Trench Wars Gallery

[Annux]

Re: 17 U.S.C. section 102. Subject Matter of Copyright: In General

Originally posted by The Crimson King
DISCLAIMER: The information in this post is not legal advice. Do not rely on it to be correct, do not act upon it, just read it like some cheap porno novel and throw it away. Can I be any clearer here? THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!


For anyone who's interested, here are some choice bits of the statute governing copyrights on photographic works in the USA: (I would format this according to The Bluebook, 17th Ed., but dealing with the HTML to get the margins right isn't worth the effort and nobody would care anyway.)

17 U.S.C. section 102. Subject Matter of Copyright: In General

(a) Copyright protection subsists . . . in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression . . . from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories . . . (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

Authorship is never taken away since no claim is made between the persona and the picture connected to it. What's missing here is the person's name. Sorry, subspace nicknames aren't enough in a court of law.

Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" to include photographs.

Section 106 states that the copyright owner has (1) the exclusive right to "reproduce the copyrighted work. . ." Further, the copyright owner has exclusive rights to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work; to distribute copies of the work to the public by sale, rental, lease, etc.; and to display the copyrighted work publicly. See section 106(1), (2), (3) and (5).

And, in to conclude this summary, copyright law protects "original works of authorship," 17 U.S.C. section 102.

Yes but the owner gives up that copyright ownership when the picture is uploaded to a place viewable by 40 million users: the internet. If you put your picture in Time magazine (which has a huge audience), and then someone cuts it out and pastes it in their private project, is that a law suit?

Now, I'm not drawing any conclusions from the statute as I've reproduced it here, but one might interpret the statute to say that posting a copyrighted photo on your website (reproduction and public display, cough cough) violates those exclusive rights, if one were a lawyer (which I'm NOT).

The copyright is long gone once the picture is put in a public place and acknowledged to be you by YOU. Perhaps some action could be taken if the picture is officially copy-righted with the government.

BUT . . it's never that simple. As CoL pointed out correctly, use of a copyrighted work may fall under the "fair use" exception of -->

17 U.S.C. section 107. Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use:

". . . the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by [section 106], for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . . scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall include --

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. . . "

No money was ever made of the Goddess's tits. Trust me on that. I wouldn't call this an education purpose by any chance but the site is made and maintained for the community without any personal profit to my self or staff besides acknowledgement

Well, there's the statute. I can't say what it means, but there it is (in freaking black and white with distracting sections omitted). I hope this has been as enjoyable as a cheap porno novel.

Very enjoyable. Thank you.

Oh, and one other little thing: I don't know shit about tort law, but this Emmanuel Law Outline hornbook I found on my shelf (hmm wonder where that came from?) says that the tort of Invasion of Privacy is (in most jurisdictions) made up of four sub-torts, one of which is called Misappropriation of Identity. According to the book, Plaintiff can sue if her name or picture has been misappropriated by the defendant for his own financial benefit. (Was that a pop-up ad I saw just now?)

Psst, the pop-up is because I have the URL mask. The http;//run.to people are the ones making a profit. Not me. The actual site is located at http://www.priestcult.com/~vortex/pic/ If you feel like typing out the longer URL to not be bothered by the ad - go for it.

And one more point about tort suits: even if plaintiff cannot prove actual damages, the court may order nominal damages and punitive damages in cases of intentional torts.

What? Punitive damages are based on the pain suffered by the plaintiff as a direct cause of the defendant's behaiviour. If you claim that the plaintiff can't prove actual damages, they are definetly not receiving any punitive awards. The phrase "extraordinary pain and suffering" comes up when punitive damages are mentioned in negligence case. Without proving that basic damage has been done to the user, they are definetly not collecting anything extra. And I don't know what nominal damages are. They sound made up.

Well, I'd post more but I'm running out of books to cite from, and since I'm not a lawyer I can't tell you any of what this law stuff means. Maybe if someone on this board is a lawyer (or maybe a law clerk at a law firm, perhaps?) he can post a reply and explain what all this gobbledygook rhetoric of angry old white legislators means if you translate it into layman's english.

