No doubt many here are aware that the discussions are
archived and viewed by many who are not on the list, even
the unscrupulous.
One of the unending claimants to success who continues to
fail with any of his claims (Perrault) has apparently
reached some kind of aberration plateau, trying to force me
to remove the free Tesla patents from KeelyNet which he
sells on CD and claims to have copyrighted AS HIS OWN solely
for his own profit.
It raises the question of what happens if you copyright
pre-existing material that has long been in the public
domain? CAN you sue someone who uses it without your
permission?
Take University Press who used the 1896 book on Keely, ADDED
A FORWARD, but added NOTHING to the text which had been
public domain for 80 years, but they copyrighted it.
The copyright only pertains TO THE FORWARD or alterations,
additions or enhancements to the original text. This is an
ongoing issue with websites and email which is similar to
this compilation/derivation factor.
Now I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion about
emails and website rights, in this case, the purpose is to
question, CAN you copryight pre-existing public domain
material?
Let's look at copyright of pre-existing material as
derivatives and compilations of existing public domain
material as if it was ORIGINAL WORKS by the copyrighter;
http://www.netside.com/~legal007/primer.html#copyrightgeneral
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of
the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of
"original works of authorship"...
These categories should be viewed quite broadly: for
example, computer programs and most "compilations" are
registrable as "literary works;" maps and architectural
plans are registrable as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural
works."
Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created,
and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or
phonorecord for the first time.
-----------------------
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/103.html
The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends
ONLY to the material contributed by the author of such
work, as distinguished from the preexisting material
employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive
right in the preexisting material.
The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not
affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or
subsistence of, any copyright protection in the
preexisting material.
-----------------------
http://www.ladas.com/GUIDES/COPYRIGHT/Copyright.USA.1997.html
Under Section 103(b) of the Act, a copyright in a derivative
work "extends only to the material contributed by the author
of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material
employed in the work."
-----------------------
http://freeadvice.com/gov_material/copyright-office-derivative-works-circular-14.htm
The copyright in a derivative work covers only the
additions, changes, or other NEW material appearing for the
first time in the work. It does not extend to any
PREEXISTING material and does not imply a copyright in that
material.
A work that has fallen in the public domain—that is, which
is no longer protected by copyright—may be used for a
derivative work, but the copyright in the derivative work
will not restore the copyright of the public domain
material. Neither will it prevent anyone else from using the
same public domain work for another derivative work.
Compilations and abridgments may also be copyrightable IF
THEY CONTAIN NEW WORKS OF AUTHORSHIP. When the collecting of
the preexisting material that makes up the compilation is a
purely mechanical task with no element of editorial
selection, or when only a few minor deletions constitute an
abridgment, copyright protection for the compilation or
abridgment as a new version is not available.
(you must state on the copyright form whether the work is)
Derivative work or compilation: Complete this space if the
work being registered contains a substantial amount of
material that:
* was previously published;
* was previously registered in the U.S. Copyright Office;
* is in the public domain; or
* is not included in the claim.
-----------------------
http://www.nesl.edu/lawrev/vol32/vol32-4/smith.htm
Derivative works are comprised of one or more preexisting
works, WHICH ARE ALTERED, and then in themselves become new
creations.
-----------------------
http://www.twsu.edu/library/specialcollections/c1.html#103
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work
extends only to the material contributed by the author of
such work,
as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in
the work,
and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting
material.
The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not
affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or
subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting
material.
-----------------------
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4064/intp_law.txt
A. §102 Subject Matter
1. Copyright only for the independent work of an author,
2. With some minimal degree of creation
3. Neither novelty nor utility are required.
4. Protection only extends to the original components
5. No protection for facts or labor, including research
E. §103(b) Derivative Copyright
1. A derivative copyright only protects the new material
contained in the derivative work
2. Not the matter derived from the underlying work.
J. §107 Fair Use Defense
1. Purpose of Use: was the use a non-exploitative one?
2. Effect On Potential Market For the Original: does the use
usurp the rights or market of the copyright holder?
3. Nature of Original Work: are the works functional aspects
readily decipherable; what is the copyright holders interest
in the work?
4. Amount & Substantiality of Portion Used: in relation to
the original work as a whole, was the copied portion
substantial and important to the original?
