Thread: OT Copyrights

Dimitri wrote:

> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
> holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
> descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for
> civil litigation.

By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.

-sw

Sqwertz <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dimitri wrote:

>> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
>> holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
>> descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for
>> civil litigation.

>By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.

Not true. Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
cookbook, it is a partnership. In theory, RFC would obtain
an EIN, file a partnership return, and the charitible
contributions should flow through to the individual partners
on a Schedule K, who might then be able to deduct their
partnership share of the contribution on their form 1040,
Schedule A, offsetting their reporting of the partnership income.

Or, you could just blow all of the above off and not
worry about it.

Steve

Dimitri wrote:

> FWIW
>
> I consulted an attorney

Ah. I see you must have those 'Dial 0800 xxx xxxx for free legal advice'
numbers in the USA too?

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

"Sqwertz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:gp91np$fkq$[email protected]..
> Dimitri wrote:
>
>> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
>> holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
>> descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for
>> civil litigation.
>
> By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.
>
> -sw

Singley or severally any and all who contributed to the book have legal
standing to sue. Of course unless someone knows of an attorney who will
take the case pro bono we know that's not going to happen. Besides I'd
enjoy far more satisfaction learning that the douchebag rusty and his entire
family suffered a heinous death.

Dimitri wrote:
> FWIW
>
> I consulted an attorney yesterday and here is a synopsis of some of what
> I understood was said:
>
> 1. Although recipes are seldom copyrightable a book or a body of work
> is copyrightable.
> 2. Since the RFC cookbook produced a profit (even though for charity)
> this fact strengthens the copyright position of the "Chaotic Kitchen
> Cook.Book"
> 3. Since there is a possibility the book could be reprinted for
> profit once again the protection of the book under copyright laws in
> pretty damn good.
>
> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
> holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
> descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for
> civil litigation.
>
> Dimitri
>
>
As a sometime writer I agree with the attorney and you Dimitri. Now, who
is the de facto owner, aka copyright holder, of the RFC cookbook? Since
individuals contributed the recipes, which, as I understand it, are
unprotected if they stand alone, then some person or legal entity needs
to be the copyright holder. IMHO.

"Steve Pope" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:gp9297$lic$[email protected]..
> Sqwertz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dimitri wrote:
>
>>> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
>>> holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
>>> descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for
>>> civil litigation.
>
>>By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.
>
> Not true. Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
> cookbook, it is a partnership.

Not true. RFC made no profit, the contributors are who made a profit, they
can sue. RFC has no legal standing for any reason whatsoever, it's neither
a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a corporation, or an entity of any
sort. Only those individuals, individually or severally, who contributed to
the book have legal standing... whether they subscribed to RFC (voluntarily)
or not. Any one or several contributors can sue separately or a number of
contributors may cause a class action suit. That's the easy part. The
more difficult part, knowing what a bunch of cheap bastids most rfc'ers are,
is to find an attorney who will take the case pro bono. That's highly
unlikely. But it's not so unlikely that the rusty douchebag gets to see his
family drown and then it's discovered that he has terminal pancreatic
cancer.

In article <gp9297$lic$[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:

> Sqwertz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.
>
> Not true. Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
> cookbook, it is a partnership.
(snip)
> Steve

No one profited, Steve. Everything above expenses went to Second
Harvest.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
"What you say about someone else says more
about you than it does about the other person."

brooklyn1 <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Steve Pope" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
>> cookbook, it is a partnership.

> Not true. RFC made no profit, the contributors are who
> made a profit, they can sue. RFC has no legal standing for
> any reason whatsoever, it's neither a sole proprietorship,
> a partnership, a corporation, or an entity of any sort.

Okay, not RFC in general, but those involved in the
cookbook form a partnership. To be considered a partnership
there is no action required other than pursuing a joint economic
activity. Under US law, if it's not anything else,
it's a partnership.

Who can sue is a slightly different question. Did recipe
contributors sign a release? If not they own the copyright
if they wrote down the recipe (the "fixed in a medium" test).

Steve

On 2009-03-11, Dimitri <[email protected]> wrote:


> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
> holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
> descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for civil
> litigation.

Cool. Let's look for deep pockets. Lets sue the dirtbag who posted those
recipes and the ISP who he posted through.

nb

Steve Pope wrote:
> brooklyn1 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Pope" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
>>> cookbook, it is a partnership.
>
>> Not true. RFC made no profit, the contributors are who
>> made a profit, they can sue. RFC has no legal standing for
>> any reason whatsoever, it's neither a sole proprietorship,
>> a partnership, a corporation, or an entity of any sort.
>
> Okay, not RFC in general, but those involved in the
> cookbook form a partnership. To be considered a partnership
> there is no action required other than pursuing a joint economic
> activity. Under US law, if it's not anything else,
> it's a partnership.
>
> Who can sue is a slightly different question. Did recipe
> contributors sign a release? If not they own the copyright
> if they wrote down the recipe (the "fixed in a medium" test).
>
> Steve



IMHO, the contributors and the editors would jointly own the collection
as a whole. Few if any of the recipes would the copyrightable standing
alone. Just because it's a recipe book, the editors would actually have
more standing than the contributors.

Was there any artwork?

All this is just an academic exercise, right? Nobody is really that
pissed about the recipes being scanned are they? (Sheldon excepted, of
course)

Bob

Melba's Jammin' <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
>> cookbook, it is a partnership.

>No one profited, Steve. Everything above expenses went to Second
>Harvest.

I understand this, and there is little reason to treat
it other than as a non-activity. But technically,
charitable contributions are subtracted from profit
only one someone's tax return. If the activity
rose to the level of generating an information return
(say, someone bought more than $600 in cookbooks)
one might have to consider filing a return for this
activity. I would at minimum keep good records.

I think the threshold below which the entire activity
is unreportable is $400.

Steve

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-03-11, Dimitri <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
>> holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
>> descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for civil
>> litigation.
>
> Cool. Let's look for deep pockets. Lets sue the dirtbag who posted those
> recipes and the ISP who he posted through.
>
> nb


Sue Al Gore for making it possible. (I still want my money back for
that Global Warming of his...)

Bob

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:11:03 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
<[email protected]> wrote:

>No one profited, Steve. Everything above expenses went to Second
>Harvest.

If you took in Three Dollars the IRS wants to know about that....just
be sure ALL the necessary paperwork has been filed with State and
National authorities. Don't even think of claiming you are Timmy
(Tax Cheat) Geithner!!

Sqwertz wrote:

> Dimitri wrote:
>
>> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the
>> copyright holders permission and republishes the body of work
>> including the descriptions written by the contributors is opening
>> themselves up for civil litigation.
>
> By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.

Picture this...

Mr/Ms Consumer is standing in line at the checkout in the stupidmarket
with his/her shopping cart full of goodies.

The queue is rather slow moving and he/she is bored. To alleviate some
of the boredom, he/she looks around, nods and smiles at the other
people in the queue, then sighs loudly in the hopes that the cashier
might hear it and get the hint to hurry up.

Time passes and the queue hasn't moved much.

Now he/she is *really* bored so he/she glances at the headlines on one
of those scandal rags that they often have on display at the checkout
(which *nobody* ever buys because they're crap and because there are
better things to spend one's hard earned cash on) and what does he/she
see in Big Bold Type?

"USENET GROUP REC.FOOD.COOKING SUES RUSTY FOR BREACH OF COPYRIGHT!"

Mr/Ms Consumer vaguely wonders who or what Usenet and/or
rec.food.cooking may be - and what either of them have to do with
Rusty - for (maybe) half a millisecond. Then he/she yawns, looks around
again, nods and smiles at the other people in the queue and wishes the
line would get a move on...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

In article <gp9a27$us7$[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> >> Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
> >> cookbook, it is a partnership.
>
> >No one profited, Steve. Everything above expenses went to Second
> >Harvest.
>
> I understand this, and there is little reason to treat
> it other than as a non-activity. But technically,
> charitable contributions are subtracted from profit
> only one someone's tax return. If the activity
> rose to the level of generating an information return
> (say, someone bought more than $600 in cookbooks)
> one might have to consider filing a return for this
> activity. I would at minimum keep good records.
>
> I think the threshold below which the entire activity
> is unreportable is $400.
>
> Steve

I stand corrected.

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
"What you say about someone else says more
about you than it does about the other person."

Steve Pope <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sqwertz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dimitri wrote:
>
>>> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the copyright
>>> holders permission and republishes the body of work including the
>>> descriptions written by the contributors is opening themselves up for
>>> civil litigation.
>
>>By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.
>
> Not true. Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
> cookbook, it is a partnership.

But... who is RFC? The same people who are supposedly violating the
copyright.

I hereby give written permission for people to re-publish the RFC
cookbook.

-sw

"Melba's Jammin'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> In article <gp9297$lic$[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.
>>
>> Not true. Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
>> cookbook, it is a partnership.
> (snip)
>> Steve
>
> No one profited, Steve. Everything above expenses went to Second
> Harvest.
> --
> -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ

However, in principle the contributors and/or editors agreed in advance to
donate any and all profits above expenses to Second Harvest ergo there was a
profit.

In addition at the time if second Harvest had non-profit standing the
contributors and/or editors would have been able to deduct their portion of
the "profits from their taxes as a legitimate deduction.

Dimitri

"ChattyCathy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:h3Wtl.44479$[email protected]..
> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> Dimitri wrote:
>>
>>> Ergo - IMHO any scumbag who willingly scans a book without the
>>> copyright holders permission and republishes the body of work
>>> including the descriptions written by the contributors is opening
>>> themselves up for civil litigation.
>>
>> By who? RFC is not a legally recognized entity.
>
> Picture this...
>
> Mr/Ms Consumer is standing in line at the checkout in the stupidmarket
> with his/her shopping cart full of goodies.
>
> The queue is rather slow moving and he/she is bored. To alleviate some
> of the boredom, he/she looks around, nods and smiles at the other
> people in the queue, then sighs loudly in the hopes that the cashier
> might hear it and get the hint to hurry up.
>
> Time passes and the queue hasn't moved much.
>
> Now he/she is *really* bored so he/she glances at the headlines on one
> of those scandal rags that they often have on display at the checkout
> (which *nobody* ever buys because they're crap and because there are
> better things to spend one's hard earned cash on) and what does he/she
> see in Big Bold Type?
>
> "USENET GROUP REC.FOOD.COOKING SUES RUSTY FOR BREACH OF COPYRIGHT!"
>


Sounds right to me!!!!

;-)

Dimitri

"Melba's Jammin'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> In article <gp9a27$us7$[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> Melba's Jammin' <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > [email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>
>> >> Under U.S. law, since RFC made a profit on the
>> >> cookbook, it is a partnership.
>>
>> >No one profited, Steve. Everything above expenses went to Second
>> >Harvest.
>>
>> I understand this, and there is little reason to treat
>> it other than as a non-activity. But technically,
>> charitable contributions are subtracted from profit
>> only one someone's tax return. If the activity
>> rose to the level of generating an information return
>> (say, someone bought more than $600 in cookbooks)
>> one might have to consider filing a return for this
>> activity. I would at minimum keep good records.
>>
>> I think the threshold below which the entire activity
>> is unreportable is $400.
>>
>> Steve
>
> I stand corrected.
>
>
Why stand corrected... Steve is not correct. RFC had nothing to do with any
profit. Only the contributors made a profit (those who contributed recipes,
those who engaged in promotion, and those who made a purchase) that they
collectively agreed to donate their profit hasn't a whit to do with RFC...
and in fact not all the RFC subscribers participated. and I'll bet some
participated who never subscribed to RFC. RFC plays no role whatsoever
regarding the profit or the copyright, not in any legal sense, none! RFC is
only the street corner where some folks set up their lemonade stand... to
hide the fact that they're a bunch of pimps and hoes. LOL