CSE HAS NO COPYRIGHTS

BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
CSE HAS NO COPYRIGHTS

Go to "Search" select "name" and type "Hovind". You'll get 25 registered copyrights...none of which belong to Kent or Eric. Type "Creation Science Evangelism" as the name, you get nothing.

In other words, they say they have a copyright, but in reality, they never registered one. They don't have a leg to stand on.

I made a quick video on this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDC20R-lX-w


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Copyright law does not

Copyright law does not require registration. The creator of a work automatically owns all copyrights. Registration creates better avenues for enforcing those rights, but it is not required.

 

Of course, using Hovinds logic, since god created everything, he owns the copyrights. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:     Of

wavefreak wrote:

 

 

Of course, using Hovinds logic, since god created everything, he owns the copyrights.

Hovind's defense on his tax dodging was to argue that the money belonged to god.. surely his 'arguments' belong to god too....

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: wavefreak

todangst wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

 

 

Of course, using Hovinds logic, since god created everything, he owns the copyrights.

Hovind's defense on his tax dodging was to argue that the money belonged to god.. surely his 'arguments' belong to god too....

 

 

He also argued in court that he wouldn't claim copyright ownership of his material.   He did this in 2006, his website currently states he owns copyright as of 2005.  Some defense.  Dipshits.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


AModestProposal
AModestProposal's picture
Posts: 157
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Um, actually ya do need to register for a copyright

Otherwise you're going to have a hell of a time proving you're the originator of the work. You see, that's what a copyright is.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Copyright

wavefreak wrote:

Copyright law does not require registration. The creator of a work automatically owns all copyrights. Registration creates better avenues for enforcing those rights, but it is not required.

 

Of course, using Hovinds logic, since god created everything, he owns the copyrights.

The problem is, the creator can, and does, waive all rights to the work when they say it's available freely, as Hovind did. To re-obtain those rights, you must register a copyright. Given that he didn't...

Sapient wrote:

 He also argued in court that he wouldn't claim copyright ownership of his material. He did this in 2006, his website currently states he owns copyright as of 2005. Some defense. Dipshits.

Can you give me a link proving this, Sapient? I don't doubt, but I do wish to bring this evidence forward.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada

BenfromCanada wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

Copyright law does not require registration. The creator of a work automatically owns all copyrights. Registration creates better avenues for enforcing those rights, but it is not required.

 

Of course, using Hovinds logic, since god created everything, he owns the copyrights.

The problem is, the creator can, and does, waive all rights to the work when they say it's available freely, as Hovind did. To re-obtain those rights, you must register a copyright. Given that he didn't...

Sapient wrote:

He also argued in court that he wouldn't claim copyright ownership of his material. He did this in 2006, his website currently states he owns copyright as of 2005. Some defense. Dipshits.

Can you give me a link proving this, Sapient? I don't doubt, but I do wish to bring this evidence forward.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote:

BenfromCanada wrote:

The problem is, the creator can, and does, waive all rights to the work when they say it's available freely, as Hovind did. To re-obtain those rights, you must register a copyright. Given that he didn't...

 

I'm not a copyright lawyer, so take this with a high degree of skepticism. My familiarity with copyright is from dealing with my artwork and web content.

The creator of a work can release it into the public domain, but this is for specific works. If Hovind said my web content is public domain, then changed his mind, I think everything already released into public domain is forever there, but all future works he still owns rights to. Also, posting a notice on a work that it can be reproduced freely is not the same as declaring it public domain. It's more like a limited time offer.

I'm not sure where you guys are going with this, but if you are contemplating legal action, you need a copyright attorney.

My own feelings, a grass roots effort to discredit the guy will cost less and have better results. This isn't RIAA and DRM. Legal action against U-Tube goes up against the deep pockets of Google. I think there are several actions regarding takedown notices already in progress. I believe the ACLU may already be involved in DCMA and Fair Use issues. There are some heavy hitters involved on the fair use side. I don't follow it that close so I haven't any links or sources. Somebody with more time should research what other actions are pending and contact the people involved. If genuine legal action is the goal, then combining forces with other organizations facing similar issues is the best be, IMHO.

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: My own feelings, a

Quote:
My own feelings, a grass roots effort to discredit the guy will cost less and have better results. This isn't RIAA and DRM. Legal action against U-Tube goes up against the deep pockets of Google.

Unless things have changed, I don't think there's any intention of going against YouTube legally.  Sapient is urging them to reinstate RRS's account, but I think that's about it.

The legal action is against the Hovinds themselves, for providing false information to YouTube regarding their ownership of copyright.  I'm not a copyright lawyer, either, but I do know it's a felony to file a false copyright ownership claim.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
My own feelings, a grass roots effort to discredit the guy will cost less and have better results. This isn't RIAA and DRM. Legal action against U-Tube goes up against the deep pockets of Google.

Unless things have changed, I don't think there's any intention of going against YouTube legally. Sapient is urging them to reinstate RRS's account, but I think that's about it.

The legal action is against the Hovinds themselves, for providing false information to YouTube regarding their ownership of copyright. I'm not a copyright lawyer, either, but I do know it's a felony to file a false copyright ownership claim.

 

It's copyright fraud, which can send you to jail.

 

Does anyone have proof that Hovind testified that he had no copyright? 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:

todangst wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

 

 

Of course, using Hovinds logic, since god created everything, he owns the copyrights.

Hovind's defense on his tax dodging was to argue that the money belonged to god.. surely his 'arguments' belong to god too....

 

His arguments belong to God, and his prison sentance must have been all part of God's divine plan...........No wait, you dont have to believe in Jesus to be convicted of tax evasion.

So, lets tally up the score here.

Reality, Tax evasion=10

Vs

Fictional Dad= 0

What?!!!! An all powerfull god couldn't spare a devote follower from Uncle Sam?

Maybe, just maybe Kent, God didnt because he couldnt because you buy a fairy tale? 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37