Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on August 19, 2008, 06:25:27 PM
-
Since this topic has been touched on elsewhere a number of times, I'm starting a thread dedicated to it.
Most recently questions about copyright have come up. The lawsuit (http://www.save-3abn.com/3abn-and-danny-v-joy-and-pickle-complaint.htm) mentions copyright issues, but then doesn't make that one of its counts. Why?
I can't see any reason why they mention copyright at all, since 3ABN has argued in court (http://www.save-3abn.com/3abn-property-tax-appeal-decision-03-31-08-copyright.htm) that none of their programming is copyrighted. I know of nowhere where they have announced a change in that regard.
Why does the lawsuit mention copyright issues when none of 3ABN's programming is copyrighted, and when copyright infringement isn't one of the counts?
-
Bob, I will insert my comments in the text of your quote in brackets [ ] with my initials added (GM).
Since this topic has been touched on elsewhere a number of times, I'm starting a thread dedicated to it.
Most recently questions about copyright have come up. The lawsuit (http://www.save-3abn.com/3abn-and-danny-v-joy-and-pickle-complaint.htm) mentions copyright issues, but then doesn't make that one of its counts. Why?
[The complaint in a lawsuit does not have to list everything associated with the charges in a numbered count--GM.]
I can't see any reason why they mention copyright at all, since 3ABN has argued in court (http://www.save-3abn.com/3abn-property-tax-appeal-decision-03-31-08-copyright.htm) that none of their programming is copyrighted. I know of nowhere where they have announced a change in that regard.
[Bob, when you have a charge of trademark infringement, a copyright violation is often associated with it. There is future value in mentioning copyright as an issue in the initial filing without listing it as a specific count--GM.]
Why does the lawsuit mention copyright issues when none of 3ABN's programming is copyrighted, and when copyright infringement isn't one of the counts?
[Because copyright infringement does not have to be associated with their programining. However, I will point out that the iniital filing clearly associates a copyright issue with a specific program. So, 3-ABN has specificly excluded at least one program from the public domain--GM.]
-
Gregory, when specifically did 3ABN exclude the program with the infamous tribute to alleged pedophile Tommy Shelton? You state that they excluded it. When did they? Did they exclude it before it entered the public domain, or did they fraudulently attempt to exclude it after it had already entered the public domain?
Also, did they amend or correct their pleadings in their property tax case to reflect the fact that it was no longer true that none of their programming was copyrighted?
If there really was a change of policy, which I highly doubt, where are the board minutes that reflect that change? If there are no such minutes, who made the decision to change the policy? Where is the public announcement to that effect so that no one would ignorantly infringe 3ABN's copyright?
On what basis did 3ABN decide to exclude from the public domain that sole broadcast, which happened to contain the infamous tribute to alleged pedophile Tommy Shelton? Why apparently only that broadcast? Why that particular one?
You mention a copyright violation often being associated with a trademark violation. I think you are suggesting that even if there was no broadcast in question, there would still be a copyright issue, but I'm uncertain what exactly you are referring to.
-
Bob,
You should listen to a real lawyer, not an alleged, arm chair, lawyer wanna be. Arm chair legal advice is just that, "Arm Chair". It carries zero authority, unless they have been forced to defend themselves in a federal court of law!
If my memory serves me, Danny and 3ABN wanted Linda out of IL so they could register their 3ABN Trademark. They needed her gone so she couldn't do it before Danny did and she also couldn't be there for the now famous board meeting. You know, the one where there were 2 evil men in their midst? The sheriff was called to man handle them off the compound. I am sure Johann can refresh your memory since he was allegedly one of the evil ones!.
On another note, off topic, the 3ABN Today credits this weekend did not include Danny Shelton! First billing went to Jesus Christ, but no Danny Shelton as producer! It is about time! Jim Gilley was second as President or producer, I am not sure. I was too busy looking for Danny Shelton! Zilch, Nada, gone! I am so proud of them for that! To me that impresses me more than anything so far.
-
Bob, I am not going to debate you point by point.
My job is not to teach you law.
As to your comment:
You mention a copyright violation often being associated with a trademark violation. I think you are suggesting that even if there was no broadcast in question, there would still be a copyright issue, but I'm uncertain what exactly you are referring to.
Exactly. Copyright and trademark are closely entwined. Even if there was no broadcast a violation of trademark could also carry with it a violation of copyright.
