Members: 5,075   Posts: 20,997   Online: 82
      
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    CurtisNeeley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    25
    Images
    7

    What's in a NAME?

    Digital and film are both incapable of achieving a moral copy-right in the United States.
    You must purchasing a fishing license before yanking live fish out of water by their lips.
    You must purchase a license-to-sue before filing a copy rite lawsuit.
    Photographers must purchase what should be a fundamental right.
    They should be equally accessible to all.
    US Title 17 is immoral and has been unconstitutional on its face since signed by the new King George in 1790.
    Neeley v NAMEMEDIA INC et al, (5:09-cv-05151) will result in America and the Internet from being perpetually immoral.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Posts
    251
    Images
    20
    I don't understand. Could you please explain.

  3. #3
    CurtisNeeley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    25
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Heath View Post
    I don't understand. Could you please explain.
    Mr Heath,
    Fortunately; for you Australia is not still in the DARK ages like America.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...w#Moral_rights

    as the British colony that separated just prior to your huge Island you have rights in America that no American has because of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 that recognizes Australian MORAL copyrights that were finally recognized there in 2000.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    to elaborate....
    ...US Title 17 is titled "The Copy-right Act" although intentionally having absolutely nothing relating to the right's of a person.

    The compound word of "copyright" was first used in England after the Statute of Anne began to control the publication of information after the printing press became accessible and began to make mass distribution of ideas possible.

    The ruling class felt the only way to adequately control the spread of information was to institute a set of censorship rules to describe the rite of publishing ideas. The presses were owned by moderately wealthy and they agreed on price-fixing the rite of copying original ideas.

    Early in the American colonies of England, those willing to run presses sought to exclusively control prices of publication. Each colony had separate price-fixing laws. Presses began to publish material encouraging a revolution and this type activity resulted in the first thirteen colonies declaring independence.

    Shortly after the Colonies declared independence there was an armed rebellion

    After England lost the war, the thirteen colonies created government giving the common citizens a government they could feel as though they controlled. The wealthy who controlled the presses before the war continued to control the mass spread of ideals. This had become the most powerful manner of controlling the public.

    The wealthy in the Colonies that had now become States were very aware of the need to control the spread of ideas. Benjamin Huntington was initially chosen by George Washington and sat in the First Congress for Connecticut.

    This selected noble lawyer who was also selected as mayor was NEVER ELECTED to an office. In 1789 he conspired with an early textbook publisher, Noah Webster and plagiarized the Statute of Anne from the country they had just faced in war. Together the decided to use the misleading word "copyright" to make the common people believe it recognized a common moral right.

    ...US Title 17 is titled "The Copy-right Act" was actually plagiarism and how ironic it is that the "copy-rite" act established the new King's library for the newborn country of America.

    How more ironic it is today that the noble Eric Schmidt in The Author's Guild et al v. Google Inc, 1:2005cv08136 has announced repealing "the copy-right act" and creating a copy-right alternative.

    Maybe it is time to throw the book at Google instead of eliminating America's April Fool's HOAX from March 31, 1790 The NOBLE and wealthy Eric Schmidt told you not do anything online that you wish to exclusively control because he will ignore your exclusive moral rights to control "copy-right" and re-publish it. Those were not the words he used exactly but will get to explain himself further when testifying under oath in a witness chair in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
    Neeley v NAMEMEDIA INC et al,5:09--cv-05151
    Last edited by CurtisNeeley; 08-02-2010 at 02:31 PM. Reason: more time to explain

 

 
DPUG.ORG is a division of Photocentric Ltd.  |   All Content Copyright 2011 Photocentric Ltd.
Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  |   Search  |  Mobile     Facebook     Twitter     Linkedin     RSS