Katheryn - Just a piece of advise (for free):
When you take advise from "a legal expert" make sure you ACTUALLY
understands
the meaning of the advise given - otherwise you can get yourself into big
troubles.
Regards
Calle Østergaard
> 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/>.
>
>
> #############################################################
> 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/>.
>
> ****************************************************************************
> Denne mail er blevet scannet af http://www.virus112.com
> ****************************************************************************
>
>
> ****************************************************************************
> Denne mail er blevet scannet af http://www.virus112.com
> ****************************************************************************
>
Received on Tue Jul 26 2005 - 00:00:32 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:55 GMT