Frankly I did not understand that until the lawsuit against you and Gailon was filed. But, I do now. If you want to understand it, you need to obtain competent legal advice.
-
Gregory,
I didn't ask you to teach me law.
If 3ABN did not prevent that particular broadcast from entering the public domain, then I don't think they can retrieve it from the public domain after the fact.
Since you can't copyright a name (#5 in this link) (http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html), I fail to see what copyright issues there can be concerning a trademark suit over Save3ABN.com (http://Save-3ABN.com/).
-
Here is an excerpt from the letter sent to Gailon on January 30, 2007, by Gerald Duffy, Law Offices of Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mr. Duffy is one of the five partners in the sixteen lawyer Minnesota law firm allegedly used by Garwin McNeilus.
"...you have inappropriately copied and posted a lengthy excerpt from a 3ABN broadcast on the website referred to above. This action constitutes a violation of 3ABN's exclusive copyright on all audio and video productions created by the Network and on all television transmissions of the same, and is a blatant violation of federal law."
Mr. Duffy's confident assertation of 3ABN's copyright status is not matched by the language in the lawsuit.
But then lawyer's letters are often meant only to be threatening and coercive rather than having legal authority.
-
Should Seventh-day Adventist supporting ministries hire lawyers to write threatening letters that have no basis in law or fact? WWJD?
-
Should Seventh-day Adventist supporting ministries hire lawyers to write threatening letters that have no basis in law or fact? WWJD?
Bob
Stuff like this is for what?? If a good many of us said No, then what? Where would you take that except for 20 pages kicking it back and forth.
Personally this looks like grasping at straws.
Should SDA members have to sue a pastor of the denomination in order to protect the children involved?? My simple mind says NO, but trust me we did and most didn't care.
I can think of many words related to this lawsuit that would not pass the test of WWJD.
I am not involved in the lawsuit and have nothing to gain. But I gotta tell you this stuff is fast eroding support.
I mistrust DS and the gang,but you and Gailon are not coming out like a bouquet of roses either.
-
Should Seventh-day Adventist supporting ministries hire lawyers to write threatening letters that have no basis in law or fact? WWJD?
Bob
Stuff like this is for what?? If a good many of us said No, then what? Where would you take that except for 20 pages kicking it back and forth.
Personally this looks like grasping at straws.
Should SDA members have to sue a pastor of the denomination in order to protect the children involved?? My simple mind says NO, but trust me we did and most didn't care.
Sounds like apples and oranges. On the one hand we have Shelton et. al. having attorneys write nasty letters to silence people who are concerned about child molestation allegations. That's quite different from suing to protect children.
"WWJD" was also an allusion to a username over on BSDA.
-
Sounds like apples and oranges. On the one hand we have Shelton et. al. having attorneys write nasty letters to silence people who are concerned about child molestation allegations. That's quite different from suing to protect children.
"WWJD" was also an allusion to a username over on BSDA.
I don't mean this sarcastically, but what do you plan to do about all the extra getting thrown in here. If the victims don't or can't come forward then what? I know how hard that can be,but at the end of the day that is what needs to be done.
TS and the allegations of child molestation has been brought how many times now?? Tell me where after the first couple of times it has had any impact.
Nothing you are saying is going to change the fact. Hopefully enough awareness has been brought to bear that at least there is not such easy access to the vulnerable. But you will not accomplish anymore than that on this issue.
You cannot look to the church membership as a whole to care. Have you ever heard the words "He was doing good things for the Lord, so we didn't know what to do"? I did many times I know you have as I have read similar statements concerning the good work 3ABN is doing. The majority of the denomination will not back you. Even if they did, so what? You cannot do anything about it. As for the questions you throw out there in determination to try to one up the 3ABN crowd, what is that for? Doesn't make a difference what the answers to your questions are. If it is not illegal and current you are not going to change things, except it looks worse for your side.
Gnawing at ever thing you can think of doesn't hurt them, it hurts you
-
I don't think hiring a lawyer to write a nasty letter not based on law and fact is a little matter. Seventh-day Adventists are called by God to be ethical and above board in all that they do.
We should continue to call for repentance, confession, restitution, revival, and reformation regardless of how many don't care.
-
I am not involved in the lawsuit and have nothing to gain. But I gotta tell you this stuff is fast eroding support.
I'm not so sure they had much support to start with.
-
I don't think hiring a lawyer to write a nasty letter not based on law and fact is a little matter. Seventh-day Adventists are called by God to be ethical and above board in all that they do.
