than the 1953 one. It is simply a matter of a page count; the revised, expanded edition is by defintion longer. You claimed a specific year, not just 'later'. Sure, in the absence of specific information, aa court will take the latest rather than the earliest date. it is another of those subtleties of copyright law that fools like you miss when they make a hit and run on a wiki. It follows from the presumptive nature of copyright law, see; the burden of proof is on the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, and they screwed themselves by removing the copyright page to blow their own smoke over their theft. Those three thieves are quite as thick as you are, Fido. You haven't thought this through, Slipshod. But you call me a liar all the same. That makes you scum. I call you a liar because you are one. But then you must prove that I told a lie. You haven't. Whereas I have proved that you, after declaring yourself an expert on copyright law, made gross errors from which we must either conclude that you are certifiably a moron or that you lied deliberately. These threads are also the proof of your malice, by the amount of smoke you blow for thieves. It doesn't matter how much smoke you try to blow over these thieves, Flipflop, they remain thieves No, it just makes you a libeler. Not at all. It is in the public interest that copyright thieves, and their immoral fellow-travelling scum, be brought low. Yawn. I have proved that this scum Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky are thieves, and so are all their mirrors, and it follows that those who blow smoke on their behalf, like you, Flipper, are immoral scum. You haven't 'proved' anything, in fact you perpetually skirt that by claiming 'they' must 'prove' to you, except that you're a libeler. Poor Flipper. You still, after all these explanation, don't get it. The law is that the thieves must prove there is no ownership, otherwise they are presumed to be thieves. snip of broken record B.S.) Well, let's see the quotes about the law Flipslop doesn't want you to see because they absolutely annihilate his position: flipper wrote: Mick: So, if the original publication was Australian then US law may not apply, no matter how old the book is. Andre Jute: Oh, the RDH4 was without any doubt in copyright in Australia, which means across the rest of the world including the US, when the AUSFTA (which Flipflop Slipshod claims is irrelevant!) became effective. Flipper: False, as is most of the smoke you blow in this message. Andre Jute Not at all false, and if you think I am in error on any other point, you should specify it, sonny, and not make McCarthyite generalized claims. I'm not wearing that crap, and I'll ride you down every time I see it. Flipper: I've already posted the laws and listening to you repeating, over and over and over, B.S. that's already been proven false is getting boring so we'll just snip it out and be done with it since nothing even remotely resembling rational thought can penetrate that solid lead head of yours. snip of same old B.S. already answered a hundred times Here are the overwhelming arguments that Flipper doesn't want you to see, restored without further comment: AUSFTA had no effect whatsoever on 1953 U.S. copyright law. 1953 US law is entirely irrelevant. The purpose of AUSFTA was among other things to bring Australian copyright lengths up to the US standard. To facilitate that all books that were in copyright in Australia were given the same protection in the US. And to stop you in your tracks before you once more give me that sorry, worn, lying crap about how a book cannot have a longer copyright than permitted by USA law, try this on for size, from your favourite wiki: *except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country* That means that a book that was in copyright in Australia at the time of the AUSFTA is now in copyright to the full extent of the 70-year rule in the States. Suck on that, sonny. Of course, your insistence on the 1953 date is yet more smoke you immorally blow over the thefts of Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky. The later, revised and expanded edition got a new copyright lease simply as a practical matter because the new material protects the whole book. It is the last of these revised and expanded editions that they stole, and it is the whole book they stole so the date can be any time up to publication of the last revised and expanded edition. They ****ed only themselves by ripping away the title page and copyright page before stealing someone else's property. (It is also the detail that defines Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky as deliberate, knowing thieves and fraudulent converters.) Finally, they didn't steal it in the States in the first instance, so your arrogant insistence on the primacy of US law is another smokescreen. You're not doing too well blowing smoke for thieves, Slipslop. I warned you when this began that copyrights are more complicated than they appear to a soundbiter like you, but you were a smartarse. Next time, listen better and talk less. Andre Jute Sauvitor in mod, fortiter in res -- family motto And here is Flipper's entire post, but with *all* his deceitful snips restored: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:50:15 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: On Oct 1, 5:42 pm, flipper wrote: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:33:35 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: On Oct 1, 12:47 pm, mick wrote: Patrick Turner: Its better that all those who disagree with Andre simply seek the proof required to end the angst. Worthless Wiecky: Last I looked, we are not living under Roman Law (burden of proof rests on the accused). Andre raised the spectre, it is incumbent upon him to prove his contentions. So far, he has been remarkably reticent in doing so, but not so reticent in accusing individuals of actionable crimes. Where I come from, that is Libel. Now Mick says: Unfortunately, where copyright is concerned, the burden of proof of public ownership does rest with the "accused". ;-) The Berne Convention makes all works copyright automatically, so you have to prove that the work is either out of copyright or (in the UK) that the copyright holder cannot reasonably be traced. Of course, as I have been pointing out all along, the copyright owner can easily be traced by anyone who wants to. cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Reed-Elseviers is one of the largest publishers in the world. Worthless Wiecky then offers the standard mantra of copyright thieves: "We stole it so often, it now belongs to us": At this moment, I know of at least four (4) sources of RDH4 published on the web "for-free", one of which happens to be through Rutgers University. One would doubt that Rutgers, being a state-related institution (and in RCA's home state) would lend itself to that were copyright an issue. So, I see repeated evidence that copyright is not an issue in this case. I do see a copyrighted RDH4 being published currently at about $80 a clip, but it specifically includes updated material, revisions, additions and considerable commentary *NOT* part of the original RDH4. I expect that the copyright applies to that material, which makes perfect sense. So, the evidence at hand from here in the US is that there is (at least) one version of RDH4 that appears to be fair game. Andre makes a blanket statement to the contrary. The burden of proof is on him to prove his statement and not by mere repetition that it is so. cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 That's an awfully powerful statement to anyone who knows what it implies, which is everything, everywhere, and for a chunk of time into the future that may yet run into decades. Mick: I'm finding this intriguing... Applegate (http://www.applegate.co.uk/company/10/90/125.htm) reveals the following: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing (REPP) Halley Court Jordan Hill Oxford OX2 8EI Tel: 01865 311366 FAX: 01865 310043 No URL given. Another site (Hero) gives this: Heinemann World - the world wide web site of Reed Educational and Professional Publishing. Following the above link leads to this web site for educational books:http://www.harcourt.co.uk/Home.aspx and this address: Harcourt, Halley Court, Jordan Hill, Oxford, OX2 8EJ, UK Tel: +44 1865 888084www.harcourt.co.uk Note that the FAX number, phone number & postcode don't tie up with those on applegate and that there is no mention of Heinemann World on the site. Of course, they may have forgotten to update Applegate... For insiders, the incestuous marriages and division swaps of publishers as the conglomerates jockey for market share is a subject of neverending fascination. The Heinnemann textbook division once belong to the Heinemann group which also included my own London publishers of record, the literary house of Secker & Warburg; my agent became first publishing director of Secker and then Deputy Chairman of Heinemann. I must have blinked while Harcourt, a large US publisher was in and out of there... I suspect that anyone attempting to find the current copyright holder would be stonewalled with "This isn't really our department. We'll ring you back later when we have researched this" and no followup reply. Once there have been a few big moves in a business it gets increasingly difficult to get this sort of information. Not at all. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, and all their equally guilty mirrors and all their immoral apologists, need only write to the Rights Director at Newnes, the last division to use the Reed copyright on the RDH4, at the address you give -- and they will be instantly told that the book is in copyright and it is illegal to offer it on the net. There's nothing like adding a bit more complication to the mix. :-) LOL. There's no complication for insiders. It is when amateurs start messing in copyright that it gets to be amusing. Copyright on the surface can be made to look easy, as early on I did make it look for John Byrns when he had a simple question that could be simply answer. But the moment an amateur tries to get a firm hold of some very subtle concepts the quicksands envelops him and sucks him in, as we have been seeing in the floundering of Flipflop Slipshod Flipper for instance. First Flipflop was an instant Pinkertonian expert on Australian copyright law, then he got burned, so now he whines that he lives in the US and is only interested in US copyright law, which I instantly demonstrated he hasn't grasped either. I've been at it fifty years this years, signing my first book contract at 12, and I still don't know all the ins and outs of copyright law, so Pinterton hit-and-run methods on neddy-netsites are guaranteed to make the hitandrunner look stupid, as his own hubris did to Flipflop. From that gem of accuracy, Wikipedia: ;-)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...opyright_lasts quote So