Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2012
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:09:19 -0400, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 9/13/2012 9:45 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Better reason: I would think that if you don't enforce your rights, you
>>> may be deemed to abandon them.

>>
>> Why would you think that? This isn't Trademark law and
>> there is nothing to suggest such for Copyright law.
>>

>
>Look up the history of the song: "The Cassons go rolling along."
>
>Here's a start:
><http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c03A.html>
>
>
>BTW Any property can be abandoned:


The word is "caissons". There are several meanings to the word, but
in this context they are the carts that are used to transport
artillery shells. The ditty was composed in 1908 when the caissons
were pulled by animals.


For its Hi! Hi! Hee! in the Field Artillery,
Call off your numbers loud and strong
And where-ere we go
You will always know
That those caissons are rolling along.
That those caissons are rolling along.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2012
On 9/13/2012 1:23 PM, Usenet Account wrote:
> On 13/09/2012 1:09 PM, PeterN wrote:
>> On 9/13/2012 9:45 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Better reason: I would think that if you don't enforce your rights, you
>>>> may be deemed to abandon them.
>>>
>>> Why would you think that? This isn't Trademark law and
>>> there is nothing to suggest such for Copyright law.
>>>

>>
>> Look up the history of the song: "The Cassons go rolling along."
>>
>> Here's a start:
>> <http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c03A.html>
>>
>>
>> BTW Any property can be abandoned:
>>

>
> There are even intelligent people who will claim anything posted on the
> Internet is public domain. I was amazed at that concept. Somehow posting
> a photo on my Facebook page, or my own website means I have surrendered
> my copyrights.
>


That's just thievery, IMHO. I wonder how may of those who make that
claim would be willing to work for nothing.
The principle is that if you want to keep your rights, you must protect
and defend.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-15-2012
On 9/13/2012 5:05 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 9/13/2012 9:45 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Better reason: I would think that if you don't enforce your rights, you
>>>> may be deemed to abandon them.
>>>
>>> Why would you think that? This isn't Trademark law and
>>> there is nothing to suggest such for Copyright law.
>>>

>>
>> Look up the history of the song: "The Cassons go rolling along."
>>
>> Here's a start:
>> <http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c03A.html>

>
> Absolutely meaningless for Copyright Law today. The US signed the
> Berne Convention in 1988.
>
>> BTW Any property can be abandoned:

>
> However, US Copyright Law requires a *written* document to transfer
> copyright ownership.
>


Floyd,
I knew you would never admit being wrong.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-15-2012
On 9/13/2012 5:06 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 05:45:38 -0800, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
> Davidson) wrote:
>
>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Better reason: I would think that if you don't enforce your rights, you
>>> may be deemed to abandon them.

>>
>> Why would you think that? This isn't Trademark law and
>> there is nothing to suggest such for Copyright law.

>
> It's part of the ancient legal principal of 'estoppel'. If you don't
> enforce your rights in some matter or another and allow people to
> metaphorically trample all over them you are assumed to have given
> them away and hence are 'estopped' from later enforcing them.
>


You're wasting pixels. I had the misplaced hope that Floyd would
concede, but that's just not the way he is built.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-15-2012
On 9/14/2012 6:27 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:01:27 +0200, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Eric Stevens writes:
>>
>>> You are wrong.

>>
>>> Neither of us are experts on law. I'm not going to get bogged down in
>>> what is likely to be a futile discussion.

>>
>> The second two statements rather dilute the first, don't they? A good example
>> of estoppel, perhaps?

>
> The first statement should be regarded as shorthand for 'I think you
> are wrong'. I can't be estopped from thinking.
>>
>>> Quite correct. Nevertheless, if you take no steps to protect your
>>> claimed copyright at a time when you knew it was repatedly being
>>> infringed, you are open to being barred from protecting it at a later
>>> date.

>>
>> Not today. Show me an example.

>
> I don't want to get bogged down in argument with you either. However I
> would be interested in an explanation of why the principal of estoppel
> cannot apply to copyright. Which is the body of law concerned. Is it
> statute law or case law?
>


Your argument is sound. If these guys want to bat, that's their problem.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-15-2012
On 9/13/2012 10:02 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> The principle is that if you want to keep your rights, you must protect
>> and defend.

>
> That is utter bullshit. It's totally wrong when applied
> to Copyright Law, and not very specifically correct in
> regard to any individual's rights in other areas. No
> prissy grandmother that has never uttered a word in her
> life that might be regarded as "Free Speech" has somehow
> lost their right to say "**** You Peter!" if they
> suddenly want to, even if they have not protected, used
> or defended that right in the past 50 years.
>


You are free to believe what you want, at your peril.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-15-2012
On 9/14/2012 12:52 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:02:46 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
> Davidson) wrote:
>
>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> The principle is that if you want to keep your rights, you must protect
>>> and defend.

>>
>> That is utter bullshit. It's totally wrong when applied
>> to Copyright Law, and not very specifically correct in
>> regard to any individual's rights in other areas.

>
> Sorry Floyd, Peter is right and you are wrong.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
> "Estoppel by silence or acquiescence Estoppel that prevents a
> person from asserting something when he had the right and
> opportunity to do so earlier, ..."
>
>> No
>> prissy grandmother that has never uttered a word in her
>> life that might be regarded as "Free Speech" has somehow
>> lost their right to say "**** You Peter!" if they
>> suddenly want to, even if they have not protected, used
>> or defended that right in the past 50 years.

>
> The right to free speech is general and not particular. Even if
> Grandma has never done a thing in her life to protect her right to say
> "**** you Peter" that right is protected by the protective actions of
> others.
>


And if those others don't protect and defend it, that right can be
lost. Just as claimed Second amendment rights are defended, in order not
to be lost.
Alaskan Native hunting rights can be lost, if not protected. etc.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-15-2012
On 9/14/2012 2:40 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> PeterN writes:
>
>> Better reason: I would think that if you don't enforce your rights, you
>> may be deemed to abandon them.

>
> True for trademarks, not true for copyrights or patents.
>

It is not worth my time to fined the citations that prove how wrong
you are. As I said to Floyd, believe as you will, at your peril.

Let me just say that I would never even consider taking your position on
a contingency basis. Indeed it would be unethical for a lawyer to try to
defend your position. but, believe as you will.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-15-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:55:35 +0200, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens writes:
>>
>>> Certainly it is more important with trademarks but the principles of
>>> the doctrine of estoppel apply across the broad spectrum of law.

>>
>>Not acting against infringements has nothing to do with estoppel.

>
> If you know that something to which you are legally entitled is being
> infringed and you knowingly allow the infringement to continue for a
> significant perod of time, I expect you would have difficulty in later
> enforcing against the infringer whatever it is you are entitled to.


Your use of "expect" shows you don't actually have any idea. A lawyer
who actually understood this area would not be in doubt! (I'm not one
of those, so I won't parade my answer as authoritative; it isn't.)
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-15-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:10:07 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
> Davidson) wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 05:45:38 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>Better reason: I would think that if you don't enforce your rights, you
>>>>>may be deemed to abandon them.
>>>>
>>>>Why would you think that? This isn't Trademark law and
>>>>there is nothing to suggest such for Copyright law.
>>>
>>>It's part of the ancient legal principal of 'estoppel'. If you don't
>>>enforce your rights in some matter or another and allow people to
>>>metaphorically trample all over them you are assumed to have given
>>>them away and hence are 'estopped' from later enforcing them.

>>
>>It has nothing at all to do with estoppel.
>>
>>Estoppel involves a previous *action*, something that is
>>done, which has already determined to be or make
>>something *valid*.

>
> And if you take no steps to protect your claimed copyright at a time
> when you knew it was repatedly being infringed, you are open to being
> barred from protecting it at a later date.


I've never seen this claim from a credible source. Are you a credible
source? Or what's your credible source that you're quoting?
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
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
Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only tony cooper Digital Photography 26 09-03-2012 10:07 PM
Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only nospam Digital Photography 0 08-30-2012 12:26 AM
Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only tony cooper Digital Photography 0 08-29-2012 11:07 PM
Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only Bob S Digital Photography 0 08-29-2012 01:02 AM
Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only PeterN Digital Photography 0 08-29-2012 12:14 AM



Advertisments