We should continue to call for repentance, confession, restitution, revival, and reformation regardless of how many don't care.
I have remained silent for a while, merely reading and thinking about what has gone on in the most active 3ABN related threads lately and have concluded the following: much of the continuing argumentation is of little consequence, except the last line bolded above. I shall repeat it again:We should continue to call for repentance, confession, restitution, revival, and reformation regardless of how many don't care. Christians are a people group called individually to live by and champion Biblical principle, regardless of the indifference of self professed fellow believers. I have no desire to engage in written battle with those who have swept Biblical principle aside and have chosen to look to themselves for guidance. They have a fool as their captain and their poorly chosen path will surely lead to destruction. I have never called for the downfall of 3ABN, nor have I ever attacked it as a ministry. What I have focused upon is the wickedness that was hidden behind the scenes and called for a cleansing of 3ABN, beginning with Danny Shelton. To repeat again what Bob has said, the heart of the matter is the continual call for repentance, confession, restitution, revival and reformation within the leadership and management of 3ABN, regardless of how many don't care.
-
I'm not so sure it is that they didn't have that much support as it is that a whole lot of the church doesn't know what is happening or has not taken the time to know. My mom had a problem with her 3abn receiver. A man from her church came over last week to see what the problem was. She needed a new one and I was telling him that I didn't want any support to go to 3abn. He sells their receivers and helps people install. He asked why and I gave him a short version. He did not know about the lawsuit or that TS was not a SDA. Does now. The Review won't take on the issues and if the church paper won't report on it how do people get to know. :usa: (watching the Olympics)
-
I think you have hit on a key point, GRAT. Maybe we should organize an effort to get the word out.
I'm not so sure it is that they didn't have that much support as it is that a whole lot of the church doesn't know what is happening or has not taken the time to know. My mom had a problem with her 3abn receiver. A man from her church came over last week to see what the problem was. She needed a new one and I was telling him that I didn't want any support to go to 3abn. He sells their receivers and helps people install. He asked why and I gave him a short version. He did not know about the lawsuit or that TS was not a SDA. Does now. The Review won't take on the issues and if the church paper won't report on it how do people get to know. :usa: (watching the Olympics)
-
Christians are a people group called individually to live by and champion Biblical principle, regardless of the indifference of self professed fellow believer.
To repeat again what Bob has said, the heart of the matter is the continual call for repentance, confession, restitution, revival and reformation within the leadership and management of 3ABN, regardless of how many don't care.
Nobel words.
It is important that the methods used by those "championing Biblical principle and calling for repentance, confession, restitution, revival and reformation" meet the test of those very scriptures. The ends do not justify the means.
Matthew 5:21 - 26:
21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
25 "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
-
This is what I posted:
I have remained silent for a while, merely reading and thinking about what has gone on in the most active 3ABN related threads lately and have concluded the following: much of the continuing argumentation is of little consequence, except the last line bolded above. I shall repeat it again:We should continue to call for repentance, confession, restitution, revival, and reformation regardless of how many don't care. Christians are a people group called individually to live by and champion Biblical principle, regardless of the indifference of self professed fellow believers. I have no desire to engage in written battle with those who have swept Biblical principle aside and have chosen to look to themselves for guidance. They have a fool as their captain and their poorly chosen path will surely lead to destruction. I have never called for the downfall of 3ABN, nor have I ever attacked it as a ministry. What I have focused upon is the wickedness that was hidden behind the scenes and called for a cleansing of 3ABN, beginning with Danny Shelton. To repeat again what Bob has said, the heart of the matter is the continual call for repentance, confession, restitution, revival and reformation within the leadership and management of 3ABN, regardless of how many don't care.
You are right, Grandma Nettie, the end does not justify the means, if the means run contrary to the Word of God. If key members of the management of a Christian ministry are consistently, privately breaking the commandments they are publicly advocating, remove the cancerous growth from within and give the ministry an opportunity to recover and reach it's full potential. Remove Danny Shelton, remove Walt Thompson, remove Hal and Mollie Steenson, that would be a good start for a new beginning for 3ABN.
-
And for most, I believe, this does not mean replacing them with LS - contrary to their claims. It is about the leadership behaving in a Godly way whoever the leadership is.
