[DeTomaso] NPC-- Again with the threats!
audionut at hushmail.com
audionut at hushmail.com
Sun Jun 26 17:16:18 EDT 2016
_The courts found for the musicians_. If only that were true! (I've
been involved in the music biz, more or less, since I was 13).
Musicians, if they are lucky, get paid for playing music and that's
about it. If a musician happens to also be a songwriter, then as a
songwriter he/she retains rights to monies earned by the song only if
they retain publishing rights. Once they sign over publishing rights
to a record label, the song is not "theirs" anymore. That is how, for
instance, the Beatles catalog can be bought and sold. Otherwise, the
songwriter only make a royalty sum per unit (album, CD, download)
sold. If the song is "covered" by another artist/label who wishes to
make money off the song, the label negotiates a licensing deal with
the artist/label covering the song. The original songwriter makes
nothing off of any subsequent versions of their song without owning
it's publishing rights. In rare instances, lawsuits have been brought
by songwriters who felt that another songwriter substantially
appropriated their song. Most notably was the case where George
Harrison was sued by the songwriters of the 60's hit "He's So Fine",
claiming that Harrison's "My Sweet Lord", written years later, was
nearly identical. The jury agreed and Harrison lost the case on the
basis that he had committed "unconscious plagiarism" (they ruled that
he had copied the song without being aware of it). In their
formative years, hip hop (rap) artists were also sued left and right
because of their use of digital sampling (tiny recorded bits of
published songs) without permission. Now anybody wishing to "sample"
somebody else's song byte and use it on a song that gets sold has to
get permission first from the publisher which usually involves some
kind of licensing deal. A friend of mine wanted to use a sample of a
guitar part in a famous song by the punk bad "X". He called Billy
Zoom and asked him first. Billy told him "If it ends up making money
for you, stop by with a pizza and a case of beer and we'll call it
square." He used it, but made no money from it. No pizza, no beer,
no Billy. Generally speaking, copyright law exists to prevent folks
from obtaining monetary gain from the published works of another. Any
lawsuit claiming copyright infringement is going to have to prove that
copyrighted works were intentionally duplicated and then sold for
personal financial gain. Technically speaking, if I took a copy of
"The Hobbit" and duplicated it a thousand times and handed them out on
the street for free, that would be copyright infringement and a
lawsuit could be brought against me, but it is unlikely that Tolkien's
estate or it's publisher would come after me for damages unless I was
rich enough to milk or I kept doing it after they asked me to stop.
The key issue is money-- taking profit from the works of another
without license or permission. See now how stupid this threat is? The
other thing that "suit-happy" people threaten others with is this:
"Well, maybe the suit has no merit, but I can mess with you anyway.
You will have to pay to defend yourself." This is not true either.
You can ignore the entire thing. You can avoid a summons almost
indefinitely if you are clever enough. If you do get served, you can
just fail to show up in court. True, the other guy wins by default
but then it is up to him to collect any damages awarded. Of course,
there will not be any damages awarded because there has been no basis
to grant relief. In other words, no harm has been done upon which
fair compensation would be assessed. What possible damage to this
guy do we have here? Emotional distress? _"Your honor, the creation
of this email forum containing archives of things I've said in
conversation has caused me sleepless nights, extended fits of crying
and chronic, painful diarrhea." _ Because there is no basis for
relief, no lawyer in his right mind would take the case. And that
assumes a court will even decide to hear it, which it will not. If
whatever people say to each other on the internet constitutes a
"published work", then every time you hit "reply" without deleting
what you are replying to, you are violating copyright law.
Nonsense.
This leaves the plaintiff in the position of having to attempt to file
the suit pro per (on their own), which can be done, but is quite
unusual. Not to mention a bizarre and fruitless waste of time. If
anybody is being harmed here, it is Kurt, being the target of
harassment. A frivolous lawsuit brought against this guy on the basis
of harassment would easily have as much or more merit than this
copyright infringement silliness. Copyright 2016, Audionut
Productions, Ltd. Reply to this message without deleting my words and
I will sue you!
Sent using Hushmail
On June 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, "Pantdino via DeTomaso" wrote:I am not
a copyright lawyer, but my understanding is that as soon as someone
creates something, that person has the copyright to it. So if I write
a post describing "how I change the coolant in my Pantera," I have the
copyright to that unless I specifically sign it over to someone else.
This is the issue the musicians of the '60's and '70's clarified when
they said they owned the music they wrote and the record companies
said they did. The courts found for the musicians.
So I don't see how anyone has the copyright to a bunch of various
posts written by individuals as friends. So unless someone or some
company is the official owner of the list and they have warned
everyone who posts on it that they then hold the copyright to whatever
is written there, the idea of a lawsuit does not make sense. And who,
exactly, is the owner and how would one assign monetary damages to the
copyright infringement? If the owner is the Club, the President could
only file a lawsuit in compliance with the Club charter, which I'm
sure does include that.
Jim Oddie
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph F. Byrd, Jr.
Cc: detomaso
Sent: Sun, Jun 26, 2016 10:21 am
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Again with the threats!
If the problem is "your list" is in violation of something, and the
"list"
consist of all of "us", then including the list/us seems appropriate
in
such discussions.
-----Original Message-----
From: DeTomaso [mailto:detomaso-bounces at server.detomasolist.com] On
Behalf
Of Jeff Cobb
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 13:08 PM
To: audionut at hushmail.com
Cc: detomaso at server.detomasolist.com
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Again with the threats!
Thank you sir, audionut, for some clarity.
Maybe this thread-neurosis may come to an end.
And Kurt, if this belief and understandable worry ***Apparently, "my"
list
is violating copyrights,**** is worth a minute of your thought, then
write
and ask your accuser and cc the group to have your accuser state if
you-us
are or if you-us are not apparently doing a wrong.
SIMPLE and if this person does not respond then you have your answer.
Since you seem unclear and worried then YOU MUST have your problem
watchdog
person state if what you-us are doing is wrong.
CLARITY WILL KILL THIS FEAR.
No induced problem, no wrong and no accuser then all is well.
Not all dogs bite.
Know where you are walking.
Lawyers will just f**k small things up.
This perceived issue is just a 5 hr pimple not skin cancer.
Keep the lawyers at bay for the big problems.
Jeff Cobb
-----------------------------------------------------
On Jun 26, 2016, at 11:37 AM, audionut at hushmail.com wrote:
> Relax. This is ludicrous. Absolutely nothing to worry about. No
need
> to hassle incorporating the forum.
>
>
> Disturbed, snippety people scare others with legal threats because
it's
> so easy. My schizophrenic, homeless sister does it from time to
time,
> threatening my family with legal action ever since my Dad cut her
out
> of his will over 20 years ago. He died in 1996 but to this day
she
> still pulls this one out of her crazy bag and lobs it at us.
>
>
> The law is frighteningly confusing to most people and we all know
that
> many lawyers are, shall we say, less than scrupulous so people
tend to
> get a bit scared when threatened with the expensive, complicated,
dark
> world of the lawsuit.
>
>
> Don't waste a dime or another thought worrying about this
nonsense--
>
>
> But, if you are truly worried and losing sleep over this, go pay a
> lawyer $100 and he/she will tell you the same thing.
> Sent using Hushmail
> On June 26, 2016 at 9:10 AM, "Jeff Detrich"
> wrote:
>
> Kurt,
> I'm not a lawyer, but you might think about forming a
corporation to
> run
> the email list. It's an inexpensive way to protect your personal
> assets
> should this get ugly and I would think most of us would be glad
to
> fund the
> cost.
> Jeff - I can't believe we are having this discussion
> 6559
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Kurt Byrnes wrote:
>> Just so everyone is aware, I was sent another email last night
> warning me
>> to hire an lawyer. Apparently, "my" list is violating copyrights.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> Detomaso Forum NO LONGER Managed by POCA Posted emails must not
>> exceed 1.5 Megabytes DeTomaso mailing list
>> DeTomaso at server.detomasolist.com
>> [1]http://server.detomasolist.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>>
>> To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe,
> etc.) use
>> the links above.
>>
>> Members who post to this list grant license to the list to forward
> any
>> message posted here to all past, current, or future members of the
> list.
>> They also grant the list owner permission to maintain an archive
> or approve
>> the archiving of list messages.
>>
>
> References
>
> 1. http://server.detomasolist.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> Detomaso Forum NO LONGER Managed by POCA Posted emails must not
exceed
> 1.5 Megabytes DeTomaso mailing list DeTomaso at server.detomasolist.com
> http://server.detomasolist.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>
> To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe,
etc.) use
the links above.
>
> Members who post to this list grant license to the list to forward
any
message posted here to all past, current, or future members of the
list.
They also grant the list owner permission to maintain an archive or
approve
the archiving of list messages.
_______________________________________________
Detomaso Forum NO LONGER Managed by POCA
Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes
DeTomaso mailing list
DeTomaso at server.detomasolist.com
http://server.detomasolist.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.)
use the links above.
Members who post to this list grant license to the list to forward any
message posted here to all past, current, or future members of the
list. They also grant the list owner permission to maintain an archive
or approve the archiving of list messages.
-------------- next part --------------
The courts found for the musicians.