I'm a law clerk in training and it doens't pay well. The book mainly relied on Common Law which is what most statues are based on. It's pretty accurate although does need an update and a simpler translation maybe.

CK

Relax people, I welcome the legal threats.

[Annux]

Originally posted by Left_Eye
Well, from what I read about it, it seems that he doesn't have the right to put something up there unless he had criticism with it. How ironic.

Lots of love,
Left_Eye

What the hell are you talking about?

[Acvidmouse]

.

ekk the spider - i am laying any money down your a virgin.

Oen Izan - jeeezus mullet'r'us

mefod - what are you doing infront of your parents?



reminds me of the chaos gallery that was run years ago

[The Crimson King]

By all means please allow me to RETORT

Annux:

Authorship is never taken away since no claim is made between the persona and the picture connected to it. What's missing here is the person's name. Sorry, subspace nicknames aren't enough in a court of law.

Me:

The issue is not whether 'authorship is taken away.' The issue is whether your reproduction of a copyrighted work violates the copyright holder's EXCLUSIVE rights of reproduction and public display of that work. EXCLUSIVE means the right to reproduce and display that work is possessed / owned solely by the holder of the copyright, which in the case of a pictorial work, i.e., photograph, is the photographer who took the photograph (unless it's a work-for-hire, as defined in 17 U.S.C. section 101). Dude, read the statute. This isn't about giving credit to the photographer, it's about violation of the copyright holder's -- and I say it again, EXCLUSIVE -- rights of reproduction and display. Maybe when you post about the law you should look up the law you're posting about first. I did.

Annux:

Yes but the owner gives up that copyright ownership when the picture is uploaded to a place viewable by 40 million users: the internet. If you put your picture in Time magazine (which has a huge audience), and then someone cuts it out and pastes it in their private project, is that a law suit?

Me:

Perhaps you could cite some authority for that statement? (As a "law clerk in training," you should be aware that any memorandum of law follows a recitation of the facts with citations to applicable law.) What, you want an example? By all means:

Let me point your attention to Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 663 F.Supp. 796 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). In that case, Saul Steinberg ("Steinberg"), a fairly well-known artist and cartoonist for The New Yorker magazine, sued Columbia Pictures ("Columbia") for copyright infringement. Steinberg alleged that Columbia's promotional poster for the motion picture "Moscow on the Hudson" (a particularly dismal Robin Williams film, in which Robin plays a Yakof Smirnoff-esque Russian defector with "a black roommate, a Cuban lawyer, and an Italian girlfriend" -- this is definitely Academy Award material) infringed his copyright on an illustration he drew for and which appeared on the cover of The New Yorker's March 29, 1976 edition.

I'm not sure whether The New Yorker's readership is as large as Time Magazine's, but let's assume that it is on the same scale for purposes of discussion.

To succeed in a copyright infringement action, a plaintiff must prove (a) ownership of the copyright; and (b) copying by the defendant. Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87, 90 (2d Cir. 1976). While the issue in Steinberg was whether there was a "substantial similarity" between Steinberg's illustration and Columbia's movie poster -- the court held that there was -- I cite Steinberg to illustrate that publishing copyrighted work in a large public forum does not waive, mutilate, spindle, or destroy the copyright holder's exclusive rights to copy and display that work.

I don't think that you will be able to cite authority contradicting that premise (but by all means feel free to try). Further, a photograph published in Time Magazine is different from the photographs we're talking about here in several ways. Time pays photographers for use of their work, thus the copyright holder grants Time the right to reproduce that work. While your use of the same photograph in a "private project" probably qualifies as fair use, considering 17 U.S.C. section 107(1) and (4) -- the purpose behind your private project would likely be to satisfy a course requirement (educational purpose), or for personal edification (and who's gonna know if nobody but you sees the project?), and thus your use of that copyrighted photograph would not affect the market for or the value of said photograph -- the act of publishing the same photo on the World Wide Web probably does not enjoy protection under the fair use exception.