-
This is what I posted:
I have remained silent for a while, merely reading and thinking about what has gone on in the most active 3ABN related threads lately and have concluded the following: much of the continuing argumentation is of little consequence, except the last line bolded above. I shall repeat it again:We should continue to call for repentance, confession, restitution, revival, and reformation regardless of how many don't care. Christians are a people group called individually to live by and champion Biblical principle, regardless of the indifference of self professed fellow believers. I have no desire to engage in written battle with those who have swept Biblical principle aside and have chosen to look to themselves for guidance. They have a fool as their captain and their poorly chosen path will surely lead to destruction. I have never called for the downfall of 3ABN, nor have I ever attacked it as a ministry. What I have focused upon is the wickedness that was hidden behind the scenes and called for a cleansing of 3ABN, beginning with Danny Shelton. To repeat again what Bob has said, the heart of the matter is the continual call for repentance, confession, restitution, revival and reformation within the leadership and management of 3ABN, regardless of how many don't care.
You are right, Grandma Nettie, the end does not justify the means, if the means run contrary to the Word of God. If key members of the management of a Christian ministry are consistently, privately breaking the commandments they are publicly advocating, remove the cancerous growth from within and give the ministry an opportunity to recover and reach it's full potential. Remove Danny Shelton, remove Walt Thompson, remove Hal and Mollie Steenson, that would be a good start for a new beginning for 3ABN.
To logically extend your cancer metaphor....
Before any part of a body is surgically removed:
1. Thorough tests must be conducted by the proper professionals in the appropriate laboratories using the correct test equipment to accurately diagnose whether the growth is cancerous or not.
2. If the test results are not definitive, the tests must be repeated until the diagnosis is beyond any doubt.
3. Before resorting to surgical removal of the cancerous growth, ascertain if the cancer can be treated by less invasive means, such as with radiation or pharmacological intervention (whether holistic or traditional).
4. Should surgery be indicated, surgical assistants, no matter how competent they feel, should leave the removal of the growth to the surgical specialists.
5. Remember that the surgical light shines on everyone in the surgical theater.
Any doctor who would advocate surgery before going through the proper diagnostic procedures is putting patients at risk, is unfit to practice medicine and is inviting costly malpractice suits.
-
And for most, I believe, this does not mean replacing them with LS - contrary to their claims. It is about the leadership behaving in a Godly way whoever the leadership is.
I, nor any others that I am aware of have ever suggested that it would be in the best interests of Linda Shelton to return to leadership at 3ABN. Please do not read something into my statement that was never there, in an effort to side track the issue of an urgent need for a continual call for repentance, confession, restitution, revival and reformation within the leadership and management of 3ABN, regardless of how many don't care.
GrandmaNettie, you have extrapolated my simple metaphor far beyond it's intended use and for what purpose is evident to all. I repeat:the heart of the matter is the continual call for repentance, confession, restitution, revival and reformation within the leadership and management of 3ABN, regardless of how many don't care or in their ignorance are unaware of the urgent need.
-
And for most, I believe, this does not mean replacing them with LS - contrary to their claims. It is about the leadership behaving in a Godly way whoever the leadership is.
I, nor any others that I am aware of have ever suggested that it would be in the best interests of Linda Shelton to return to leadership at 3ABN.
I don't recall suggesting that that would be a good idea either, and have felt that her going back to 3ABN would not be best. But I have also said that if there is to be consistency, if Danny can still be there despite what he has done, then why can't Linda be there too?
It simply doesn't make sense to kick out Linda for talking too long on the telephone to a doctor in Norway, and then replacing her as production manager with an alleged pedophile. And then when new allegations of sexual misconduct against Tommy surface, giving that alleged pedophile a globally televised tribute when Linda never got one.
It's injustice in the extreme, it seems to me.
-
And for most, I believe, this does not mean replacing them with LS - contrary to their claims. It is about the leadership behaving in a Godly way whoever the leadership is.
I, nor any others that I am aware of have ever suggested that it would be in the best interests of Linda Shelton to return to leadership at 3ABN. Please do not read something into my statement that was never there, in an effort to side track the issue of an urgent need for a continual call for repentance, confession, restitution, revival and reformation within the leadership and management of 3ABN, regardless of how many don't care.
GrandmaNettie, you have extrapolated my simple metaphor far beyond it's intended use and for what purpose is evident to all. I repeat:the heart of the matter is the continual call for repentance, confession, restitution, revival and reformation within the leadership and management of 3ABN, regardless of how many don't care or in their ignorance are unaware of the urgent need.
