More Youtube videos. Free marketing, free entertainment, no fuss, sorry Russ

[ShootingArts]

Well you see Russ it's like this

And even if he REALLY believes it's just something that authors just have to deal with, then why did he bother putting up the warning on his site?

Russ

(to be read in the voice of Jimmy Stewart)
Well you see Russ it's like this. You gotta understand . . . when people are all together in society . . . A long time ago when . . . Four score and a couple more years ago . . . Russ you just have to understand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . you do understand now don'tcha?



I think I'll go back to one of the threads about what makes Efren tick. If I were to ever understand BlackJack's reasoning it would be scary!

Hu

 

[John Barton]

John,

The law is indeed a quagmire as I have mentioned earlier. Too easy to find contradicting precedent. However, a registered copyright is a certificate of ownership much like a deed to land or title to a vehicle, it isn't merely a claim. A registered copyright is proof of ownership and it takes a great deal to overturn that. This actually sounds like what you are saying, you were first to market using a name but someone else already owned the copyright or registered it after you were using the name but had not registered it. They would be the ones entitled to use the name.

Recently a friend's development team created some proprietary software based on some open architecture software that they did buy the right to use but of course not the actual software. In a legitimate accident the team sent in many pages of the code of the original software when they registered their own program. When they found the error they immediately contacted the copyright office. They were told that the code sent in error had not been previously registered and they were the legal owners of that code, even if this was unintentional.

I have no idea if they transferred the rights to the code to the original developers or if there is just a gentleman's agreement between the two parties that the code actually belongs to the first company. Maybe they simply kept the ownership. Ethical or not, it would be legal. We aren't talking peanuts here either. The sales for the final software were almost a half million dollars in the first month.

Hu

"Copyright Registration

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

* Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

* Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.

* If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

* If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

* Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import. Click on “Intellectual Property Rights.”

Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired."

This is from the Copyright Office's website. A registration is a claim of ownership. I can register a copyright on something you created and that does not mean that I own it.

It is not the same as a deed or title. It is merely a record of claimed ownership.

And no, for the record, I had both the copyright and the trademark registered in my name. I still had to sue in order to stop another company from infringing on my registered intellectual property. The defendant submitted falsified documents that claimed that they were the owners of the IP. Thus it became a legal battle to establish true ownership before we could even discuss damages and remedies. As I said, even if you possess the certificate from the government that grants you a claim on a copyright or trademark YOU are still responsible for defending that claim. And that can be quite costly and still offer no real remedies. And THAT is very far from slam dunks and cut-and-dried cases.

If my little dispute could take such turns then I can only imagine what things both sides can come up with in the Viacom/YouTube dispute.

 

[Hail Mary Shot]

Just because I am a moral person does not mean I cannot participate in a good spirited "sting" of a buddy. For the cost of a cup of coffee, he's going to learn NEVER believe someone who says they don't play well when a bet comes into the picture.
Russ

Now that's just EVIL. Russ, is that you? I think you're being possessed !

 

[ShootingArts]

titles and deeds can be disputed too

John,

Titles and deeds can be disputed too but they are still much more than a claim of ownership. The first person to register a copyright is the presumed owner under the law. There are various other things that carry weight such as what is known as a "poor boy's patent" which is a proof of the date of copyright without registering a copyright with the Fed's. I can see where things could get sticky if someone had a poor boy's patent predating a registered copyright.

IP ownership and lapses of ownership are documented. I don't understand how that could be a major issue if you had proof of ownership and possession of the IP. My documentation is within a few feet of my computer as I type. I'm skeptical that anyone else can get the same IP as long as I pay my bills on time. I think that your lawyer may have been who took you for a ride. Did you try to file a criminal complaint?

As you say, when the big boys go to court against each other it isn't likely to be over until new case law is written. On the other hand when people are wrong at that level it is where the judgments with lots of zeroes in them come into play.

Normally people don't compound copyright violations with fraud that will eventually be uncovered and lead to further charges. Not to question your word in any way but because these things are of interest to me, court records are often on the Internet. Would you mind sending me a case number and what court your hearings were in if it is available? I like to read the ins and outs of some of the unusual cases.

Hu

"Copyright Registration

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

* Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

* Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.

* If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

* If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

* Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import. Click on “Intellectual Property Rights.”

Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired."

This is from the Copyright Office's website. A registration is a claim of ownership. I can register a copyright on something you created and that does not mean that I own it.

It is not the same as a deed or title. It is merely a record of claimed ownership.

And no, for the record, I had both the copyright and the trademark registered in my name. I still had to sue in order to stop another company from infringing on my registered intellectual property. The defendant submitted falsified documents that claimed that they were the owners of the IP. Thus it became a legal battle to establish true ownership before we could even discuss damages and remedies. As I said, even if you possess the certificate from the government that grants you a claim on a copyright or trademark YOU are still responsible for defending that claim. And that can be quite costly and still offer no real remedies. And THAT is very far from slam dunks and cut-and-dried cases.

If my little dispute could take such turns then I can only imagine what things both sides can come up with in the Viacom/YouTube dispute.

 

[John Barton]

John,

Titles and deeds can be disputed too but they are still much more than a claim of ownership. The first person to register a copyright is the presumed owner under the law. There are various other things that carry weight such as what is known as a "poor boy's patent" which is a proof of the date of copyright without registering a copyright with the Fed's. I can see where things could get sticky if someone had a poor boy's patent predating a registered copyright.

IP ownership and lapses of ownership are documented. I don't understand how that could be a major issue if you had proof of ownership and possession of the IP. My documentation is within a few feet of my computer as I type. I'm skeptical that anyone else can get the same IP as long as I pay my bills on time. I think that your lawyer may have been who took you for a ride. Did you try to file a criminal complaint?

As you say, when the big boys go to court against each other it isn't likely to be over until new case law is written. On the other hand when people are wrong at that level it is where the judgments with lots of zeroes in them come into play.

Normally people don't compound copyright violations with fraud that will eventually be uncovered and lead to further charges. Not to question your word in any way but because these things are of interest to me, court records are often on the Internet. Would you mind sending me a case number and what court your hearings were in if it is available? I like to read the ins and outs of some of the unusual cases.

Hu

I agree that a registered copyright or trademark is presumed to be owned by the registrant. But if someone disputes the claim then that can put the burden of proof back onto the registrant. In my case we had to compile extra evidence of prior use to supplement the registration to answer the defendant's counterclaims. As you probably know all counterclaims must be answered within the time alloted by the court. And it is enough to make a claim without having to prove it in order to make the other side defend against it with proof.

Our case never went to trial. We settled in a conference with the judge. Frankly, we had the stronger case and we were confident of winning but I did not have the money to continue and so I was forced to accept a settlement that merely stopped the other party from infringing and gave them a 3 month cushion to stop sales. No damages or cost were awarded and frankly even if they had been I wouldn't have been able to collect.

I am not sure if settled cases are on the books but we filed in New Orleans. If you email me I will send you the docket number.

Using my former trademark as an example. If you were to start selling cases with the Instroke trademark affixed to it then the current owner/registrant would ask you to cease. If you didn't then it would likely come to a lawsuit. If you were able to present some seemingly credible claims on the trademark then you could at least make life miserable for the actual owner of the trademark while you continued to infringe. An injunction would cost the registrant a ton of money to put up as a bond in the event that they were proved wrong.

In my case I would have had to put up a bond of $500,000 with the court to obtain an injunction to prevent sales while the suit was pending. Even at the 10% non-refundable deposit with the bond company it was too much for me with no other collateral. So you can see that the piece of paper from the government wasn't worth too much in practical terms when the other side was able to craft counterclaims that cast enough doubt to allow them to continue to function.

And that's the true crux of the matter. Obtaining the registration is only one part of the fight. Defending it without going bankrupt in the process is another. I think the IP landscape would look a lot different IF infringers faced mandatory fines and imprisonment as is the case in physical property theft. I dare anybody to knowingly import and sell copies of my cases when they face jail time for doing it.

 

[Hail Mary Shot]

I'm a saint compared to most of the pool players I've met.

I never lied to the guy... I told him I didn't play that well, and that is technically true.. I don't play well enough to beat any but the bottom 10% of tournament chess players.. It's not my fault how he interprets that. Now, if I said that I didn't even know the rules, and asked him to teach me, to set him up for an elaborate scam, you'd have a point.

And as far as being a thief.... "Negotiating" in games of skill is the one area I loosen up a bit in. You never know when the other guy is laying down as well, so you better get the best game you can.. Furthermore, he is gonna know in about 10 moves that he is outmatched, there's not gonna be any "laying down" to keep him on a string.

Just because I am a moral person does not mean I cannot participate in a good spirited "sting" of a buddy. For the cost of a cup of coffee, he's going to learn NEVER believe someone who says they don't play well when a bet comes into the picture.

Come on wayne.. Yer ssssssssssstretching it a bit, eh?

Russ

Russ, can you spot me the wild 8 then ? I don't play that well, technically speaking !

P.S. bring along a cinnamon roll, coffee won't be enough !

 

[CreeDo]

There is the "reasonable person" test applied in many cases.

Right, but the test is often impossible to apply to youtube. Professional-looking stuff might turn out to be talented amateur work, or it may be professional but legal (like the billiard club stuff). Other stuff might not scream professional despite being copyrighted (like some old accustats tapes). I can easily see someone not realizing they're watching something copyrighted, especially if the uploader cuts out the ads or self-promotional bits.

I don't think the 'backyard nfl video' analogy is a fair comparison because obviously you can't have an unofficial match on a real nfl field, and you can't (in any practical way) videotape such a thing. But anyone can play on a pool table and anyone can videotape it. It's not nearly as obvious.

I can say with a straight face that I've watched a match and not been sure if it's ripped from accu-stats or was just home footage. Look at that efren vs grady match posted in the one-pocket thread. It's got an overhead camera, which points to professional... yet there's no commentary and people are strolling around the players and chatting, so it's almost certainly not a tournament match. Even now I'm unsure whether I'm a lawbreaker. I'm wracked with guilt at the possibility!

Youtube is well aware that there are huge amounts of stolen property posted there. This may well make Youtube the internet equivalent of a vacant lot where stolen property was being sold a few years back.

Another unfair analogy, because the back lot example sounds like 100% stolen goods, so anyone shopping there would reasonably expect to be getting stolen stuff. Youtube has plenty of legal stuff, probably more legal than illegal. So I can't click on a youtube link and automatically assume I'm wandering into your vacant lot full of fences.

A bit disingenuous to claim that we must be absolutely sure something is stolen before we decide it isn't to be watched. The "reasonable person" guideline should apply.

It's easy to rephrase that to make it look very unreasonable: "I must make absolutely 100 percent sure this entertaining clip is legal before I watch it".
Seems a bit overboard. It's like saying I have to know the provenance of every item I consider buying at a yard sale, flea market, or pawn shop. If something at the yard sale IS stolen and I'm a reasonable person and I play it safe and not buy it, is the item 'unstolen' now? Was it really 'doubly stolen' if I ended up buying it? I say the damage is already done, and my role is meaningless. Let the cops catch the guy who stole it and nevermind the yard sale customers.


I don't consider software pirates in the same league as child molesters but the damage that they do can range from petty theft to ruining a person financially, wrecking their health, and indirectly killing them.


LOL ok that statement absolutely fails the reasonable person test. We've gone from "you're a thief" to "you're a murderer". People will overlook your good points if you try theatrical stuff like that... it's like how there's always one guy who always compares everything to hitler or nazis in a debate. The reader just thinks "ok this guy's nuts. I'm skipping the post."

To penalize someone $30,000 for taking a song that can be purchased for a few dollars seems rough but if it gives a thousand others pause then the penalty works.

The thing is, it isn't working at all, nobody pauses for even a heartbeat before continuing to download. The odds of being sued for downloading that song are comparable to the odds of winning the lottery. Plus it has the added effect of massively negative publicity for companies like the RIAA or MPAA. I think we agree that a few massive fines to 1 offender out of 10,000,000 is a stupid way to handle it.

 

[Fatboy]

Thanks Fatboy,

I appreciate the sentiment... It's just that I have always had little sympathy for those who try to justify unethical acts. And support illegal activities by others.

Some "well-respected" members of the board have went on record as saying they don't particularly care about whether people are stealing content from Accu-Stats. This goes beyond the BCN content. There have been other matches posted on YouTube, and a bunch of people cheer every time someone puts up a new match.

This is abhorrent to me. I just can't see stealing someone else's work. None of these people would say that walking into a museum and stealing a painting is okay, so how do they justify doing the same thing digitally?

I guess I just don't get it. The justification of "I'm poor, so I'll steal content until I can afford it" just doesn't fly with me either. Pick your priorities, people. When I was an E-4 in the Army, I brought home less than $1600.00 a month, and I bought quite a few Accu-Stat VHS tapes. And because I bought Accu-Stats videos, mebbe I settled for a used car instead of a new one. Pick..your...priorities.... Don't just steal what you can't afford.

People in America seem to feel entitled to have it all, no matter how little they may make at their job. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Saying you deserve access to intellectual property that was produced for profit "just because you're poor" smacks of socialism to me.

You deserve access to entertainment when you can afford it, nothing more. If you want to look at art... city, county, state governments usually have affordable museums for that purpose. You want to have access to intellectual property produced "for profit", then work a few more hours at work. That's the way I see it, that's the way I saw it when I worked for basically minimum wage in the Army, and that's probably the way I'll always see it.

Getting angry at thieves is not necessarily because I am "stressed" or anything. It's more because I have certain moral beliefs that I believe in very strongly, and will voice my opinion loudly if I want, since America is a free country.

Russ

Russ,


I have been on both teams, $$$ and no $$$, and the amount you have shouldnt dictate your behaviour and prioritys, but it usually does(not me i remain the same person no matter what i have), and sadly when people figure out that you have $$ then they raise the price-"lets price it on his ability to pay"-not what its worth, which is the oppsite of saying i'm broke so its cool to steal things. The fact you stand your ground based on your beliefs is honerable I do the same. $$$ destroys people think mike tyson(I know him). there is alot of responsibility that comes with $$$, kids or no $$$$ and sticking to your principals no matter the circumstance is hard but I do it too, like you.