$500 AUD Cash reward for information

wrote in message
oups.com...
SNIP
5. People like me reposted the images and text so Douglas
can't get away with it.

Which is a copyright infringement ...

That's not stealing.

Indeed it isn't. It's Copyright infringement.

In fact, just about anyone with even a smattering of legal
training will look at that and laugh. 'Fair use', they will
chuckle.

Fair use has little to do with it, I'm afraid.

Bart

wrote:

Hence my request. I'll give my details to an *unbiased* observer, but
I don't wish to be identified by Douglas because he is a *obsessed
borderline psychotic*.

It's probably not worth worrying too much about. His investigative prowess
came up with the wrong *country* for me, despite the fact that I've been
using my real name here since before Douglas ever heard of Usenet, and that
information about where I live is trivially available online.

Given your address, he probably *still* couldn't find you.

But I do remember him blathering on about this quite a while back, too.
At that point, he also said that he was willing to pay the lawyers whatever
it took. But apparently he didn't do so that time. I wonder why not?

--
Jeremy |

wrote in message
oups.com...
....

(O:

So remember - these are his *publicly posted webpages*, complete with
all copyright messages, reposted for educational purposes.


Contact me through my web sites.
Any takers yet? I hope no-one beats me to my $500.

(O:

I'm waiting for your lawyer's name, Douglas.

knew the guy was a ****.

by the way do you reside in australia? If not go ahead and give him your
address, wots he gonna do?

If you don't have to id yourself and no questions asked how you gonna prove
it was you who provided the info?

on the otherhand if he copyrighted his work you have no legal right to
reproduce, right to copy!

"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
SNIP
5. People like me reposted the images and text so Douglas
can't get away with it.

Which is a copyright infringement ...

That's not stealing.

Indeed it isn't. It's Copyright infringement.

In fact, just about anyone with even a smattering of legal
training will look at that and laugh. 'Fair use', they will
chuckle.

Fair use has little to do with it, I'm afraid.

Bart
Bart, as much as it pains me to disagree with you, that's not copyright
infringement. Images can be shown as part of a discussion, as long as
proper attribution is given, and, in as much that Douglas introduced those
very images to initiate the discussion, re-introducing them to continue the
same discussion is only using them for the purpose clearly intended by the
author (Douglas.)
And that's not just US law, that's one of the parts that the US had to
modify to fit with international law.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Eeks. I think that things like copyright law is what keeps lawyers in
business. It is not clear to me whether it is protected or not
(although it is clearly copyrighted by someone).

Let's say you are a newspaper. You take a picture of someone at a park
on a beautiful summer dayand he is wearing a Nike swoosh. That's okay
so long as the picture has "news" content. If fact, you don't even
need permission from the person. However, 6 months later you can't use
the same picture in an advertisement. There's no news value. But if
the person were to die, you could again use the picture.

So if the picture is being used for "news", which I think is defined
pretty liberally, then it might not be infringement. But in any case,
he as a good arguement and it'll stay in court until someone goes broke
or gives up -- that's justice the American way!

So one question is, "is it journalism?" Is a New Group news?

As for the legitimacy of the reward, I hope it is legit for the sake of
the person who cannot be found. As long as he isn't 'local", then he
should turn himself in and have the attorney mail him the documents so
he can serve them upon himself. He could then collect the reward and
take a well-deserved vacation.

First off, to recover anything, the OP would have to go to the person
he is looking for to file a suit. If I am in America and you are in
Australia, if I want to sue you then I have to go to Australia. If I
sue you here, so what? All you have to do is "absolutely nothing".
There is no juristiction over you. Heck, in the US, if you are in the
next county over, I have to go to you.

This is what photography needs, more lawyers!

I was just wondering why all the hyphenation?
Have we accidentally strayed into English as a Foreign Language?
Or is there some oth-er rea-son?

Umm, Helen.. I know you were bored, and I apologise for my part in
that.. maybe that is why you missed the sentence *directly above* those
entries, where I said, rather sar-cas-tic-al-ly:

"Let me explain this in words of less than two syl-lab-les."

Hope that helps! It's just my lowest-common-denominator Orstralian
humour..

(O:

(By the way, it should have read "..less than THREE syl-lab-les"
Dang.)

And here's an interesting challenge for the grammatically insecure...
How many syllables does 'withdrew' have? 2 or 3, and where would you
'break' them? It's too long since I did English..

That's not stealing.

Indeed it isn't. It's Copyright infringement.

In fact, just about anyone with even a smattering of legal
training will look at that and laugh. 'Fair use', they will
chuckle.

Fair use has little to do with it, I'm afraid.

Bart, if that is correct (and I don't think it is, as Skip has also
alluded), then can you please explain how the "wayback machine" can
possibly exist?

For those who don't know, the wayback machine (www.archive.org) keeps
copies of old webpages in a huge archive, and allows anyone to browse
them, free. (You can block it if you don't want your site archived,
but *by default*, there is nothing stopping them archiving your
webpages, so that anyone can look up what you once had posted...

Think about that carefully - go visit the site - and then I'd love to
know exactly how, in legal terms, that differs from my reposting.

Stating that a copyright infringement has occurred is quite meaningless
in terms of legal significance. Just by visiting a site your machine
(or more specifically the software installed on it) has already
'infringed'.. Your browser caches at least some of that site on your
local drive. Such technical 'infringements' are dealt with, in most
jurisdictions, a little common sense by the legal fraternity.

If I go down, then so should www.archive.org..... You think that will
happen..?

'Fair use' therefore has *everything* to do with it, methinks.

"D-Mac" wrote in message
...
C J Southern wrote:
I would have thought the police would have little trouble extracting the
relevant IP + account details from Microsoft & ISPs & Telcos



My lawyer charges $250 an hour.
He estimates $2 ~ 3k to get a court order of discovery served on Optus
(his ISP) which is a Singapore company.

I think your "lawyer" needs to stay the **** out of Telco / ISPs