You seem to be an attorney well versed in copyright law, overriding all
other
attorney's who have dealt with this subject.
Are you an attorney?
Read my comments between your response belos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Pietro Riolo" <josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
To: "CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property"
<CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:20 PM
Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: [CNI-(C)] Re: [CNI-(C)] COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
On 7/19/05, Katheryn (Fitzwater) Devine <bankdevine[_at_]mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> I definitely do not appreciate your comment "I need to stop being
> selfish."
> and such is "OUT OF LINE FOR THIS BOARD."
What you are trying to do is to claim ownership in the public domain material. You can't do that. If the information is in the public domain, it remains that way unless specified otherwise by the Congress (through new laws).
NO I AM NOT TRYING TO CLAIM OWNERSHSIP OF PUBLIC DOMAIN MATERIAL
I AM CLAIMING FULL OWNERSHIP TO THE COMPILATION OF THAT MATERIAL.
> I have listened to this "sharing" theory from some very "lazy" people who
> want those that work hard to "surrender" their work.
I am defending the freedom of knowledge. What you are trying to do is to diminish the freedom of knowledge that all people have.
FREEDOM OF KNOWLEDGE IS NOT APPROPRO
> What would you say if you spent 20 years (full time) researching, paying
> to
> have documents extracted in costs and gasoline to get to the various
> facilities
> around the USA and over 40 hours a week COMPILING those materials from
> different sources
> and paid over $20,000 out of your pocket to published that work?
And, what would you say that the other person who does the same amount of work and owns the names that he finds from the different sources for more than 70 years? Suppose that he owns the names in your ancestors. Suppose that he won't let you copy the names that he finds from the different sources. Suppose that everyone else does the same. Eventually, all names in genealogical records are owned by people and we all have to pay for every time that we use names in the ancestors. Our society that is built on the freedoms of speech and press can't afford to let it happen.
IF ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL "OWNED" THE SAME WORK (AS YOU SEEM
TO IMPLY) THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WOULD NOT ( I REPEAN WOULD NOT)
HAVE ISSUED THE COPYRIGHT.
> Publishing companies do not print for free and it is expensive.
It is an obvious fact.
> I believe it is selfish of any individual to feel they deserve the right
> to
> "cash in on" another's research.
> not only selfish, but illegal.
Show me where it is illegal to copy names.
YOU SEEM TO HAVE "MISSED THE MESSAGE"
IT IS NOT (NOT, NOT, NOT) ILLEGAL TO COPY NAMES.
IT IS (IS, IS, IS) ILLEGAL TO COPY AN ORIGINAL WORK WHICH COMPILES NAMES
IN AN "ORIGINAL FORM"
> I published my years or work done at my own expense, but infringers have
> left me with $10,000 out of my pocket in "unsold inventory."
>
> FYI: Genealogy copyright infringement is a serious felony offense if
> convicted.
>
> This said: It is the compilation I am addressing which
> Stephen Fishman's publication explains are
> works in which pre-existing materials are selected, coordinated and
> arranged
> so that a 'new" work of authorship is created.
It seems that you don't understand the meaning of new work. The only new work that you can claim copyright is the compilation itself. You seem to misunderstand that the copyright in compilation extends to everything inside the compilation. That is not what Section 103 in the U.S. Copyright Law says.
What people can't do is to copy your compilation. They can copy some of the public domain materials in your compilation because you can't claim any new work in these public domain materials.
SIR, MY "EXPLANATION" CAME DIRECTLY FROM THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ATTORNEY
SO TAKE UP YOUR "OPINION" WITH THEM.
> If copyrighted publications were to be in the Public Domain why does the
> Library of Congress Copyright Office issue copyrights?
You also seem to misunderstand the meaning of copyright. Say, a book contains some quotes from the public domain books. The copyright in the book does not cover the quotes that come from the public domain books and anyone is free to copy the quotes.
YOU HAVE GONE ASTRAY WITH YOUR RATIONALIZATION TO PROVE
YOUR POINT! BY THE WAY WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
HAVE YOU TAKEN A COPYRIGHTED PUBLICATION - GENEALOGY - AND HAD IT
PUBLISHED? SHAME ON YOU FOR "CASHING ON ANOTHER'S WORK"
> Your response seems to say all copyrighted material should be "shared"
> unselfishly by every author of that material.
You got the wrong impression. Nowhere in my post said that the copyrighted material should be used by people in illegal ways. What I want to say is that it is wrong for you to claim copyright in the public domain materials that appear in your compilation.
> Sorry, I don't think that is what America is about
America is about the freedom of ideas, the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the freedom of knowledge. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the authors and artists to make their works available to the public so that when the copyrights in these works expire, the sphere of free knowledge can grow more rapidly. America is not about gaining ownership in the public domain materials. It is about defending the freedom of knowledge and keep it free. What you want to do is contrary to the ideals of America.
> Infringement is "piracy."
>
> ANd, not so fast:
> June 28, 2005 Supreme Court Ruling has caused some copyright infringers
> to
> loose their businesses, and their access to the internet denied.
> And, I am not speaking of a table, or diagram. that consists merely of
> transcriptions - I am speaking of the creative compilation off those
> records.
Again, you have copyright in your compilation. What you can't do is to claim copyright in everything that appears in your compilation including names.
YES I CAN, AND IT HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY EXPERTS.
YOU CAN TAKE ANY LINE ITEM FROM MY PUBLICATION AND PUBLISH THAT, BUT YOU
CANNOT (CANNOT, CANNOT) TAKE ANY COMPILATION OF THAT DATA.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 4,912
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
#############################################################This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>. Received on Fri Jul 22 2005 - 01:45:30 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:55 GMT