when can one conclude that a book is in the public domain? In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain. In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, *except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country* (see How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed for more details). /quote So, if the original publication was Australian then US law may not apply, no matter how old the book is. Oh, the RDH4 was without any doubt in copyright in Australia, which means across the rest of the world including the US, when the AUSFTA (which Flipflop Slipshod claims is irrelevant!) became effective. False, as is most of the smoke you blow in this message. Not at all false, and if you think I am in error on any other point, you should specify it, sonny, and not make McCarthyite generalized claims. I'm not wearing that crap, and I'll ride you down every time I see it. I've already posted the laws and listening to you repeating, over and over and over, B.S. that's already been proven false is getting boring so we'll just snip it out and be done with it since nothing even remotely resembling rational thought can penetrate that solid lead head of yours. snip of same old B.S. already answered a hundred times [[[RESTORE FLIPPER'S DECEITFUL SNIP:]]] AUSFTA had no effect whatsoever on 1953 U.S. copyright law. 1953 US law is entirely irrelevant. The purpose of AUSFTA was among other things to bring Australian copyright lengths up to the US standard. To facilitate that all books that were in copyright in Australia were given the same protection in the US. And to stop you in your tracks before you once more give me that sorry, worn, lying crap about how a book cannot have a longer copyright than permitted by USA law, try this on for size, from your favourite wiki: *except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country* That means that a book that was in copyright in Australia at the time of the AUSFTA is now in copyright to the full extent of the 70-year rule in the States. Suck on that, sonny. Of course, your insistence on the 1953 date is yet more smoke you immorally blow over the thefts of Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky. The later, revised and expanded edition got a new copyright lease simply as a practical matter because the new material protects the whole book. It is the last of these revised and expanded editions that they stole, and it is the whole book they stole so the date can be any time up to publication of the last revised and expanded edition. They ****ed only themselves by ripping away the title page and copyright page before stealing someone else's property. (It is also the detail that defines Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky as deliberate, knowing thieves and fraudulent converters.) Finally, they didn't steal it in the States in the first instance, so your arrogant insistence on the primacy of US law is another smokescreen. You're not doing too well blowing smoke for thieves, Slipslop. I warned you when this began that copyrights are more complicated than they appear to a soundbiter like you, but you were a smartarse. Next time, listen better and talk less. That means 70 years, starting from the year after the last author dies. More from Wikipedia re the Berne Convention: quote The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms, as the European Union did with the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. For photography, the Berne Convention sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it hasn't been shown within 50 years after the creation. Countries under the older revisions of the treaty may choose to provide their own protection terms, and certain types of works (such as phonorecords and motion pictures) may be provided shorter terms. Although the Berne Convention states that the copyright law of the country where copyright is claimed shall be applied, article 7.8 states that "unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work", i.e. an author is normally not entitled a longer copyright abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give a longer term. This is commonly known as "the rule of the shorter term". Not all countries have accepted this rule. /quote The term of copyright is now 70 years from the author's death in all English-speaking countries that matter. So, assuming for the moment that REPP's copyright is valid, You can bet your house on it, Mick. One of the ten largest publishers in the world do not make newbie mistakes about something as important as copyright. In any event, the law is that they as the publisher and declared copyright holder are the presumptive owners, so anyone else (like the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky) must prove the contrary... it seems to me that the copyright lasts for the term valid in Australia (if it is less than 70 years after the last author's death) but is subject to English law. This could be good news: (ref:http://blog.librarylaw.com/libraryla...news_orph.html) quote The United Kingdom has a provision that affects a small subset of orphan works, namely those for which it is reasonable to assume the copyright has already expired. The law provides that there is no infringement where the copyright owner cannot be found by a reasonable inquiry and where the date the copyright expired is uncertain but it is reasonable to assume that the copyright has expired.