Further, note that many people infringe other people's copyrights frequently every day. It's when the copyright holder takes umbrage with the infringement enough to do something about it that the law is enforced. It's not just that a person has rights, it's that the person exercises those rights.

Annux:

The copyright is long gone once the picture is put in a public place and acknowledged to be you by YOU. Perhaps some action could be taken if the picture is officially copy-righted with the government.

Me:

Wrong again. You, my friend, are zero-for-three so far. In baseball you'd be walking back to the dugout with your head down, and in a courtroom you'd be preparing your defense against charges of malpractice. Display of one's copyrighted work does not waive or void the copyright holder's rights. And you don't "officially copy-right" [sic] anything. Copyright protection attaches at the moment of fixation in a tangible medium of expression. (See 17 U.S.C. section 102(a), "[c]opyright protection subsists . . . in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." You see, the Copyright Act of 1909 provided that federal copyright law only works containing (1) the year of first publication; the word "Copyright," the abbreviation "Copr." or the copyright symbol (c); and the name of the copyright holder. 17 U.S.C. sections 19, 20. This changed when the 1976 Act was passed, however, so that copyright protection begins upon creation of a work, not upon publication of the work. And in 1989 the United States ratified the Berne Convention -- an international attempt to normalize copyright protection in participating nations, a notable provision of which is that copyright shall "not be subject to any formality" -- by passing the Berne Convention Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853 (1988).

Me, reprinted from earlier post:

BUT . . it's never that simple. As CoL pointed out correctly, use of a copyrighted work may fall under the "fair use" exception of -->

17 U.S.C. section 107. Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use:

". . . the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by [section 106], for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . . scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall include --

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. . . "

Annux:

No money was ever made of the Goddess's tits. Trust me on that. I wouldn't call this an education purpose by any chance but the site is made and maintained for the community without any personal profit to my self or staff besides acknowledgement

You don't know that. Maybe YOU didn't make any money, but . . .

What's the issue again here? The issue is whether you're violating the copyright holder's exclusive rights of reproduction and display. If you don't qualify for the fair use exception (and that's a question I'm not qualified nor willing to attempt to answer at this time) then the law seems to indicate you're infringing the copyright on that work.

Continued in the next post. . . Stay tuned.

[Annux]

Bill Summary & Status for the 105th Congress

On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act -

Amends Federal copyright law to exempt an on-line material provider from liability for direct infringement, based solely on the intermediate storage and transmission of material over such provider's network, if:

(1) the transmission was initiated by another person;
(2) the storage and transmission is carried out through an automatic technological process, without any selection of that material by the provider; and
(3) any copy of such material is not retained longer than necessary to carry out that transmission.

Exempts such a provider from liability for monetary relief for contributory infringement or vicarious liability based solely on the above conduct or on the transmission or provision of access to such material over the provider's system or network if the provider:

(1) does not know of information indicating that the material is infringing; and
(2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.

This is the latest update to CopyRight Laws.

The personal insults are cute. "If this was hockey, you'd be missing a tooth now."

[The Crimson King]

Annux:
What? Punitive damages are based on the pain suffered by the plaintiff as a direct cause of the defendant's behaiviour. If you claim that the plaintiff can't prove actual damages, they are definetly not receiving any punitive awards. The phrase "extraordinary pain and suffering" comes up when punitive damages are mentioned in negligence case. Without proving that basic damage has been done to the user, they are definetly not collecting anything extra. And I don't know what nominal damages are. They sound made up.

Me:
punitive damages. Damages awarded in addition to actual damages when the defendant acted with recklessness, malice, or deceit. Punitive damages . . . are intended to punish and thereby deter blameworthy conduct . . . The Supreme Court has held that three guidelines help determine whether a punitive-damages award violates constitutional due process: (1) the reprehensibility of the conduct being punished; (2) the reasonableness of the relationship between the harm and the award; and (3) the difference between the award and the civil penalties authorized in comparable cases. BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore , 517 U.S. 559 (1996).

nominal damages. A trifling sum awarded when a legal injury is suffered but when there is no substantial loss or injury to be compensated.

Definitions reprinted from Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed. 1999.

So, as you can plainly see, an award for "extraordinary pain and suffering" would fall under the heading of actual, or compensatory, damages. (Which means that you are wrong again. At least you get points for being consistent.) The court awards punitive damages to deter intentional tortfeasors (one who commits a tort; a wrongdoer) from committing the same tort (a civil wrong for which a remedy may be obtained, usually in the form of damages; a breach of a duty that the law imposes on everyone in the same relation to one another as those involved in a given transaction) in the future.

In actual fact, I doubt any court would grant a plaintiff with a claim against you anything more than nominal damages -- you're pretty small potatoes. But the court might issue an injunction ordering you to take down the pictures and award the plaintiff court costs and attorney fees (yeah they can do that too), since the prospective plaintiffs have asked you nicely to not display their pictures and you have not complied, nor have you responded in a graceful manner (surprise, surprise).

As an aside, everything you post on the forums and everything you say or said in Continuum that is or has been logged is permanent, publicly accessible, and is easily attributed to you. Kinda makes you think.

Me, reprinted from an earlier post:
Well, I'd post more but I'm running out of books to cite from, and since I'm not a lawyer I can't tell you any of what this law stuff means. Maybe if someone on this board is a lawyer (or maybe a law clerk at a law firm, perhaps?) he can post a reply and explain what all this gobbledygook rhetoric of angry old white legislators means if you translate it into layman's english.

Annux:
I'm a law clerk in training and it doens't pay well. The book mainly relied on Common Law which is what most statues are based on. It's pretty accurate although does need an update and a simpler translation maybe.

Me:
I know you're a law clerk in training; I was fishing for a response from you in my earlier post, see above. I would not have spent this much time replying to your post except that the tone of your post was oh-so-cocky, yet the content of it was oh-so-invariably-incorrect. Talking out of your ass and pretending you know what you're talking about is boorish and annoying in a social setting, but doing it on a public forum is just plain poor judgment -- and talking out of your ass about legal issues is, for legal and ethical reasons, one of the WORST areas in which to mislead people.

I suppose one might accuse me of the same crime, if one had extremely low reading comprehension. To preempt any such accusations, I'd like to point out that I've taken the time to cite (in most cases) to easily verifiable sources of legal authority for my assertions in this two-part post. In other words, I'm just repeating (in true legal tradition) the words of others (and they told you that was plagarism) to formulate an argument. If you respond to this post to disagree with me, please have the integrity and maturity to cite authorities supporting your conflicting point of view.

I'm unemployed, by the way, though I do like to ride my bicycle and play with cats and guitars. It doesn't pay well.

[Annux]

Wait a minute, so are you saying that one could collect punitive damages WITHOUT getting actual damages? Punitive damages are awarded in excess to the actual damages. That was my point all along. You simply repeated everything you've been saying 3 times now and called me stupid.

Speaking of maturity, you have about 10 personal insults in your original reply and apparently you 'fish for responses.' This was before I ever mentioned your name or even had a chance to reply to your claim.

I didn't quote my resources mainly because I did not feel you (or anyone else reading the forum for that matter) would care or bother reading them. And to be honest, I do have better things to do with my time. I'd wage that most people haven't even bothered reading the last 4 responses.

You have been repeating the same thing over and over again. It's getting boring. I'm surprised you haven't realized that alot of the copyright infringement information does not fully or sometimes at all apply to the internet. Feel free to keep quoting and using italics. Getting kind of boring now though, throw in a dozen or so more personal insults so I'll respect you more.

[The Crimson King]

zero-for-five and counting . . .

There is a lot more to law than you know. Read on, my sports-analogy prone friend . . .

