Seems like you know everything. What was the question?
Or were you just trying to line up more greement?
Joseph provided a counter to your arguments, but it is a fact based issue and we aren't going to get all of the facts through a list serve.
If you feel you have a case, hire an attorney. If you can't find one to represent you, either you are not offering enough money or your analysis may be off.
Best of luck,
Keith
> 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."
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:55 GMT