\8\ It is not reasonable to assume the copyright has expired on the RDH4. The copyright holders Reed brought out a new edition published by their subsidiary Newnes as recently as 1997. Every copy of this edition contains the copyright notice: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Both Reed and Newnes have entries in all the professional authors' references from both sides of the Atlantic on my shelves. The slightest enquiry in 2003 when Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky stole the RDH4 would have led them to Newnes and Reed. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky don't show either the title page or the reverse on which the copyright information is for their stolen copy of the RDH. One has to wonder why not. Is it because they copied the Newnes reprint of 1997 and thus knew with any enquiry that they were committing theft? Either way, we can confidently assume, and a court will certainly assume, that the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky made no enquiry at all. Their abuse of me for pointing out where they should make the enquiry confirms that they are deliberate, willful thieves who know they are thieves and do not intend changing their thieving ways. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, Sec. 57 (Eng.); see also Copyright and Related Rights Act, No. 28, 2000 Sec. 88 (Ir.); Laws of Hong Kong, Chapter 528: Copyright Ordinance, June 27, 1997 Sec. 66, available athttp://www.justice.gov.hk/Home.htm. /quote Of course, it needs a "reasonable inquiry" to be made in the first place! I don't want to get involved... grin None was made. Does anyone really believe that regulars on RAT and other audio conferences, such as the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, never heard of the Newnes reprint of the RDH4 in a full six years? -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web:http://www.nascom.infohttp://mixpix.batcave.net Nice piece of work, Mick. I was doling the information out a lot more slowly to get the arseholes to expose themselves, but you got all the really important stuff in one fell swoop. There really is no substitute for brains, is there? Andre Jute Expert |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
The authorised version of RDH4 copyright Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 2, 9:20 pm, flipper wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:56:16 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: I've debunked your farkle multiple times No, you haven't, Flipflop. You merely cut it. 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. snip of the umpty groove skip on Jute's broken record B.S.) So why don't you want people to see the truth, Flipslop? flipper wrote: Mick: So, if the original publication was Australian then US law may not apply, no matter how old the book is. Andre Jute: Oh, the RDH4 was without any doubt in copyright in Australia, which means across the rest of the world including the US, when the AUSFTA (which Flipflop Slipshod claims is irrelevant!) became effective. Flipper: False, as is most of the smoke you blow in this message. Andre Jute Not at all false, and if you think I am in error on any other point, you should specify it, sonny, and not make McCarthyite generalized claims. I'm not wearing that crap, and I'll ride you down every time I see it. Flipper: I've already posted the laws and listening to you repeating, over and over and over, B.S. that's already been proven false is getting boring so we'll just snip it out and be done with it since nothing even remotely resembling rational thought can penetrate that solid lead head of yours. snip of same old B.S. already answered a hundred times Here are the overwhelming arguments that Flipper doesn't want you to see, restored without further comment: AUSFTA had no effect whatsoever on 1953 U.S. copyright law. 1953 US law is entirely irrelevant. The purpose of AUSFTA was among other things to bring Australian copyright lengths up to the US standard. To facilitate that all books that were in copyright in Australia were given the same protection in the US. And to stop you in your tracks before you once more give me that sorry, worn, lying crap about how a book cannot have a longer copyright than permitted by USA law, try this on for size, from your favourite wiki: *except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country* That means that a book that was in copyright in Australia at the time of the AUSFTA is now in copyright to the full extent of the 70-year rule in the States. Suck on that, sonny. Of course, your insistence on the 1953 date is yet more smoke you immorally blow over the thefts of Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky. The later, revised and expanded edition got a new copyright lease simply as a practical matter because the new material protects the whole book. It is the last of these revised and expanded editions that they stole, and it is the whole book they stole so the date can be any time up to publication of the last revised and expanded edition. They ****ed only themselves by ripping away the title page and copyright page before stealing someone else's property. (It is also the detail that defines Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky as deliberate, knowing thieves and fraudulent converters.) Finally, they didn't steal it in the States in the first instance, so your arrogant insistence on the primacy of US law is another smokescreen. You're not doing too well blowing smoke for thieves, Slipslop. I