The Official Yasmine Bleeth Fanclub Site has moved

I Shane Findley, leader of the 15k Search, forbid any more activity in this sub-forum. This is a project under the supervision of the constitution of the United States of America, and shall no longer be associated with international projects of this nature.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by TTn

I Shane Findley, leader of the 15k Search, forbid any more activity in this sub-forum. This is a project under the supervision of the constitution of the United States of America, and shall no longer be associated with international projects of this nature.

That's nice, dear. Run along and play with your toys.

We grown-ups will look after things while you are away.


Paul

Target number one confirmed.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by TTn

I Shane Findley, leader of the 15k Search, forbid any more activity in this sub-forum. This is a project under the supervision of the constitution of the United States of America, and shall no longer be associated with international projects of this nature.

This is a genuine question: how can anything be "under the supervision of the constitution of the United States of America"?

As far as I understand things, constitutions can not supervise anything. Constitutions can exist, or not; they can be written, or not; they may be interpreted, amended and rejected but "under the supervision of a constitution" seems to be a very strange juxtaposition of words.

Even if a plausible interpretation of that phrase can be produced, it's not entirely clear how it affects the 95% of the world's population who are neither US citizens nor physically present on US territory.

Weird.

Paul

[xilman]

Originally Posted by TTn

Target number one confirmed.

I believe that the traditional rejoinder is "touché!".

Perhaps the US education system really is as bad as Bob Silverman bewails it and you had not come across the response. If so, I'm gratified that I have improved your general education, albeit very slightly.

Paul

The words of the constitution in question were meant to be interpreted only in certain ways to avoid, or establish ambiguities. These words are a guiding factor(supervision) to those who read it several times through for different meanings.
As a citizen of said constitution, certain rights that I find to be infringed will be defended.

[Wacky]

Originally Posted by xilman

Even if a plausible interpretation of that phrase can be produced, it's not entirely clear how it affects the 95% of the world's population who are neither US citizens nor physically present on US territory.

Further, even within the US, the Constitution does not directly govern interactions between individuals. The Constitution does both grant and limit rights to certain GOVERNMENTAL bodies.

It is through laws adopted by those governments that individuals gain rights with respect to other individuals.

As far as I can tell, TTn has not filed any documents with the government which are required to establish any property rights in the 15k Search project.

De facto, he does have limited copyrights in some communications. However, I don't see how those rights would preclude ANYONE from continuing the project.

If he has filed for, and obtained, specific trademark or similar rights, he needs to state so and refer us to the legally recorded documents which demonstrate those grants. Otherwise, he is just ranting and, as a fool, his hot air signifies nothing more.

De facto, he does have limited copyrights in some communications. However, I don't see how those rights would preclude ANYONE from continuing the project.

The right is given to defend against such actions, not to preclude it. Why would I disclose the exact reference to the enemy anyway. That would be a tactical disadvantage.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Wacky

De facto, he does have limited copyrights in some communications. However, I don't see how those rights would preclude ANYONE from continuing the project.

If he has filed for, and obtained, specific trademark or similar rights, he needs to state so and refer us to the legally recorded documents which demonstrate those grants. Otherwise, he is just ranting and, as a fool, his hot air signifies nothing more.

Under UK law (and I defer to your greater knowledge of US law), the "creator" of a document automatically owns the copyright to that document without having had to register the document with anyone. The mere act of creation is sufficient. Note that, legally, the "creator" need not be the same person who actually puts the work into concrete form as contract law provides for others to take on that role --- employers, for instance.

The position with regard to the other principle forms of intellectual property is quite different. Trademarks must be registered and defended. Patents must be applied for (and granted).

As far as I understand US intellectual property law, the postion is broadly similar. There are differences of detail (such as first-to-invent versus first-to-register,and what constitutes "disclosure", both examples taken from patent law) but the differences appear to be quite minor. The accession of the US and UK to the Berne convention on copyrights and the membership of each country in WIPO has lead substantial convergence.

I've been exposed to quite a bit of this sort of stuff, having worked for the UK subsidiary of a US-registered multinational corporation the principle business of which is the creation and exploitation of intellectual property.

Unless TTn assigned copyright of his postings to some other person, he still has control over their copying. Not absolute control, as various fair-use provisions apply in some legislations. He can forbid further redistribution without a license/licence from him but his rights under IP legislation do not prevent others from creating new documents, neither do they prevent others (Xyzzy for instance) from destroying copies already in their ownership.

I wish to make explicit that none of the above constitutes legal advice in any jurisdiction.


Paul

[Wacky]

Originally Posted by TTn

The right is given to defend against such actions, not to preclude it. Why would I disclose the exact reference to the enemy anyway. That would be a tactical disadvantage.

I am not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of the law that seems to apply.

You seem to misinterpret my statement. I have stated that there is a remote possibility that you have certain rights. However, without clearly stating the nature of your claimed right, and providing evidence demonstrating the granting of the right, your claim is without merit and should be ignored.

For example, I might tell you that you have no right to enter either lot 873 or lot 874 in the subdivision where I live. If you were to research the situation, you would find that I have no more right to make the claim with respect to lot 874 than I have to claim that you must pay me a toll to cross the Brooklyn Bridge.

However, even though I do have the right to exclude you from lot 873, I cannot do so without also providing you with the legal theory under which I make that claim and, in most cases, reference to the legal documents which establish the grant.

Thus far, you have make extremely general claims that I have no right to continue the project. However, I have stated that (1) you have not presented any specific claim that grants you the authority to preclude me from doing so. (2) Further, if your claim is based on copyright, I fail to see any reasonable argument that would satisfy (1) above.

Thus, if you wish to actually make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to provide the legal theory under which you make your claim. Otherwise, I have not been placed "on notice", in a legal sense, and cannot be responsible for any alleged harm which you perceive.

Only after you have provided such "notice", and provided that I continue to infringe on your rights, can I cause you any "damage".

So, "put up, or shut up". Until you do so, I think that everyone has the right to simply ignore you.
But, if they are concerned, they should consult a legal professional to help them ascertain their actual rights.

[Wacky]

Originally Posted by xilman

Unless TTn assigned copyright of his postings to some other person, he still has control over their copying.

I wish to make explicit that none of the above constitutes legal advice in any jurisdiction.

Like yourself, I provide no legal advice.

I believe that the US laws on intellectual properties are generally as you describe.

I specifically indicated that I believed that he has some copyrights. However, I fail to see how continuing the project would necessarily conflict with those rights.

Further, I doubt that he has filed for any other rights. If he has done so, and they have been granted, or are likely to be granted, he should state so and provide references so that an independent inquiry can verify them.