Americans, your Doctor Who books are illegal

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by radioguy, Jan 17, 2009.

  1. radioguy

    radioguy Guest

    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.
    radioguy, Jan 17, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. radioguy

    Kent Wills Guest

    On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
    <> 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'
    Kent Wills, Jan 17, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. radioguy

    radioguy Guest

    On Jan 17, 1:23 pm, richard <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
    >
    > <> 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.
    radioguy, Jan 17, 2009
    #3
  4. radioguy

    radioguy Guest

    On Jan 17, 1:23 pm, richard <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
    >
    > <> 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....t&q="dvd"+"region"+"illegal"#660eed140d993071
    radioguy, Jan 17, 2009
    #4
  5. radioguy

    radioguy Guest

    On Jan 17, 1:23 pm, richard <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
    >
    > <> 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.
    radioguy, Jan 17, 2009
    #5
  6. radioguy

    radioguy Guest

    On Jan 17, 1:23 pm, richard <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
    >
    > <> 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.
    radioguy, Jan 17, 2009
    #6
  7. radioguy

    Netmask Guest

    "radioguy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Jan 17, 1:23 pm, richard <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
    >
    > <> 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.
    Netmask, Jan 17, 2009
    #7
  8. radioguy

    Deadrat Guest

    richard <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:35:03 -0800 (PST), radioguy
    > <> 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.
    Deadrat, Jan 18, 2009
    #8
  9. 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.
    David L. Martel, Jan 18, 2009
    #9
  10. radioguy

    The Doctor Guest

    In article <yCucl.316$>,
    David L. Martel <> 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 Ici
    God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
    Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
    The Doctor, Jan 18, 2009
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. VIBE MUSIC
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    479
    VIBE MUSIC
    Aug 19, 2003
  2. Consultant
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    399
    Consultant
    Aug 19, 2003
  3. =?Windows-1252?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?=

    Re: Rock Star Network Guru takes Indian Americans to New Heights Oy!

    =?Windows-1252?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?=, Aug 19, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    378
    =?Windows-1252?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?=
    Aug 19, 2003
  4. Portulaca Enteritidis

    Re: quality americans...

    Portulaca Enteritidis, Oct 6, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    359
    Portulaca Enteritidis
    Oct 6, 2004
  5. radioguy
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,272
    anthony
    Feb 8, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page