PA Under Siege

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
1,321
If I understand correctly, his arguments are these:

PA doesn't actually exist, therefore a contract does not exist, and the fellow who signed the contract wasn't authorized to do so, therefore the contract is not binding.

The copyright thing: he believes that regardless of what PA is doing, he has the right to make and sell copies himself.

This sounds like a tax resister legal argument to me. Next step: Putting punctuation in your name!
 

Khazarkhum

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
725
Reaction score
100
This sounds like a tax resister legal argument to me. Next step: Putting punctuation in your name!

He did mention fighting the IRS at one point.

I think Uncle Jim is right--he believes "keeping copyright" means he alone can make or produce copies of his work.

What does he think other publishers do? :crazy:
 

spike

Mostly Ignored
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
151
Location
Bath, Pennsylvania
Website
oddgoose.blogspot.com
He did mention fighting the IRS at one point.

I think Uncle Jim is right--he believes "keeping copyright" means he alone can make or produce copies of his work.

What does he think other publishers do? :crazy:

He might have gotten his ideas on copyright from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia said:
Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by governments, giving the creator of an original work of authorship exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time, after which the work enters the public domain. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but usually provides the author with other rights as well, such as the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other, related rights..
 

Mac H.

Board Visitor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,812
Reaction score
406
There was an interesting case in Australian law over the copyright for the movie 'Moulin Rouge'.

An Australian company owned the copyright to the film, which entitled them to certain tax breaks.

However, while they 'owned the copyright' they had effectively sold exclusive license to every single benefit that copyright gives to a foreign company.

So they argued that they technically 'owned the copyright', despite the fact that every single 'right' was exclusively (and non-revokably) sold to someone else.

So what did the company actually own? Not the right to make copies.

The tax department didn't agree that the company 'owned' the copyright in any sensible definition of the word, when they didn't actually have the right to make copies .. or any other rights.

The production company lost. The tax department won.

Mac
 

CaoPaux

Mostly Harmless
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
13,952
Reaction score
1,746
Location
Coastal Desert
Copyright is not the right to copy. 'Tis the right to the copy. The right to copy the copy you have rights to is a subright of copyright, and should not be confused with the copyright itself. :hat:
 

brianm

Brian Boru
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
3,170
Reaction score
976
Location
The desert of S. California and the coast of N. Ir
Copyright is not the right to copy. 'Tis the right to the copy. The right to copy the copy you have rights to is a subright of copyright, and should not be confused with the copyright itself. :hat:

Exactly.

Unless you sell your copyright to a publisher, you will always retain ownership. Whenever you enter into a publishing agreement, you are temporarily assigning (renting if you will) the right to make copies of the copyrighted material for a specified time period. That's why the terms and conditions of a publishing contract (or any contract) are extremely important and should always be reviewed by an expert.

Once executed, you are legally binding yourself to the terms and conditions of a contract. It amazes me how many people will sign a contract that contains clauses they do not fully understand. If you do not fully understand everything contained in a contract, do not sign it until it has been explained to you by a trusted expert.

Because it's too late to say I didn't know after you have placed your signature on the document.
 

ResearchGuy

Resident Curmudgeon
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Messages
5,011
Reaction score
697
Location
Sacramento area, CA
Website
www.umbachconsulting.com
Copyright is not the right to copy. 'Tis the right to the copy. The right to copy the copy you have rights to is a subright of copyright, and should not be confused with the copyright itself. :hat:
According to the Copyright Office, www.copyright.gov :

What Is Copyright

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
  • To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
  • To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
  • To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
  • To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
  • To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
  • In the case of sound recordings*, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of “fair use,” which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a “compulsory license” under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.
*Note: Sound recordings are defined in the law as “works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work.” Common examples include recordings of music, drama, or lectures. A sound recording is not the same as a phonorecord. A phonorecord is the physical object in which works of authorship are embodied. The word “phonorecord” includes cassette tapes, CDs, LPs, 45 r.p.m. disks, as well as other formats.
--Ken
 

jaketrout

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
23
Reaction score
3
salt the earth? not in my neighborhood!!!

Really. Get rid of them and salt the earth around their HQ so nothing will ever grow there.

Um, 'scuse me,,,but i live in Frederick, MD... and I like growing here just fine!!!