warned you when this began that copyrights are more complicated than they appear to a soundbiter like you, but you were a smartarse. Next time, listen better and talk less. Andre Jute Sauvitor in mod, fortiter in res -- family motto And here is Flipper's entire post, but with *all* his deceitful snips restored: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:50:15 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: On Oct 1, 5:42 pm, flipper wrote: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:33:35 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: On Oct 1, 12:47 pm, mick wrote: Patrick Turner: Its better that all those who disagree with Andre simply seek the proof required to end the angst. Worthless Wiecky: Last I looked, we are not living under Roman Law (burden of proof rests on the accused). Andre raised the spectre, it is incumbent upon him to prove his contentions. So far, he has been remarkably reticent in doing so, but not so reticent in accusing individuals of actionable crimes. Where I come from, that is Libel. Now Mick says: Unfortunately, where copyright is concerned, the burden of proof of public ownership does rest with the "accused". ;-) The Berne Convention makes all works copyright automatically, so you have to prove that the work is either out of copyright or (in the UK) that the copyright holder cannot reasonably be traced. Of course, as I have been pointing out all along, the copyright owner can easily be traced by anyone who wants to. cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Reed-Elseviers is one of the largest publishers in the world. Worthless Wiecky then offers the standard mantra of copyright thieves: "We stole it so often, it now belongs to us": At this moment, I know of at least four (4) sources of RDH4 published on the web "for-free", one of which happens to be through Rutgers University. One would doubt that Rutgers, being a state-related institution (and in RCA's home state) would lend itself to that were copyright an issue. So, I see repeated evidence that copyright is not an issue in this case. I do see a copyrighted RDH4 being published currently at about $80 a clip, but it specifically includes updated material, revisions, additions and considerable commentary *NOT* part of the original RDH4. I expect that the copyright applies to that material, which makes perfect sense. So, the evidence at hand from here in the US is that there is (at least) one version of RDH4 that appears to be fair game. Andre makes a blanket statement to the contrary. The burden of proof is on him to prove his statement and not by mere repetition that it is so. cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 That's an awfully powerful statement to anyone who knows what it implies, which is everything, everywhere, and for a chunk of time into the future that may yet run into decades. Mick: I'm finding this intriguing... Applegate (http://www.applegate.co.uk/company/10/90/125.htm) reveals the following: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing (REPP) Halley Court Jordan Hill Oxford OX2 8EI Tel: 01865 311366 FAX: 01865 310043 No URL given. Another site (Hero) gives this: Heinemann World - the world wide web site of Reed Educational and Professional Publishing. Following the above link leads to this web site for educational books:http://www.harcourt.co.uk/Home.aspx and this address: Harcourt, Halley Court, Jordan Hill, Oxford, OX2 8EJ, UK Tel: +44 1865 888084www.harcourt.co.uk Note that the FAX number, phone number & postcode don't tie up with those on applegate and that there is no mention of Heinemann World on the site. Of course, they may have forgotten to update Applegate... For insiders, the incestuous marriages and division swaps of publishers as the conglomerates jockey for market share is a subject of neverending fascination. The Heinnemann textbook division once belong to the Heinemann group which also included my own London publishers of record, the literary house of Secker & Warburg; my agent became first publishing director of Secker and then Deputy Chairman of Heinemann. I must have blinked while Harcourt, a large US publisher was in and out of there... I suspect that anyone attempting to find the current copyright holder would be stonewalled with "This isn't really our department. We'll ring you back later when we have researched this" and no followup reply. Once there have been a few big moves in a business it gets increasingly difficult to get this sort of information. Not at all. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, and all their equally guilty mirrors and all their immoral apologists, need only write to the Rights Director at Newnes, the last division to use the Reed copyright on the RDH4, at the address you give -- and they will be instantly told that the book is in copyright and it is illegal to offer it on the net. There's nothing like adding a bit more complication to the mix. :-) LOL. There's no complication for insiders. It is when amateurs start messing in copyright that it gets to be amusing. Copyright on the surface can be made to look easy, as early on I did make it look for John Byrns when he had a simple question that could be simply answer. But the moment an amateur tries to get a firm hold of some very subtle concepts the quicksands envelops him and sucks him in, as we have been seeing in the floundering of Flipflop Slipshod Flipper for instance. First Flipflop was an instant Pinkertonian expert on Australian copyright law, then he got burned, so now he whines that he lives in the US and is only interested in US copyright law, which I instantly demonstrated he hasn't grasped either. I've been at it fifty years this years, signing my first book contract at 12, and I still don't know all the ins and outs of copyright law, so Pinterton hit-and-run methods on neddy-netsites are guaranteed to make the hitandrunner look stupid, as his own hubris did to Flipflop. From that gem of accuracy, Wikipedia: ;-)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...opyright_lasts quote So when can one conclude that a book is in the public domain? In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain. In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, *except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country* (see How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed for more details). /quote So, if the original publication was Australian then US law may not apply, no matter how old the book is. Oh, the RDH4 was without any doubt in copyright in Australia, which means across the rest of the world including the US, when the AUSFTA (which Flipflop Slipshod claims is irrelevant!) became effective. False, as is most of the smoke you blow in this message. Not at all false, and if you think I am in error on any other point, you should specify it, sonny, and not make McCarthyite generalized claims. I'm not wearing that crap, and I'll ride you down every time I see it. I've already posted the laws and listening to you repeating, over and over and over, B.S. that's already been proven false is getting boring so we'll just snip it out and be done with it since nothing even remotely resembling rational thought can penetrate that solid lead head of yours. snip of same old B.S. already answered a hundred times [[[RESTORE FLIPPER'S DECEITFUL SNIP:]]] AUSFTA had no effect whatsoever on 1953 U.S. copyright law. 1953 US law is entirely irrelevant. The purpose of AUSFTA was among other things to bring Australian copyright lengths up to the US standard. To facilitate that all books that were in copyright in Australia were given the same protection in the US. And to stop you in your tracks before you once more give me that sorry, worn, lying crap about how a book cannot have a longer copyright than permitted by USA law, try this on for size, from your favourite wiki: *except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country* That means that a book that was in copyright in Australia at the time of the AUSFTA is now in copyright to the full extent of the 70-year rule in the States. Suck on that, sonny. Of course, your insistence on the 1953 date is yet more smoke you immorally blow over the thefts of Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky. The later, revised and expanded edition got a new copyright lease simply as a practical matter because the new material protects the whole book. It is the last of these revised and expanded editions that they stole, and it is the whole book they stole so the date can be any time up to publication of the last revised and expanded edition. They ****ed only themselves by ripping away the title page and copyright page before stealing someone else's property. (It is also the detail that defines Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky as deliberate, knowing thieves and fraudulent converters.) Finally, they didn't steal it in the States in the first instance, so your arrogant insistence on the primacy of US law is another smokescreen. You're not doing too well blowing smoke for thieves, Slipslop. I warned you when this began that copyrights are more complicated than they appear to a soundbiter like you, but you were a smartarse. Next time, listen better and talk less. That means 70 years, starting from the year after the last author dies. More from Wikipedia re the Berne Convention: quote The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms, as the European Union did with the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. For photography, the Berne Convention sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it hasn't been shown within 50 years after the creation. Countries under the older revisions of the treaty may choose to provide their own protection terms, and certain types of works (such as phonorecords and motion pictures) may be provided shorter terms. Although the Berne Convention states that the copyright law of the country where copyright is claimed shall be applied, article 7.8 states that "unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work", i.e. an author is normally not entitled a longer copyright abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give a longer term. This is commonly known as "the rule of the shorter term". Not all countries have accepted this rule. /quote The term of copyright is now 70 years from the author's death in all English-speaking countries that matter. So, assuming for the moment that REPP's copyright is valid, You can bet your house on it, Mick. One of the ten largest publishers in the world do not make newbie mistakes about something as important as copyright. In any event, the law is that they as the publisher and declared copyright holder are the presumptive owners, so anyone else (like the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky) must prove the contrary... it seems to me that the copyright lasts for the term valid in Australia (if it is less than 70 years after the last author's death) but is subject to English law. This could be good news: (ref:http://blog.librarylaw.com/libraryla...news_orph.html) quote The United Kingdom has a provision that affects a small subset of orphan works, namely those for which it is reasonable to assume the copyright has already expired. The law provides that there is no infringement where the copyright owner cannot be found by a reasonable inquiry and where the date the copyright expired is uncertain but it is reasonable to assume that the copyright has expired.\8\ It is not reasonable to assume the copyright has expired on the RDH4. The copyright holders Reed brought out a new edition published by their subsidiary Newnes as recently as 1997. Every copy of this edition contains the copyright notice: cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997 Both Reed and Newnes have entries in all the professional authors' references from both sides of the Atlantic on my shelves. The slightest enquiry in 2003 when Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky stole the RDH4 would have led them to Newnes and Reed. The thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky don't show either the title page or the reverse on which the copyright information is for their stolen copy of the RDH. One has to wonder why not. Is it because they copied the Newnes reprint of 1997 and thus knew with any enquiry that they were committing theft? Either way, we can confidently assume, and a court will certainly assume, that the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky made no enquiry at all. Their abuse of me for pointing out where they should make the enquiry confirms that they are deliberate, willful thieves who know they are thieves and do not intend changing their thieving ways. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, Sec. 57 (Eng.); see also Copyright and Related Rights Act, No. 28, 2000 Sec. 88 (Ir.); Laws of Hong Kong, Chapter 528: Copyright Ordinance, June 27, 1997 Sec. 66, available athttp://www.justice.gov.hk/Home.htm. /quote Of course, it needs a "reasonable inquiry" to be made in the first place! I don't want to get involved... grin None was made. Does anyone really believe that regulars on RAT and other audio conferences, such as the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky, never heard of the Newnes reprint of the RDH4 in a full six years? -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web:http://www.nascom.infohttp://mixpix.batcave.net Nice piece of work, Mick. I was doling the information out a lot more slowly to get the arseholes to expose themselves, but you got all the really important stuff in one fell swoop. There really is no substitute for brains, is there? Andre Jute Expert |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 2, 9:33 pm, sparky wrote:
Andy, Are you drunk again ???- Hide quoted text - The more apt question would be: "When will you next be sober?" Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
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$-free zone!) Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
"mick" wrote in message news 
: On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:52:50 -0500, flipper wrote:: : snip : : None of that matters, dimwit, because, as I've told you many times : already. I've not said one damn thing about them and have specifically : said I'm speaking of U.S. law. : : : So does the Berne Convention, apparently: : (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ : Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_an d_Artistic_Works) : : quote : The United States initially refused to become party to the Convention, : since it would have required major changes in its copyright law, : particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of general requirement : for registration of copyright works and elimination of mandatory : copyright notice. This led to the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952, : to accommodate the wishes of the US. But on March 1, 1989, the US "Berne : Convention Implementation Act of 1988" came into force and the United : States became a party to the Berne Convention, making the Universal : Copyright Convention obsolete. : /quote : : -- : Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) : Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net thanks Mick. yep, but the point is, such a harmonization can only be *henceforth* never applicable to anything 'already out there'. 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 good luck, AJ R |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashamed to have on RAT copright thieves and their apologists
On Oct 3, 2:51 pm, "Rudy" wrote:
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 good luck, AJ Andre is incapable of producing independently verifiable proof. His sole expedient is to resort to Proof-by-Repetition and vague allusions to even vaguer sources. For one blessed moment, I thought that his purported shame would actually drive him from this venue. No such luck, his noise continues, with no actual signal as always. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Same thieves that sell a Timex clock for better music | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Scum that make me ashamed to be an Australian | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Note to Republican apologists | Audio Opinions | |||
| ?? Are audio stickers ads for thieves ??? | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
