From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2013 #283 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 Sunday, February 24 2013 Volume 2013 : Number 283 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Litigation ["David J. Phillips" ] Litigation [David Marine ] Re: New copyright statement on JoniMitchell.com NJC [Susan Tierney McNam] Does she actually hold a copyright? [jlhommedieu@insight.rr.com] Litigation [Jamie Zubairi Home ] Safe Harbor provisions [Jim ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:32:14 -0500 From: "David J. Phillips" Subject: Re: Litigation i absolutely agree. spend some bucks on a good lawyer. there is no way you can expect yourself to understand (or stomach) the toxic, viscious morass that is IP law. those assholes have a huge advantage until you enlist real expertise. and bill us. you deserve that amd much much more. David Marine wrote: ... >That being said, I'm not sure that a small fund to help you get solid >legal >assistance would be such a bad idea. I suspect that if you sit down >with a >property rights lawyer and have him or her write a letter, that would >be the >end of the matter. Would it be so bad if everyone just pitched in a few >dollars? > >David > > > > >On Feb 23, 2013, at 2:12 PM, JMDL Digest wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:03:02 -0700 >> From: Les Irvin >> Subject: fan sites and copyright NJC >> >> I sure could use some help reading through this document... >> if anyone has time to gleen some good news from it... >> >http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1395&context=elr ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:15:13 -0500 From: David Marine Subject: Litigation Les, In reading the digital commons document, this leapt out at me: 4. The Fourth Element: Effect on the Market or Value The fourth fair use element looks to see if unauthorized use of the copyrighted material has an effect on the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. 7 6 This factor requires courts to consider not only the individual harm caused by the infringer, but also whether widespread conduct of this sort would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market for the original work.177 Thus, in examining the fourth factor, courts consider the impact on the potential market, and whether the value of the copyright infringement is affected if infringement occurred on a widespread basis. 78 This inquiry must also consider "the harm to the market for derivative works."' It seems to me that it would be impossible to prove that the brief existence of those images on the site could have harmed the market for this photographer's work in any way. It seems unlikely to me that an attorney's going to take this to trial when there's no way of winning. That being said, I'm not sure that a small fund to help you get solid legal assistance would be such a bad idea. I suspect that if you sit down with a property rights lawyer and have him or her write a letter, that would be the end of the matter. Would it be so bad if everyone just pitched in a few dollars? David On Feb 23, 2013, at 2:12 PM, JMDL Digest wrote: > Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:03:02 -0700 > From: Les Irvin > Subject: fan sites and copyright NJC > > I sure could use some help reading through this document... > if anyone has time to gleen some good news from it... > http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1395&context=elr ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:36:53 +0000 From: Susan Tierney McNamara Subject: Re: New copyright statement on JoniMitchell.com NJC I second that emotion David! Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone "David J. Phillips" wrote: please let us know how much this ends up costing you. we're in this together. djp Les Irvin wrote: >Based on my research (which is based on all the research and help I've >gotten from all of you), I have registered as an "agent" with the >copyright office and have updated this page to reflect the new policy: >http://jonimitchell.com/legal.cfm References to this policy have been >put on damn near every page on the site. If I understand correctly, >with this in place the site is legally protected against claims as long > >as, when a legitimate claim arrives, I take action to immediately >remove >the offending material. Which I've always done anyway. > >Now, if this current thing will just work itself out. It looks like >it's moving in a positive direction. Thanks again to everyone for >their >support during this mess! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 01:03:04 -0500 From: jlhommedieu@insight.rr.com Subject: Does she actually hold a copyright? List discussions have always been Joni Content. Has this woman actually given proof that she has copyrights? Jim L ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:35:04 +0000 From: Jamie Zubairi Home Subject: Litigation A friend of mine is American but works in the UK and specifically in copyright, and quotes: "In my view there's a strong argument that if the website took down any infringing materials upon notice then there's like to no claim under safe harbour provisions. I'd politely respond that we do not believe there is a claim." Hurrah! Jamie Zubairi Actor, Painter, Voiceover, Creative Appearing in Why The Lion Danced for Yellow Earth Theatre touring until 9th March. Please see www.yellowearth.org.uk for details ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:39:30 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Subject: Safe Harbor provisions Les, if not already done, note the second paragarph below (fyi): In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above)and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions. In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)] Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)]. For full text, See http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID127 ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2013 #283 ***************************** ------- To post messages to the list, sendtojoni@smoe.org. Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe -------