"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3e2a9535@news.povray.org...
> argus <arg### [at] npqrnet> wrote:
> > Who's copyright?
> > This is the IRTC, eh? Not the AmericanRTC.
>
> > The point is that what may be protected in the USA is public domain in
> > the rest of the world.
>
>   I don't know of many musical art which is copyrighted in the USA and not
> copyrighted anywhere else.
>

I did point out several bodies of work that are now in the public domain in
most of Europe and Scandinavia. (Maria Callas, a lot of fifities jazz,
early rock and roll, folk, etc.) That was my point. The person accusing an
entrant of coypyright violation didn't bother checking any facts. There may
be violation, but at this point no one can have any confidence in the
accuracy of the accusation.

> > 1. Copyright infringement is a pursuit for those who believe their
> > property has been infringed. No action is ever taken without a complaint
> > by the ip owner. It is not the job, or duty,  by either law or IRTC
rules,
> > for
> > anyone to police copyright issues vis a vis IRTC entries.
>
>   You seem to completely miss the point.
>   It's not about pursuing the copyright violators. It's about avoiding
> the IRTC admins from being sued because they are distributing copyrighted
> material on their web server.
>   Do you think that they are willing to take that risk?
>

No, I'm not missing the point. I am trying to get a few people to undetake
the difficult task of learning how to make a basis for an accusation before
attempting to influence others votes.

As far as I know the admins can deal easily with a copyright infringement
notice brought by an interested person who has standing to make a complaint.
It is an everyday issue. Two points abouit that though - and I will
reiterate
those points so they are not lost in the noise -
1. You have to be the property owner or represent that owner to make a
complaint. The way the law works, even in the USA under the draconian
DMCA, is that online content providers (like the ISP servicing the IRTC)
have safe harbor protections that provide that simple removal of allegedly
violative work is sufficient to immunize the provider. It is that simple and
the admin team has no exposure beyond that responsibility.
2. It should be obvious, but it seems clear that finger pointing by an
uniformed person can not be sufficient reason to cause an intelligent
person to vote as the finger pointer wishes.

A small effort to determine any applicable facts would be helpful.


>   That's why there's a clear clausule in the IRTC rules that no
copyrighted
> material whatsoever may be used in the entries.
>


Is it really clear though? I applaud the admin team for respecting copyright
and I believe that the admin team would act appropriately when they are
either noticed in a proper and legal manner by an interested party, or when
a question has risen to the level of incontrovertible believabilty. In the
present case neither caveat applies. Is the work pointed at guilty of
any violation? Is the music used puiblic domain or not? Has anyone
even bothered to identify the music so interested people could do
a little fact checking?

Has anyone bothered to check the foundation for VanSickle's accusation?

Has anyone?

Post a reply to this message