Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Americans, your Doctor Who books are illegal

Reply
Thread Tools

Americans, your Doctor Who books are illegal

 
 
radioguy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2009
The MPAA shills also said that ujst bying them is illegal contraband,
even if you don't sell them to anyone else.

The MPAA shills claim that federal U.S. judges have already ruled that
they are contraband since the publishing
rights were never sold to a U.S. publisher.

And that you are guilty of posessing of illegal contraband.

I myself have not seen the case rulings of such.





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Kent Wills
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2009
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The MPAA shills also said that ujst bying them is illegal contraband,
>even if you don't sell them to anyone else.
>
>The MPAA shills claim that federal U.S. judges have already ruled that
>they are contraband since the publishing
>rights were never sold to a U.S. publisher.
>
>And that you are guilty of posessing of illegal contraband.
>
>I myself have not seen the case rulings of such.
>


Would you be so kind as to post a link to the discussion about
this topic? I would enjoy reading it.

--
"The Doctor is coming..."
-- Dalek Cann 'Doctor Who: The Stolen Earth'
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
radioguy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2009
On Jan 17, 1:23*pm, richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >The MPAA shills also said that ujst bying them is illegal contraband,
> >even if you don't sell them to anyone else.

>
> >The MPAA shills claim that federal U.S. judges have already ruled that
> >they are contraband since the publishing
> >rights were never sold to a U.S. publisher.

>
> >And that you are guilty of posessing of illegal contraband.

>
> >I myself have not seen the case rulings of such.

>
> Perhaps they are referring to this case
> <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/torrentspy-ding.html>
>
> In which case the MPAA has a valid point.
> However, like the RIAA, the MPAA has no legal standing in filing such
> lawsuits. Neither are legal counsel for any performer. They can not
> practice law. *They can not represent "clients" in court.
>
> Only the person(s) who have been infringed can bring such lawsuits.
>
> Yes it is illegal to publish works of others without written authority
> to do so and offer it for sale. That is the nature of copyright.
>
> The real question is, is it illegal to possess a pirated published
> work such as this, if you had purchased the work say from a bookstore
> and not from some guy on the street.
> Before it was ruled by the court as being "pirated" then yes it is
> legal. After that ruling, no.
>
> When either the MPAA or RIAA wins such cases, who do you suppose
> retains the monetary judgement? The performer or copyright holder? If
> the judges would rule that all said money goes to the performer or
> copyright holder, then perhaps these two organizations would not be so
> willing to file lawsuits.


Despite what the MPAA shills say, the books published by Virgin Books
and the BBC are NOT pirated books.

Virgin Books had the legitimate copyright to publish them at the time
they did, and BBC is th legitimate copyright holder and currently
publishes
the books.

The MPAA shills say Americans buying those books today are guilty of
both possessing illegal contraband and guilty of stealing money from
any
American publisher that sometime in the future, like twenty five years
from now, decides to buy the American pblishing rights for those
particular
books.

I say hogwash. It's NOT illegal. If it were, then the U.S. wouldn't
have laws saying imports of things from ABC in Astralia can be sold in
the U.S. as long as they are labeled as "import" so as to not conuse
people by falsely making them think it's from America's ABC.

Several retail shops (selling brand mew merchandise) in the U.S. sell
imports. They just have to be labeled as such.

Half Price Books (a used book store) is currently selling a UK dvd of
the Thnderbirds movie.

Half Price Books also has a sign up saying they obey all copyright
laws.

And I know for a fact they do. Laws as in the U.S.

The law in the U..K. and other countries might be different.







 
Reply With Quote
 
radioguy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2009
On Jan 17, 1:23*pm, richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >The MPAA shills also said that ujst bying them is illegal contraband,
> >even if you don't sell them to anyone else.

>
> >The MPAA shills claim that federal U.S. judges have already ruled that
> >they are contraband since the publishing
> >rights were never sold to a U.S. publisher.

>
> >And that you are guilty of posessing of illegal contraband.

>
> >I myself have not seen the case rulings of such.

>
> Perhaps they are referring to this case
> <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/torrentspy-ding.html>
>
> In which case the MPAA has a valid point.
> However, like the RIAA, the MPAA has no legal standing in filing such
> lawsuits. Neither are legal counsel for any performer. They can not
> practice law. *They can not represent "clients" in court.
>
> Only the person(s) who have been infringed can bring such lawsuits.
>
> Yes it is illegal to publish works of others without written authority
> to do so and offer it for sale. That is the nature of copyright.
>
> The real question is, is it illegal to possess a pirated published
> work such as this, if you had purchased the work say from a bookstore
> and not from some guy on the street.
> Before it was ruled by the court as being "pirated" then yes it is
> legal. After that ruling, no.
>
> When either the MPAA or RIAA wins such cases, who do you suppose
> retains the monetary judgement? The performer or copyright holder? If
> the judges would rule that all said money goes to the performer or
> copyright holder, then perhaps these two organizations would not be so
> willing to file lawsuits.


hmmm. It sounds like you're a mpaa shill since the mpaa shills have
also said buying things from the original copyright holder even when
they are
the only copyright owner in the entire world "is buying pirated
material" since you are stealing from whatever American publisher who
sometime in
the future decides to buy the American publishing rights for it.