Sister, I was not indicating that you or any others who are calling for change want LS back at 3ABN.
Rather I am saying that those on the other side of the lawsuit have said that she was using people to get herself back into leadership at 3ABN. They say this is the reason for a desire for leadership change there. I am saying that this is not correct. The need for change of personnel or for change of heart (repentance) is because of both the past and current situation there.
-
From the lawsuit:
33.
The registration and/or the use and planned used of the Infringing Domain, Infringing Website, Directing Website, and Metatags by the Defendants have caused and are likely to cause confusion and mistake in the minds of the public and, in particular, tends to and in fact does deceivingly and falsely create the impression that the Infringing Domain, and the content therein, are affiliated with and authorized, sponsored, or approved by 3ABN.
How does this affect another forum which also has 3abn in its domain name?
-
To make this clearer, by their I was referring to the following people as mentioned in your post.
" Remove Danny Shelton, remove Walt Thompson, remove Hal and Mollie Steenson, that would be a good start for a new beginning for 3ABN. "
-
To make this clearer, by their I was referring to the following people as mentioned in your post.
" Remove Danny Shelton, remove Walt Thompson, remove Hal and Mollie Steenson, that would be a good start for a new beginning for 3ABN. "
Thank you for clarifying your statement. Through our interchange of information it makes it clear that the misinformation regarding the purposed return of Linda Shelton to a leadship position at 3ABN is yet another attempt from the leadership of 3ABN to disseminate further misinformation in an attempt to justify an unjustifiable disservice done to Linda Shelton by the false accusations that resulted in her firing from 3ABN and the public and "private" humiliation that resulted through an orchestrated campaign of character assassination against her.
To the list quoted above let me add the name of Brenda Walsh, it was though her fabricated tale that many were deceived---a tale that continues to expand over time with the telling. I recently heard the latest version and to say it was factually challenged would be a gross understatement.
-
Bob, I am not going to debate you point by point.
My job is not to teach you law.
As to your comment:
You mention a copyright violation often being associated with a trademark violation. I think you are suggesting that even if there was no broadcast in question, there would still be a copyright issue, but I'm uncertain what exactly you are referring to.
Exactly. Copyright and trademark are closely entwined. Even if there was no broadcast a violation of trademark could also carry with it a violation of copyright.
Frankly I did not understand that until the lawsuit against you and Gailon was filed. But, I do now. If you want to understand it, you need to obtain competent legal advice.
Mr Gregory, begin your education with the Lanham Act and then look carefully at decisions from the Circuit courts and the US Supreme Court. Then come back and give us a dissertation on where any of these allegations really violate Lanham, Copyright or Trademark, particularly when a firm, res judicata, has asserted a non-copyright status.
I regret to inform you that upon the completion of discovery, we will teach you copyright and trademark. Just keep track of pacer.
I believe you will discover they suffer from collateral estoppel.
But if you have questions, Maybe you need to have your legal expert re-look at the issue and then re-consider your insinuation that there is a problem on our side. I believe you know full well they are up the creek without a paddle on this one and that makes you factually challenged. Or simply contentious without foundation. And certainly representing very poor legal analysis.
I will assert that if they were on sound ground regarding Trademark or Copyright, they would move to shut down the troubling sites with a preliminary injunction. Would have slightly more sense than a Motion for Impoundment of the entire case, now wouldn't it?
But, I await your dissertation challenge.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Gailon;
Your comments to Gregory are welcomed.
His arm chair, clergy, lawyer wanna be advice is from the back seat and he does not have access to all the facts to be able to see clearly from a defendants seat where there is a clear view enhancing clear vision! His comments have really hit my last nerve this past few days!
May God save me from ever having him as a mediator wanna be! May he never mediate for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I believe he gets his legal back seat driving experience from the famous "Voltaire Wanna Be". He has a penchant for sticking his nose where it doesn't belong! Be careful, because he "is always right," from his point of view!
-
Lanham Act isn't going to help you one iota . . . you've continually misapplied the law and the case law that has been generated by it. Bang on that drum all day GAJ . . . but you might want to find some work . . .
Bob, I am not going to debate you point by point.
My job is not to teach you law.
As to your comment:
You mention a copyright violation often being associated with a trademark violation. I think you are suggesting that even if there was no broadcast in question, there would still be a copyright issue, but I'm uncertain what exactly you are referring to.
