David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> writes: > > > Take your meds, Hyman. > > How would that help your running out of arguments?
Hyman just can't grok it. Or rather he is simply acting as an utter moron just for fun, I think. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane "That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the registered work is a compilation. " "That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the registered work is a compilation. " "That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the registered work is a compilation. " Here's more: "Gaiman contends that he and McFarlane are joint owners of the copyrights on the three characters by reason of their respective contributions to joint (indivisible) work. 17 U.S.C. § 101; Seshadri v. Kasraian, 130 F.3d 798, 803-04 (7th Cir. 1997); Erickson v. Trinity Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061, 1067-72 (7th Cir. 1994); Thomson v. Larson, 147 F.3d 195, 199-205 (2d Cir. 1998). McFarlane concedes Gaimans joint ownership of Angela, but not of the other two; . . . As a co-owner, McFarlane was not violating the Copyright Act by unilaterally publishing the jointly owned work, but, as in any other case of conversion or misappropriation, he would have to account to the other joint owner for the latters share of the profits. Zuill v. Shanahan, supra, 80 F.3d at 1369. When co-ownership is conceded and the only issue therefore is the contractual, or in the absence of contract the equitable, division of the profits from the copyrighted work, there is no issue of copyright law and the suit for an accounting of profits therefore arises under state rather than federal law. Goodman v. Lee, 78 F.3d 1007, 1013 (5th Cir. 1996); Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 633 and n. 2 (9th Cir. 1984); Mountain States Properties, Inc. v. Robinson, 771 P.2d 5, 6-7 (Colo. App. 1988). It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Saturday Evening Post Co. v. Rumbleseat Press, Inc., 816 F.2d 1191, 1194-95 (7th Cir. 1987); T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 824, 828 (2d Cir. 1964) (Friendly, J.); cf. International Armor & Limousine Co. v. Moloney Coachbuilders, Inc., 272 F.3d 912, 915-16 (7th Cir. 2001). And in that event the applicable statute of limitations would be state rather than federal." Hey moron dak: "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. " "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. " "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. " "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. " "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. " "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. " "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. " "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. " "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. " "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. " But the GPL is "not a contract", right dak? LMAO!!! regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