The reason I didn't post the posts is because there are millions of
them on that subject. I didn't know where to begin. So here is just
one. I'll post
the more specific posts later.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...0eed140d993071


 
Reply With Quote
 
radioguy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2009
On Jan 17, 1:23*pm, richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >The MPAA shills also said that ujst bying them is illegal contraband,
> >even if you don't sell them to anyone else.

>
> >The MPAA shills claim that federal U.S. judges have already ruled that
> >they are contraband since the publishing
> >rights were never sold to a U.S. publisher.

>
> >And that you are guilty of posessing of illegal contraband.

>
> >I myself have not seen the case rulings of such.

>
> Perhaps they are referring to this case
> <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/torrentspy-ding.html>
>
> In which case the MPAA has a valid point.
> However, like the RIAA, the MPAA has no legal standing in filing such
> lawsuits. Neither are legal counsel for any performer. They can not
> practice law. *They can not represent "clients" in court.
>
> Only the person(s) who have been infringed can bring such lawsuits.
>
> Yes it is illegal to publish works of others without written authority
> to do so and offer it for sale. That is the nature of copyright.
>
> The real question is, is it illegal to possess a pirated published
> work such as this, if you had purchased the work say from a bookstore
> and not from some guy on the street.
> Before it was ruled by the court as being "pirated" then yes it is
> legal. After that ruling, no.
>
> When either the MPAA or RIAA wins such cases, who do you suppose
> retains the monetary judgement? The performer or copyright holder?


Neither. The performers or authors are in the U.K. The copyright
holder is in the U.K.

The only people that retains the monetary judgement in your exxample
is the MPAA who is neither the copyright holder, authors, or
performers.

The MPAA is definitely guilty of theft in the above example.

The MPAA is definitely the criminals in the above example.


In the above mentioned
If
> the judges would rule that all said money goes to the performer or
> copyright holder, then perhaps these two organizations would not be so
> willing to file lawsuits.


 
Reply With Quote
 
radioguy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2009
On Jan 17, 1:23*pm, richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >The MPAA shills also said that ujst bying them is illegal contraband,
> >even if you don't sell them to anyone else.

>
> >The MPAA shills claim that federal U.S. judges have already ruled that
> >they are contraband since the publishing
> >rights were never sold to a U.S. publisher.

>
> >And that you are guilty of posessing of illegal contraband.

>
> >I myself have not seen the case rulings of such.

>
> Perhaps they are referring to this case
> <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/torrentspy-ding.html>
>
> In which case the MPAA has a valid point.
> However, like the RIAA, the MPAA has no legal standing in filing such
> lawsuits. Neither are legal counsel for any performer. They can not
> practice law. *They can not represent "clients" in court.
>
> Only the person(s) who have been infringed can bring such lawsuits.
>
> Yes it is illegal to publish works of others without written authority
> to do so and offer it for sale. That is the nature of copyright.
>
> The real question is, is it illegal to possess a pirated published
> work such as this, if you had purchased the work say from a bookstore
> and not from some guy on the street.
> Before it was ruled by the court as being "pirated" then yes it is
> legal. After that ruling, no.
>
> When either the MPAA or RIAA wins such cases, who do you suppose
> retains the monetary judgement? The performer or copyright holder? If
> the judges would rule that all said money goes to the performer or
> copyright holder, then perhaps these two organizations would not be so
> willing to file lawsuits.


In yor example, the MPAA are the pirates. Who are committing both
theft and illegal acts.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Netmask
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2009

"radioguy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
On Jan 17, 1:23 pm, richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >The MPAA shills also said that ujst bying them is illegal contraband,
> >even if you don't sell them to anyone else.

>
> >The MPAA shills claim that federal U.S. judges have already ruled that
> >they are contraband since the publishing
> >rights were never sold to a U.S. publisher.

>
> >And that you are guilty of posessing of illegal contraband.

>
> >I myself have not seen the case rulings of such.

>
> Perhaps they are referring to this case
> <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/torrentspy-ding.html>
>
> In which case the MPAA has a valid point.
> However, like the RIAA, the MPAA has no legal standing in filing such
> lawsuits. Neither are legal counsel for any performer. They can not
> practice law. They can not represent "clients" in court.
>
> Only the person(s) who have been infringed can bring such lawsuits.
>
> Yes it is illegal to publish works of others without written authority
> to do so and offer it for sale. That is the nature of copyright.
>
> The real question is, is it illegal to possess a pirated published
> work such as this, if you had purchased the work say from a bookstore
> and not from some guy on the street.
> Before it was ruled by the court as being "pirated" then yes it is
> legal. After that ruling, no.
>
> When either the MPAA or RIAA wins such cases, who do you suppose
> retains the monetary judgement? The performer or copyright holder? If
> the judges would rule that all said money goes to the performer or
> copyright holder, then perhaps these two organizations would not be so
> willing to file lawsuits.