If only that were true! (I've been involved in the music biz, more or
less, since I was 13). Musicians, if they are lucky, get paid for
playing music and that's about it. If a musician happens to also be a
songwriter, then as a songwriter he/she retains rights to monies earned
by the song only if they retain publishing rights. Once they sign over
publishing rights to a record label, the song is not "theirs" anymore.
That is how, for instance, the Beatles catalog can be bought and sold.
Otherwise, the songwriter only make a royalty sum per unit (album, CD,
download) sold. If the song is "covered" by another artist/label who
wishes to make money off the song, the label negotiates a licensing
deal with the artist/label covering the song. The original songwriter
makes nothing off of any subsequent versions of their song without
owning it's publishing rights.
In rare instances, lawsuits have been brought by songwriters who felt
that another songwriter substantially appropriated their song. Most
notably was the case where George Harrison was sued by the songwriters
of the 60's hit "He's So Fine", claiming that Harrison's "My Sweet
Lord", written years later, was nearly identical. The jury agreed and
Harrison lost the case on the basis that he had committed "unconscious
plagiarism" (they ruled that he had copied the song without being aware
of it).
In their formative years, hip hop (rap) artists were also sued left and
right because of their use of digital sampling (tiny recorded bits of
published songs) without permission. Now anybody wishing to "sample"
somebody else's song byte and use it on a song that gets sold has to
get permission first from the publisher which usually involves some
kind of licensing deal.
A friend of mine wanted to use a sample of a guitar part in a famous
song by the punk bad "X". He called Billy Zoom and asked him first.
Billy told him "If it ends up making money for you, stop by with a
pizza and a case of beer and we'll call it square." He used it, but
made no money from it. No pizza, no beer, no Billy.
Generally speaking, copyright law exists to prevent folks from
obtaining monetary gain from the published works of another. Any
lawsuit claiming copyright infringement is going to have to prove that
copyrighted works were intentionally duplicated and then sold for
personal financial gain.
Technically speaking, if I took a copy of "The Hobbit" and duplicated
it a thousand times and handed them out on the street for free, that
would be copyright infringement and a lawsuit could be brought against
me, but it is unlikely that Tolkien's estate or it's publisher would
come after me for damages unless I was rich enough to milk or I kept
doing it after they asked me to stop. The key issue is money-- taking
profit from the works of another without license or permission.
See now how stupid this threat is?
The other thing that "suit-happy" people threaten others with is this:
"Well, maybe the suit has no merit, but I can mess with you anyway.
You will have to pay to defend yourself."
This is not true either. You can ignore the entire thing. You can
avoid a summons almost indefinitely if you are clever enough. If you
do get served, you can just fail to show up in court. True, the other
guy wins by default but then it is up to him to collect any damages
awarded. Of course, there will not be any damages awarded because
there has been no basis to grant relief. In other words, no harm has
been done upon which fair compensation would be assessed.
What possible damage to this guy do we have here? Emotional distress?
"Your honor, the creation of this email forum containing archives of
things I've said in conversation has caused me sleepless nights,
extended fits of crying and chronic, painful diarrhea."
Because there is no basis for relief, no lawyer in his right mind would
take the case. And that assumes a court will even decide to hear it,
which it will not. If whatever people say to each other on the
internet constitutes a "published work", then every time you hit
"reply" without deleting what you are replying to, you are violating
copyright law.
Nonsense.
This leaves the plaintiff in the position of having to attempt to file
the suit pro per (on their own), which can be done, but is quite
unusual. Not to mention a bizarre and fruitless waste of time.
If anybody is being harmed here, it is Kurt, being the target of
harassment. A frivolous lawsuit brought against this guy on the basis
of harassment would easily have as much or more merit than this
copyright infringement silliness.
Copyright 2016, Audionut Productions, Ltd.
Reply to this message without deleting my words and I will sue you!
Sent using Hushmail
On June 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, "Pantdino via DeTomaso"
<detomaso at server.detomasolist.com> wrote:
I am not a copyright lawyer, but my understanding is that as soon as
someone creates something, that person has the copyright to it. So
if I write a post describing "how I change the coolant in my
Pantera," I have the copyright to that unless I specifically sign it
over to someone else. This is the issue the musicians of the '60's
and '70's clarified when they said they owned the music they wrote
and the record companies said they did. The courts found for the
musicians.
So I don't see how anyone has the copyright to a bunch of various
posts written by individuals as friends. So unless someone or some
company is the official owner of the list and they have warned
everyone who posts on it that they then hold the copyright to
whatever is written there, the idea of a lawsuit does not make
sense. And who, exactly, is the owner and how would one assign
monetary damages to the copyright infringement? If the owner is the
Club, the President could only file a lawsuit in compliance with the
Club charter, which I'm sure does include that.
Jim Oddie
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph F. Byrd, Jr. <byrdjf at embarqmail.com>
Cc: detomaso <detomaso at server.detomasolist.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 26, 2016 10:21 am
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Again with the threats!
If the problem is "your list" is in violation of something, and the
"list"
consist of all of "us", then including the list/us seems appropriate
in
such discussions.
-----Original Message-----
From: DeTomaso [mailto:detomaso-bounces at server.detomasolist.com] On
Behalf
Of Jeff Cobb
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 13:08 PM
To: audionut at hushmail.com
Cc: detomaso at server.detomasolist.com
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Again with the threats!
Thank you sir, audionut, for some clarity.
Maybe this thread-neurosis may come to an end.
And Kurt, if this belief and understandable worry ***Apparently,
"my" list
is violating copyrights,**** is worth a minute of your thought, then
write
and ask your accuser and cc the group to have your accuser state if
you-us
are or if you-us are not apparently doing a wrong.
SIMPLE and if this person does not respond then you have your
answer.
Since you seem unclear and worried then YOU MUST have your problem
watchdog
person state if what you-us are doing is wrong.
CLARITY WILL KILL THIS FEAR.
No induced problem, no wrong and no accuser then all is well.
Not all dogs bite.
Know where you are walking.
Lawyers will just f**k small things up.
This perceived issue is just a 5 hr pimple not skin cancer.
Keep the lawyers at bay for the big problems.
Jeff Cobb
-----------------------------------------------------
On Jun 26, 2016, at 11:37 AM, audionut at hushmail.com wrote:
> Relax. This is ludicrous. Absolutely nothing to worry about. No
need
> to hassle incorporating the forum.
>
>
> Disturbed, snippety people scare others with legal threats because
it's
> so easy. My schizophrenic, homeless sister does it from time to
time,
> threatening my family with legal action ever since my Dad cut her
out
> of his will over 20 years ago. He died in 1996 but to this day she
> still pulls this one out of her crazy bag and lobs it at us.
>
>
> The law is frighteningly confusing to most people and we all know
that
> many lawyers are, shall we say, less than scrupulous so people
tend to
> get a bit scared when threatened with the expensive, complicated,
dark
> world of the lawsuit.
>
>
> Don't waste a dime or another thought worrying about this
nonsense--
>
>
> But, if you are truly worried and losing sleep over this, go pay a
> lawyer $100 and he/she will tell you the same thing.
> Sent using Hushmail
> On June 26, 2016 at 9:10 AM, "Jeff Detrich" <jjdetrich at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Kurt,
> I'm not a lawyer, but you might think about forming a corporation
to
> run
> the email list. It's an inexpensive way to protect your personal
> assets
> should this get ugly and I would think most of us would be glad to
> fund the
> cost.
> Jeff - I can't believe we are having this discussion
> 6559
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Kurt Byrnes <kdb at kbyrnes.com>
wrote:
>> Just so everyone is aware, I was sent another email last night
> warning me
>> to hire an lawyer. Apparently, "my" list is violating copyrights.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> Detomaso Forum NO LONGER Managed by POCA Posted emails must not
>> exceed 1.5 Megabytes DeTomaso mailing list
>> DeTomaso at server.detomasolist.com
>> [1][1]http://server.detomasolist.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>>
>> To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe,
> etc.) use
>> the links above.
>>
>> Members who post to this list grant license to the list to
forward
> any
>> message posted here to all past, current, or future members of
the
> list.
>> They also grant the list owner permission to maintain an archive
> or approve
>> the archiving of list messages.
>>
>
> References
>
> 1. [2]http://server.detomasolist.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> Detomaso Forum NO LONGER Managed by POCA Posted emails must not
exceed
> 1.5 Megabytes DeTomaso mailing list
DeTomaso at server.detomasolist.com
> [3]http://server.detomasolist.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>
> To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe,
etc.) use
the links above.
>
> Members who post to this list grant license to the list to forward
any
message posted here to all past, current, or future members of the
list.
They also grant the list owner permission to maintain an archive or
approve
the archiving of list messages.
_______________________________________________
Detomaso Forum NO LONGER Managed by POCA
Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes
DeTomaso mailing list
DeTomaso at server.detomasolist.com
[4]http://server.detomasolist.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe,
etc.) use the links above.
Members who post to this list grant license to the list to forward
any message posted here to all past, current, or future members of
the list. They also grant the list owner permission to maintain an
archive or approve the archiving of list messages.
References
1. http://server.detomasolist.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
2. http://server.detomasolist.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
3. http://server.detomasolist.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
4. http://server.detomasolist.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
More information about the DeTomaso
mailing list