Re: My Website Has Been Taken Down

[bazyar@gmail.com]

In the US, all creative works are automatically granted copyright
protection. You do not need to register a work to be protected by law
- the assumed default is all creative works are protected.

And while it may be annoying, counter-productive and just downright
silly to say, in 2009, that "you can't put my copyrighted work
online" (who is going to make money on this stuff now??), the law is
100% behind Vince.

A long time ago I realized I wasn't going to make any more money from
GNO (at least, not as much as it would be worth to maintain it) and
released it as FreeWare. But take note, I still own copyright on this
work and I could change that status at any time, and legally you would
have to respect my wishes. (Don't worry, I won't :-)

Jawaid

--

On Jan 19, 10:28 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
<dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> 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.