5. Nintendo Rule: Disassembly of a copyrighted program is a
fair use in order to gain an understanding of the functional
aspects of the program and when no other means of access to
the unprotected aspects exists.
-----------------------
http://www.alschuler.com/artrje2.htm
The Selection Of Communities Was Not Copyrightable Because
The Entire Universe Was "Selected" And Because The Selection
Was The Result of Someone Else's Judgment.
If the "selection" is a category of facts (e.g., cable
system communities), it is an uncopyrightable universe.
Warren's System of Selecting Principal Communities Was Not
Subject To Copyright Protection
The selection is not a true selection if there is no room
for creativity; a copyrighted "selection" must be the result
of the compiler's opinion about something subjective (e.g.,
the compiler includes in a trivia book certain facts from
the universe of facts because of a belief that they are the
most interesting facts;
Warren's Discovery Techniques And Organizing Principles Were
Not Subject To Copyright Protection
Organizing principles and discovery techniques are not
subject to copyright protection no matter how commercially
useful, novel, or industrious they are. Thus, the compiler
should assume that these matters will be of no moment in the
determination of whether its compilation warrants copyright
protection.
-----------------------
http://www.ifla.org/documents/infopol/copyright/samp2.txt
The US Supreme Court ruled in early 1991 that the telephone
white pages are not protected by copyright law because they
do not contain any 'original expression'.
Creativity in the selection or arrangement of the facts is
necessary before a compilation is covered by copyright law,
otherwise the facts can be copied by anyone, even somebody
preparing a competing compilation.
This decision has far-reaching implications for copyright
claims in fact compilations, especially for electronic
information services.
-----------------------
Thought you'd be interested in the chain of insanity that
resulted in two MORE emails today, despite repeated requests
that he send LEGAL documents to my lawyer, not his deluded
ramblings.
These are the two I received today, and I decided to just
post all of them as they need to be made public so people
can see what continual failures to PROVE claims will lead
to.
Be aware, he has 'taken over' Bill Beaty's free energy
http://www.escribe.com/science/
list as you can see by all the 'me, me, me - sell, sell,
sell - look, look, look' posts, also be aware that he
admitted his SOLE REASON for signing onto ANY discussion
list was to 'advertise' material to a willing audience;
------------------------
Subject: Copyright Violation
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:34:05 -0500
From: "Bruce A. Perreault" <nuenergy@cyberportal.net>
Organization: Nu Energy Horizons
To: jdecker@keelynet.com
Dear Jerry Decker,
Please remove the Canadian and Britis Tesla Patents from you
site at,
http://www.keelynet.com/tesla/
These are my copyrighted files under ISBN 1-930216-00-9
If these are not removed then you will receive a request in
writing to remove them from your site. If you do not comply
then I will file suite against you for copyright
infringement.
-----------------------
Subject: Re: J. Decker & B. Perrault exchange: Tesla
patents
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:23:26 -0500
From: "Bruce A. Perreault" <nuenergy@cyberportal.net>
Organization: Nu Energy Horizons
To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
CC: nuenergy@listbot.com, nuenergy2@listbot.com,
jdecker@keelynet.com
References: 1
Bill,
Looks like old Jerry is up to his neck in hate again. I have
been receiving hate mail from someone in the last few weeks
who are using my guestbook. They have
been signing Jerry's name. It appears here that it is really
him. We can not say for certain because the email sigatures
have been wiped clean and the messages
were through the guestbook that another server handles.
If anyone wants proof that Jerry is posting the Canadian and
British Tesla Patents that have been compiled onto cd-rom by
me then look at a copy from someone who has bought this
cd-rom from my website. You will discover that the files
have the same exact date stamps and creation times right
down to the last second. This would be impossible to
duplicate.
As for Jerry's statement that I am a scam... this is
disparaging and defamatory. People that this is not true. My
life is my research. I have made many contributions to these
lists. Yes, I have made cd-rom collections and offer them
for a very reasonable price. It took my own money and many
late hours to compile them.
The time stamps show the wee hours of the night I often have
to work. The items that are sold on my website by no means
have made me alot of money but what they have made has
supported some of my research. It is an honest way to raise
funds.
Shortly after the Tesla Patent cd-rom was released for
publication Jerry and his friends went and posted them for
free on the internet. I have lost money because of Jerry's
hate for me. I will be sending Jerry Decker a legal notice
asking him to quit his copyright violations and public hate
against my person.
------------------------
Subject: [Fwd: Jerry Decker is at it again]
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:07:29 -0500
From: "Bruce A. Perreault" <nuenergy@cyberportal.net>
Organization: Nu Energy Horizons
To: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker@keelynet.com>
Jerry,
Make things right or I will fly down to your hometown to
file a law suite against you. You will have to pay for all
my legal expenses in connection with this case.
If I have to hire an attorney it will not be cheap.
----------------------
The second email followed within minutes;
Subject: [Fwd: British Patent Office email]
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:46:17 -0500
From: "Bruce A. Perreault" <nuenergy@cyberportal.net>
Organization: Nu Energy Horizons
To: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker@keelynet.com>
Dear Jerry Decker,
Have you received the certified letter that was sent out to
you last week, or are you refusing to sign it?
If you are refusing this letter then we can have it sent
through your local sheriff's office. You will be required to
pay all fees once a judgement is
made by the courts. The choice is in your ballcourt.
-----------------------
My response has been that he WILL send LEGAL documents to my
lawyer who will determine the course of action.
Nowhere in the Tesla patents posted here does it say
'Perrault' and the Tesla documents have been public domain
for 100 years.
His beef is he can't sell others works AS HIS OWN....after
all, his own stuff NEVER works and its just frustration
caused by his own efforts to dig a deeper and deeper hole by
making ever more outrageous and idiotic statments...
ergo;
"Fred Walters does not own the work, nor does his associate
Jerry Decker."
(THEY never CLAIMED to OWN the WORK of Tesla, etc., they
just wanted to FREELY SHARE what is public domain, not STEAL
IT AS THEIR OWN FOR MONEY!!!)
"If the Ten Commandments are published in a magazine you can
not photocopy them from that magazine without permission."
(FLAWLESS LOGIC!!!! Trust this guy!)
"Technically it is the scans that are copyrighted."
(WRITE THIS DOWN NOW, it's good legal advice!)
BACKTRACK TIME, he said 'they are my copyrighted FILES',
read above.
"No, I am not claiming that the patents belong to me, this
would be absurd. What I am claiming is my copyright."
"...it would be of good faith if you will honor my request
to give me credit for my research and to request a donation
in a way that your clients do not feel obligated...."
(ergo, GIVE ME MONEY I DON'T DESERVE.)
BACKTRACK AGAIN, he said '..I WILL sue you'.
"It is not my intent to bring suite against anyone."
--------------------------
On review of the law regarding copyright, it clearly says
ORIGINAL work is all that can be copyrighted, so in my
considered opinion, posting Tesla patents that have been
residing in archives in various places over the past century
and thus fully public domain, there is nothing illegal in
this.
Anyone can copy pre-existing material NO MATTER THE SOURCE
if it is public domain which these patents clearly are.
The source was Fred Walters and there is no indication that
I can find in any of the documents of the name Perrault or
Nu whatever...nor are the documents that Fred scanned in,
either EDITED or ALTERED to provide new information or
insights, thus they are the originals as Fred scanned them
in.
I have received no LEGAL documents as of 03/30/00, and will
take the necessary steps at that time.
Should it come down to court, I'll certainly get the public
record of what transpires and display it on KeelyNet so all
can watch justice in action.
We definitely need to recognize the true nature and goals of
people using alternative science for their own purposes and
simply ignore them, don't recognize they exist, don't visit
their website, don't buy any of their 'plans', 'products' or
other claims, without support they cannot remain on the net
or in the public view, except for support by the losers who
believe everything stated as if it is FACT, choosing to
ignore the history and reality.
I'd suggest http://www.travelocity.com to save on airline
costs to Dallas. It might save some money to pay for the
countersuit award.
-- KeelyNet - From an Art to a Science Jerry W. Decker - http://www.keelynet.com/discussion archives http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, TX 75187 - 214.324.8741------------------------------------------------------------- To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com> with the body text: leave Interact list archives and on line subscription forms are at http://keelynet.com/interact/ -------------------------------------------------------------