dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
Steven Lichter ha scritto:I, too, have seen a 'Vince Cooper' take-down request, not for my own sites, I don't have any of that material - but for another site. I am quite suspect at the very least, as some several years back I did look, and even now. The email contained no contact information, and came from a gmail acct. The most obviously perfect domain for them, 'completetechnology.com' is owned by a domain squatter. The tone of the email hints at it causing lost revenue, yet this product was even barely for sale when it was actually marketed. A simple google search for an existing company, even with a very common name isn't even hard, being blatant produces no results, even though the email eluded to, if you had looked in the "Denver dex" .. you would have found me. Dex? Brainwashed by the telco.. Well, dexknows.com ... doesn't know. Doesn't know "vince cooper", doesn't know "complete technology", ... it doesn't know. On the other hand, there is, too- a reason for defending a copyright, it sets a precedent for the future. Perhaps this individual is who they say and there is a reason. Or perhaps because they discovered it, they simply decided to be a spoil sport about it. Who knows. Until there's some way of correlating with a map and phone directory that show a valid listing for said company, since now that they have declared themselves as "Complete Technology", there can't be any company name changes otherwise we know it's Complete Bull.The Copyright owner has the right to restrict use of his work no matter what the status of it is. That also goes for other countries including Canada. Small parts of published guides could be published for public view, but not complete works and for sure the program or it code.Over the years while I owned the rights to GBBS/LLUCE, I had asked sites to remove the code as well as the manual; I did this until I had time to deal with the program to protect the value; though it was not worth much. I sold the program to Kevin Smallwood. He now controls GBBS/LUCE as well as EXfer. I don't know his plans but he has the right to limit the access and use.If someone wants to challenge those right to this or any other program they may find it very costly since the same rules apply to this as well as music, movies, and books.thers's no means to verify who actually own rights, patents, copyright or so ?Even if records show that the rights are hold by an estate, a bankruptcy trustee/attorney, etc. will be clear without reasonable doubt what is the individual/entity whose is actually entitled to send C&D letters.I'm sure that in US of A (and other countries) there are public registers of the copyright & patent owners.but, fortunately I'm not a lawyer, so take my opinion with a grain of salt...Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio.
Date of publication is one form of proof in newspapers or registering the name with the US Copyright Office. Also publishing and sale of the program at one time or another is proof. In my case I had a signed statement from the person I bought the program from and when I sold it I sent that along with other forms and software as well as a new form signing the rights over. I still have the right to use the program since I had purchased a license to run the program, but I can no longer sell use of it, other then if I want to sell my license and that would be with permission of the copyright owner.
Look at the big stink that was caused when a fan of Henry Potter put up a web site. Though there is no much of a demand for Apple II software it still is protected, the Software Publishers Association helped me a few times.
--The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.