In yor example, the MPAA are the pirates. Who are committing both
theft and illegal acts.


For the benefit of international readers ( now the majority on the
Internet ) could you explain your "compulsive obsessive" use of what I can
only assume is an American colloquial expression "shill" means? Clearly it
is some sort of pejorative. It seems unnecessary to the conversation and in
terms of communicating to a wider audience you should consider not using
local corruptions of the English language.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Deadrat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2009
richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>The MPAA shills also said that ujst bying them is illegal contraband,
>>even if you don't sell them to anyone else.
>>
>>The MPAA shills claim that federal U.S. judges have already ruled that
>>they are contraband since the publishing
>>rights were never sold to a U.S. publisher.
>>
>>And that you are guilty of posessing of illegal contraband.
>>
>>I myself have not seen the case rulings of such.
>>
>>
>>
>>

>
> Perhaps they are referring to this case
> <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/torrentspy-ding.html>
>
> In which case the MPAA has a valid point.
> However, like the RIAA, the MPAA has no legal standing in filing such
> lawsuits. Neither are legal counsel for any performer. They can not
> practice law. They can not represent "clients" in court.


Wrong. As usual. Why can't the MPAA may act as agents for performers or
for any organization to which a performer has assigned the copyright?
>
> Only the person(s) who have been infringed can bring such lawsuits.


All it takes is for the MPAA to represent someone who's been damaged or for
the MPAA itself to be damaged.

> Yes it is illegal to publish works of others without written authority
> to do so and offer it for sale. That is the nature of copyright.


Wrong. As usual. It's illegal to publish in excess of fair use
copyrighted works of others without their permission. And sale has got
nothing to do with it.

> The real question is, is it illegal to possess a pirated published
> work such as this, if you had purchased the work say from a bookstore
> and not from some guy on the street.
> Before it was ruled by the court as being "pirated" then yes it is
> legal. After that ruling, no.


Wrong. As ususal. It is illegal to buy, sell, possess or distribute
pirated works. The accuser will have to show that the work is pirated in
any court case, but there's no need for a prior ruling.

> When either the MPAA or RIAA wins such cases, who do you suppose
> retains the monetary judgement? The performer or copyright holder? If
> the judges would rule that all said money goes to the performer or
> copyright holder, then perhaps these two organizations would not be so
> willing to file lawsuits.


The parties no doubt agree beforehand as to where the money goes.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David L. Martel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2009
Radio,

In 2005 the newest Dr. Who shows were available for download before they
aired. The sites involved in this did not have the copyrights. The MPAA
successfully sued in the US and was awarded over $110 Mil in 2007. This suit
was against only one of the sites.
These were not printed books but were files that were downloadable on the
internet. These files were the actual recorded teleplays. The MPAA does deal
with such motion pictures but probably not books.
I found nothing, in a quick search on the net, that supports the claim
that there are books about Dr Who being printed or distributed illegally in
the US.
Ask these friends of yours to prove their claim about these books by
offering a real citation. I'd not get too excited until they do. It seems
rather unlikely that the owner of the Dr Who trademark (or copyright, or
whatever) is unaware of the lucrative market for such fiction in the US. I
find it hard to believe that they have not authorised a distributor.

Good luck,
Dave M.


 
Reply With Quote
 
The Doctor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2009
In article <yCucl.316$(E-Mail Removed)>,
David L. Martel <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Radio,
>
> In 2005 the newest Dr. Who shows were available for download before they
>aired. The sites involved in this did not have the copyrights. The MPAA
>successfully sued in the US and was awarded over $110 Mil in 2007. This suit
>was against only one of the sites.
> These were not printed books but were files that were downloadable on the
>internet. These files were the actual recorded teleplays. The MPAA does deal
>with such motion pictures but probably not books.
> I found nothing, in a quick search on the net, that supports the claim
>that there are books about Dr Who being printed or distributed illegally in
>the US.
> Ask these friends of yours to prove their claim about these books by
>offering a real citation. I'd not get too excited until they do. It seems
>rather unlikely that the owner of the Dr Who trademark (or copyright, or
>whatever) is unaware of the lucrative market for such fiction in the US. I
>find it hard to believe that they have not authorised a distributor.
>
>Good luck,
>Dave M.
>
>


HA! HA!
--
Member - Liberal International
This is http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) Ici (E-Mail Removed)
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Americans, your Doctor Who books are illegal radioguy DVD Video 21 02-08-2009 06:45 AM
Share your opinion about Illegal Aliens please Jefferson Computer Support 3 12-31-2004 10:02 PM
Books, books, books: best reference texts for Verilog and VHDL HDL Book Seller VHDL 0 12-01-2004 02:26 AM
Books, Books, Books... C++ 3 09-19-2004 10:11 PM
Norton Disk Doctor SWE MCSE 5 12-03-2003 09:38 PM



Advertisments