I'm assumng you got your synopsis from this site:

http://www.isoc.org/internet/law/legis.shtml

If you had read that site closely, you would have seen the following:

"For pending bills: "S." = U.S. Senate; "H.R." = U.S. House of Representatives.
For enacted laws: "P.L." = Public Law (not yet codified); "U.S.C." = U.S. Code. "

The full text of the bill you cited, H.R. 3209, is as follows:

105th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. R. 3209
To amend title 17, United States Code, to limit liability for copyright infringement for on-line material.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 12, 1998
Mr. COBLE (for himself and Mr. GOODLATTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend title 17, United States Code, to limit liability for copyright infringement for on-line material.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 511 the following new section:

`Sec. 512. Limitations on liability relating to material on-line

`(a) LIMITATION- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, a provider shall not be liable for--

`(1) direct infringement, based solely on the intermediate storage and transmission of material over that provider's system or network, if--

`(A) the transmission was initiated by another person;

`(B) the storage and transmission is carried out through an automatic technological process, without any selection of that material by the provider; and

`(C) any copy made of the material is not retained longer than necessary for the purpose of carrying out that transmission;

`(2) monetary relief under section 504 or 505 for contributory infringement or vicarious liability, based solely on conduct described in paragraph (1); or

`(3) monetary relief under section 504 or 505 for contributory infringement or vicarious liability, based solely on transmitting or providing access to material over that provider's system or network, other than conduct described in paragraph (1), if the provider--

`(A) does not know and is not aware of information indicating that the material is infringing; and

`(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.

`(b) PROTECTION OF PRIVACY- Nothing in subsection (a) shall authorize or obligate a provider to access material that the provider is prohibited by law from accessing, or impose an affirmative obligation to monitor or otherwise seek information indicating infringement.

`(c) LIMITATION BASED UPON REMOVING OR DISABLING ACCESS TO INFRINGING MATERIAL- A provider shall not be liable for any claim based on that provider's removing or disabling on-line access to material, in response to knowledge or information indicating that the material is infringing, whether or not the material is infringing.

`(d) OTHER DEFENSES NOT AFFECTED- Removing or disabling access to material which a provider transmits on-line or to which a provider provides on-line access, or the failure to do so, shall not adversely bear upon the consideration by a court of a defense to infringement asserted by that provider on the basis of section 107 or any other provision of law.

`(e) MISREPRESENTATIONS- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material on-line is infringing shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer or by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee who is injured by such misrepresentation, or by any provider who relies upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material claimed to be infringing.

`(f) DEFINITION- As used in this section, the term `provider' means a provider of on-line services or network access.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`512. Limitations on liability relating to material on-line.'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now a little legislative history for you . . .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATEMENT OF MARYBETH PETERS
REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
BEFORE THE
HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
ON H.R. 2180 AND H.R. 2281
105th CONGRESS, 1st SESSION
September 16, 1997

". . . H.R. 2180, the “On-Line Copyright Liability Limitation Act,” would add a new section 512 to the Copyright Act, creating a new exemption from infringement liability for certain acts of transmitting, or providing access to material on-line, that are typically engaged in by providers of on-line and services and Internet access." (emphasis added).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the analysis:

(1) Note that you are not citing the United States Code ("U.S.C."), but rather a House Resolution ("H.R."). The difference here is, the U.S.C. is the law, while a H.R. is a pending bill -- not yet the law of the land.

(2) Even if that bill had been passed, your assessment of its meaning is incorrect. (You are now zero-for-six, in other words.) Please read subpart (f), which states that "[a]s used in this section, the term `provider' means a provider of on-line services or network access.'. Your website does not qualify you as an ISP, and thus this bill would not apply to you.

(3) The point of this BILL is not to allow webmasters to display copyrighted material. The point is to limit liability for direct and contributory infringement of companies that provide internet services, i.e., AOL, Earthlink, et cetera. Willful and deliberate posting of copyrighted material after prior notification that the material is copyrighted is not protected

Please enjoy Rep. Howard Coble's (the guy who authored and introduced the bill) remarks as to that bill at the following link:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...r105IQZ8JK:e0:


The whole thing is a little large to paste here, but the following is germane:

"The knowledge standard in subparagraph (A) is nearly identical to that used in the bill as introduced, and is intended to be functionally equivalent. In addition to actual knowledge, it includes `information indicating that the material is infringing.' This would include a notice or any other `red flag'--information of any kind that a reasonable person would rely upon. It may, in appropriate circumstances include the absence of customary indicia of ownership or authorization, such as a standard and accepted digital watermark or other copyright management information. As subsection (b) makes clear, the bill imposes no obligation on a provider to seek out such red flags. Once a provider becomes aware of a red flag, however, it ceases to quality for the exemption and, under existing law, it may have a duty to follow up."