Exactly. Copyright and trademark are closely entwined. Even if there was no broadcast a violation of trademark could also carry with it a violation of copyright.
Frankly I did not understand that until the lawsuit against you and Gailon was filed. But, I do now. If you want to understand it, you need to obtain competent legal advice.
Mr Gregory, begin your education with the Lanham Act and then look carefully at decisions from the Circuit courts and the US Supreme Court. Then come back and give us a dissertation on where any of these allegations really violate Lanham, Copyright or Trademark, particularly when a firm, res judicata, has asserted a non-copyright status.
I regret to inform you that upon the completion of discovery, we will teach you copyright and trademark. Just keep track of pacer.
I believe you will discover they suffer from collateral estoppel.
But if you have questions, Maybe you need to have your legal expert re-look at the issue and then re-consider your insinuation that there is a problem on our side. I believe you know full well they are up the creek without a paddle on this one and that makes you factually challenged. Or simply contentious without foundation. And certainly representing very poor legal analysis.
I will assert that if they were on sound ground regarding Trademark or Copyright, they would move to shut down the troubling sites with a preliminary injunction. Would have slightly more sense than a Motion for Impoundment of the entire case, now wouldn't it?
But, I await your dissertation challenge.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Lanham Act isn't going to help you one iota . . . you've continually misapplied the law and the case law that has been generated by it. Bang on that drum all day GAJ . . . but you might want to find some work . . .
Assertions without facts or explanations. Sounds like a Danny clone.
-
Assertions without facts or explanations. Sounds like a Danny clone.
Now there is a substantive response . . . you've reduced yourself to tired cliches . . .
-
Assertions without facts or explanations. Sounds like a Danny clone.
Now there is a substantive response . . . you've reduced yourself to tired cliches . . .
And, So?
-
ANYMAN,
You did not follow up with the usual dissertation. Perhaps you could answer why your wondrous and illustious counsel has yet to move for an injunction against any of the SAVE-NOT sites?
Let me summarize it for you...you are Lanhamed to death!!! Not to mention first circuit and supreme court decisions that leave you in the public square naked!!! Oh, yeah, did I mention the Massachusetts statutes and precedence as well? And don't forget decisions by the good Judge Dennis Saylor, presiding judge.
So, pull that pipe full of dope out of your mouth, reread Lanham and get real...you are Lanhamed to death!!!
If Falwell and fortune 500 hundred brands could not shut down gripe sites, 3ABN does not have a chance!!!
I understand the thought of it drives one to drink, but you are going to loose this case!!! All will be revealed, contrary to the purpose of the suit, and you are going to pay!!! So pass the hat and get some more OPM because it will not be a small dent!!! I'll take mine in Franklins. please!!!
Gailon Arthur JOY
Lanham Act isn't going to help you one iota . . . you've continually misapplied the law and the case law that has been generated by it. Bang on that drum all day GAJ . . . but you might want to find some work . . .
Bob, I am not going to debate you point by point.
My job is not to teach you law.
As to your comment:
You mention a copyright violation often being associated with a trademark violation. I think you are suggesting that even if there was no broadcast in question, there would still be a copyright issue, but I'm uncertain what exactly you are referring to.
Exactly. Copyright and trademark are closely entwined. Even if there was no broadcast a violation of trademark could also carry with it a violation of copyright.
Frankly I did not understand that until the lawsuit against you and Gailon was filed. But, I do now. If you want to understand it, you need to obtain competent legal advice.
Mr Gregory, begin your education with the Lanham Act and then look carefully at decisions from the Circuit courts and the US Supreme Court. Then come back and give us a dissertation on where any of these allegations really violate Lanham, Copyright or Trademark, particularly when a firm, res judicata, has asserted a non-copyright status.
I regret to inform you that upon the completion of discovery, we will teach you copyright and trademark. Just keep track of pacer.
I believe you will discover they suffer from collateral estoppel.
But if you have questions, Maybe you need to have your legal expert re-look at the issue and then re-consider your insinuation that there is a problem on our side. I believe you know full well they are up the creek without a paddle on this one and that makes you factually challenged. Or simply contentious without foundation. And certainly representing very poor legal analysis.
I will assert that if they were on sound ground regarding Trademark or Copyright, they would move to shut down the troubling sites with a preliminary injunction. Would have slightly more sense than a Motion for Impoundment of the entire case, now wouldn't it?
But, I await your dissertation challenge.
Gailon Arthur Joy