Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> > Take your meds, Hyman.
> 
> How would that help your running out of arguments?

Hyman just can't grok it. Or rather he is simply acting as an utter
moron just for fun, I think.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

"That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the
registered work is a compilation. "

"That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the
registered work is a compilation. "

"That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the
registered work is a compilation. "

Here's more:

"Gaiman contends that he and McFarlane are joint owners of the
copyrights on the three characters by reason of their respective
contributions to joint (indivisible) work. 17 U.S.C. § 101; Seshadri v.
Kasraian, 130 F.3d 798, 803-04 (7th Cir. 1997); Erickson v. Trinity
Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061, 1067-72 (7th Cir. 1994); Thomson v. Larson,
147 F.3d 195, 199-205 (2d Cir. 1998). McFarlane concedes Gaiman’s joint
ownership of Angela, but not of the other two; . . . As a co-owner,
McFarlane was not violating the Copyright Act by unilaterally publishing
the jointly owned work, but, as in any other case of conversion or
misappropriation, he would have to account to the other joint owner for
the latter’s share of the profits. Zuill v. Shanahan, supra, 80 F.3d at
1369. When co-ownership is conceded and the only issue therefore is the
contractual, or in the absence of contract the equitable, division of
the profits from the copyrighted work, there is no issue of copyright
law and the suit for an accounting of profits therefore arises under
state rather than federal law. Goodman v. Lee, 78 F.3d 1007, 1013 (5th
Cir. 1996); Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 633 and n. 2 (9th Cir. 1984);
Mountain States Properties, Inc. v. Robinson, 771 P.2d 5, 6-7 (Colo.
App. 1988). It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Saturday
Evening Post Co. v. Rumbleseat Press, Inc., 816 F.2d 1191, 1194-95 (7th
Cir. 1987); T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 824, 828 (2d Cir.
1964) (Friendly, J.); cf. International Armor & Limousine Co. v. Moloney
Coachbuilders, Inc., 272 F.3d 912, 915-16 (7th Cir. 2001). And in that
event the applicable statute of limitations would be state rather than
federal."

Hey moron dak:

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

But the GPL is "not a contract", right dak? LMAO!!!

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)