GhostWriter response:request for formal copyright reg information

[_Joseph]

(Moderator Note) PM deleted.

Joseph-

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but Sven is right. The board rules state that no PM's are allowed to be posted on the public board. I have therefore removed your post.

However, I do have the copy of SGW's PM that you forwarded to me, and I have forwarded it to Shades.


*******************************
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tells you he did not formally register the published image he put the DMCA out on, doesn't it?

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Isn't posting PMs taboo? Hello?

[_lostindc]

Did he add the F you b@#ch or did you? If he did, this is not very good behavior for an up and coming mike ash.


(Moderator Note) Quote of PM deleted.

[Guest]

What I posted is what HE wrote.

As for posting PM's, his response needs to be seen by those on here.

I requested a registration number for the formal copyright registration of the image he has published publicly and which he used as the basis for his DMCA takedown notice. What I posted is his response. I did not change it or add to it.

I would guess from his response that he did NOT register the copyright within the statutory 90 day period required by law and as a result his DMCA takedown notice was faulty. Just the kind of thing the Feds are often willing to investigate and possibly prosecute.

And I like the tag line about him being a 'gentleman'.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

What I posted is what HE wrote.

As for posting PM's, his response needs to be seen by those on here.

I requested a registration number for the formal copyright registration of the image he has published publicly and which he used as the basis for his DMCA takedown notice.

I would guess from his response that he did NOT register the copyright within the statutory 90 day period required by law and as a result his DMCA takedown notice was faulty. Just the kind of thing the Feds are often willing to investigate and possibly prosecute.

And I like the tag line about him being a 'gentleman'.

I think if there is a rule it needs to be enforced evenly. Otherwise, we are no better than MAD.

[_Joseph]

So complain, spurvey.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

So complain, spurvey.

Do you selectively give fair treatment? That seems pretty weak. In fact. that seems mildly bigoted. Simon, take note.

[Guest]

It is dreadful to think that Nemesis will now be able to add SGW's [sanitized quote from PM deleted] message to the list of MDB sins that will no doubt be on the Neighborhood Watch pages.

A perfectly normal message from an active LDS gentleman and artist in prose, and it is held up to ridicule by apostates and unbelievers. Shameful!

Edited to add: I see that the moderator has deleted the three-word phrase from SGW from other posts, but seems to have left my sanitized version untouched - I wrote the first letter of each word and put asterisks for the rest.

But I suspect she just missed what I wrote, so I have deleted it anyway. For the record, the message consisted of the imperative form of an obscene verb, a personal pronoun, and another word literally designating a non-human female animal, but usually taken to be an offensive epithet for women.

Nice language for a gentleman!

[_Morley]

So complain, spurvey.

I agree with Spurven. You're a stickler for copyright laws, even though they are often somewhat ambiguous. This is a board rule, one that is starkly unambiguous. Yet, you violate it.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Sven?