I think its about time some of these assholes get shot in the head.

I’m not worried though. Their DARE program never worked for me.

I have more respect for his cousin, Speedy Gonzales.

FUCK YOU AND YOUR FASCIST GOVERNMENT.

Vive Le “V For Vendetta.”

True, and the Supreme Court also decided that “inducement” was infringement.

But the words “availability” and “inducement” have vague meaning and can mean different things at different times and to different lawyers and judges.

It would have been so much simpler if the courts say: Erase every thing we have said in the past and let us redefine what is infringemnt: Licensing or selling copies of copyright registered works without the author’s authorization.

To make the above infringement rule enforceable all legall copies of works need to have the copyright registration number included so that when a work becomes public domain anyone can make and sell copies without having doubts as to wether the copies are infringig or not.

The only sensible solution then partly requires going back to the old system: To have copyright protection the work must have a registration. It is also needed thet the registration number identify the work at all times. Also registration must be simplified so it may be done at the town hall or post office, and not through an impossible to penetarate burocracy as was/is the USA Copyright Office.

If there are is clear work to tell if a work is copyright registered and when the protection of the rights expire then the people will always be guessing as to wrther copyinf a specific work is or is not infringing. That is chaos and that is what we have now.

And to make the chaos worse, the chaos is jurisprudence based, not law based. After all the peple do not hace acess to jurisprudence and if they did, the people cannot interpret it.

The legal system has a conflict between “ignorance of the law is no excuse” and the fact that the laws are vague and then made confusing through jurisprudence full of vague words such as “inducement” and “availability”.

It is silly to frequently have a citizenship that in a legal sense must act blindly only to get sued to later see their lawyer arguing that what was done was legal and another lawyer arguing that what was done was illegal and then give credibility to the idea that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

If mere ‘availability’ constitutes infringement, then leaving a case of CDs on the front seat of your unlocked motor vehicle could result in liability for copyright infringement.

–TurboGeek

Case one
The judged decided that having songs not owned in the publisher’s catalog and in their prformance collectives who licensed the songs to radio stations and others was not infringement. The judge decided against us and in favor of the music publisher on the issue by stating flatly that having songs not owned and licensing them to others was not infringement. In the case two music publishers we had sued argued that merely having the songs in their catalogs and then licencing them to others was not infringement without proof of actual performances (which we knew had occured but never recorded, so there was no “proof”). In addition to having the songs in their catalogs illegally, 80 of the stolen songs were illegally copyright registered by one of the publishers and that too was not infringement per the judge.

Case two:
The judge decided that merely having songs in a catalog while not being owner of the song was infringement. The lawsuit was between the same two publisher we sued. In this case the prevailing publisher switched position by saying that merely having songs not owned in a catalog was infringement. In case one, the same publisher argued thathaving the songs in the catalogs was not infringement. Wow!

Can Alberto Gonzales figure what the hell is going on here in Puerto Rico?

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com