But you're not a provider as defined by the bill, and the bill is not a law. And that ends that. GG $$

CK

[Childrn of Light]

The OCILLA is meant to protect online service providers from large damage claims. Even if one is protected they may still be sued. The guidelines are relatively strict as well. There are actually 2 bills. One to protect an individual and one to protect OSPs. They have different standards.

http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/osp.html is a good read on OSP protection.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2180: is the text of the bill protecting an individual.

`(a) EXEMPTIONS- A person shall not be liable--

`(1) for direct infringement, or vicariously liable for the infringing acts of another, based solely on transmitting or otherwise providing access to material on-line, if the person--

`(A) does not initially place the material on-line;

`(B) does not generate, select, or alter the content of the material;

`(C) does not determine the recipients of the material;

`(D) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to a particular act of infringement;

`(E) does not sponsor, endorse, or advertise the material; and

`(F)(i) does not know, and is not aware by notice or other information indicating, that the material is infringing, or

`(ii) is prohibited by law from accessing the material; or

`(2) in the case of a finding of contributory infringement based solely on conduct for which a person is exempt from liability for direct infringement or vicarious liability under paragraph (1), for any remedy other than injunctive relief under section 502, except that such injunctive relief shall be available only to the extent that all acts required by such relief are technically feasible and economically reasonable to carry out.

Nothing in clause (i) of paragraph (1)(F) shall impose an affirmative obligation to seek information described in such clause.

[Facetious]

Crimson, are you suing Annux?

[The Crimson King]

Annux:

Wait a minute, so are you saying that one could collect punitive damages WITHOUT getting actual damages? Punitive damages are awarded in excess to the actual damages. That was my point all along. You simply repeated everything you've been saying 3 times now and called me stupid.

Me:
You defined punitive damages incorrectly. You did not know what you were talking about.

Annux:
Speaking of maturity, you have about 10 personal insults in your original reply and apparently you 'fish for responses.' This was before I ever mentioned your name or even had a chance to reply to your claim.

Me:
What personal insults? Your post claimed to state the law and it was WRONG. I told you as much. That's it. Don't tell me you're getting sensitive in your old age.

Annux:
I didn't quote my resources mainly because I did not feel you (or anyone else reading the forum for that matter) would care or bother reading them. And to be honest, I do have better things to do with my time. I'd wage that most people haven't even bothered reading the last 4 responses.

Me:
You should throw your sources in the trash can. They were not correct and neither were you in parroting their incorrect information.

Annux:
You have been repeating the same thing over and over again. It's getting boring. I'm surprised you haven't realized that alot of the copyright infringement information does not fully or sometimes at all apply to the internet. Feel free to keep quoting and using italics. Getting kind of boring now though, throw in a dozen or so more personal insults so I'll respect you more.

Me:
You want to be a lawyer, you say. Much of law is boring. Your job will depend on you being right. You, so far, have not been right once. You might want to work on that.
__________________


Enough said.

CK

[The Crimson King]

Retraction -- it is law, yet doesn't apply to you still

LOL, see title. In my defense, I took IP before the DMCA was passed, and my online research access is suspended in the summer.

Thanks to CoL to providing good background information on short notice. Hey, CoL, what do you do anyway?

CK

(This is the last post from me on this subject, I hope.)

[Nickname]

In half the Vulch picture Guy (yungsta) looks liek he's having a good time and the other half he looks like a cold blooded killer. Just though i'd share.

[Ilya]

I'm cooler than you!

I look good.

[Spybreak!]

sigh, plz get over all of this, they are trying to do somethin nice to let us know more about our fellow players, i dont see what's wrong with that.

do you go around sueing everyone who looks at you in real life? seriously...