Re: What am I doing wrong?

From: Floyd L. Davidson (floyd_at_barrow.com)
Date: 10/14/04 

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:05:06 -0800

Juhan Leemet <juhan@logicognosis.com> wrote:
>
>I guess if there is a dispute, take it to court. All other cases (like the
>U.S. Supreme Court case that was mentioned) notwithstanding, you have to
>try your own particular dispute in court. Arguing in a newsgroup is just
>gossip and opinion (like many things, everyone has one, or more).

Unlike Paul Lutus' warbling whines (or for that matter, the
speculation you posted, which I mercifully snipped), this
particular statement is pretty close.

Not that anyone necessarily wants to actually take it to court
though! The correct action is to hire a copyright attorney, who
will research case law to determine how courts have ruled in the
same or very similar instances. The attorney will then provide
a "legal opinion", which may or may not be ambiguous. If it is
not, end of problem. If it is, then you have to weigh the
options against your pocket book... ;-)

However, Usenet is a place meant for discussion, and it actually
is reasonable to argue opinions on legal matters here. First
Lutus said telephone numbers are all protected by copyright, and
said they were the same as tide tables. Then he found out that
the US Supreme Court has specifically ruled regarding telephone
numbers, so now Lutus says they are different than tide tables,
and some of telephone directories are protected.

The simple fact is that Lutus is clueless.

Go to google and do a web search on these terms, "telephone
directory feist publications rural" and there will be any number
of 1) copies of the US Supreme Court Decision, 2) legal
descriptions of what it means, *and* 3) legal descriptions of
how it has affected case law since 1991.

The question about tide tables isn't really very complex at all. 

-- 
FloydL. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Possible RGP Future
    ... Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same sex marriage. ... a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law ... not violate the United States Constitution. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • OT - Miers
    ... The nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to fill the vacancy ... on the US Supreme Court created by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • OT: Your home can now be legally stolen from you thanks to liberal Supreme Court
    ... 5-4 Ruling Backs Forced Sales for Private Development" ... Court has now made it legal for your town to steal your house right ... The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force ... The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local ...
    (rec.music.makers.trumpet)
  • Supreme Folly on Hamdan
    ... The Supreme Court, by a 5-3 vote, invalidated the special military ... Circuit Court judge in the Appeal Court's decision on the same ... the guardians of terrorists' liberties are planning to test ... Common Article 3, which appears in all four of the Geneva Conventions, ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Only attorneys are denied discipline hearings before a constitutional court
    ... Why the Supreme Court wants to avoid ... A level of balance between attorney property rights and public ... 6007 thus deters challenges to the State Bar, ... jurisdiction derives entirely from the Supreme Court, ...
    (misc.legal)