From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2013 #271 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe:mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Website:http://jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Thursday, February 21 2013 Volume 2013 : Number 271 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- RE: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 ["kbhla" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:19:23 -0800 From: "kbhla" Subject: RE: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 Hi Randy, I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of copyright law but have the impression it is somewhat "codified." There have been a few links on the JM and JMDL Facebook pages where the process is somewhat discussed. There are legal statutes/regulations which seem to provide a process for instituting and challenging copyright infringement claims. You are right about the notification and request for removal of the material and compliance should either resolve it or constitute a defense. But there is a question rattling around in the back of my mind that perhaps there could be a separate claim for the infringment itself, regardless of improper use, sale, profit, etc. Can it be argued that the availability of the material alone could have caused it to be used by other unknown persons for sale, profit, etc.? At any rate, I do find the whole matter personally distasteful and unfortunate that Les has to be embroiled in it. Kakki > ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2013 #271 ***************************** ------- To post messages to the list, sendtojoni@smoe.org. Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe -------