Copyright infringement might seem to be a relatively
safe form of theft. Generally the copyright owner
has to file a civil suit and when the thief is an indigent
derelict such as Sloan, and if damages are small,
this is a waste of time. This seems to be Sloan's
speculation.

In fact, it turns out that copyright infringement is
a criminal offence when when committed "for
purposes of commercial advantage or private
financial gain". See USC Title 17, Chapter 5,
§506.

This seems to apply not only to Sloan but also
to Amazon. Instructions for reporting criminal
infringement can be found at
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html


Two main FBI divisions investigate intellectual
property crimes:

Cyber Division
-investigates intellectual property crimes involving
all digital and electronic works (including Internet,
CDs, DVDs, etc) www.fbi.gov/ipr

Financial Institution Fraud Unit
-all other intellectual property crimes
There are three ways a complaint made be filed:

1. Complainants may contact their local FBI field office,
and the complaint will be properly referred.
2. A complaint may be filed online at the Internet
Crime Complaint Center www.ic3.gov and,
again, it will be properly routed.
3. Suspected criminal activity of any nature may
be reported online at https://tips.fbi.gov and will
be routed accordingly.

Who's copyright are you claiming that I have infringed?

Name some names.

Then explain why nobody has objected.

Sam Sloan

On May 19, 2:12 pm, samsloan wrote:
Who's copyright are you claiming that I have infringed?

Name some names.

Then explain why nobody has objected.

Sam Sloan

The possessive form is "whose."

En passant, I am amazed that no one has criminally infringed upon this
important story:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1211...hps_us_pageone

samsloan wrote:
Who's copyright are you claiming that I have infringed?

Name some names.

Then explain why nobody has objected.

Sam Sloan


In 1978, Elo owned the copyright to his book. Unless he voluntarily
transferred it, the copyright now belongs to his heirs. If he did
transfer it, it belongs to whoever he sold/gave it to. Explain how and
when you acquired the right to publish it. You can prove you're not a
criminal by answering a simple question. If you refuse to answer it --
well, isn't that an admission?

wrote:

samsloan wrote:
Who's copyright are you claiming that I have infringed?

Name some names.

Then explain why nobody has objected.

Sam Sloan


In 1978, Elo owned the copyright to his book. Unless he voluntarily
transferred it, the copyright now belongs to his heirs. If he did
transfer it, it belongs to whoever he sold/gave it to. Explain how and
when you acquired the right to publish it. You can prove you're not a
criminal by answering a simple question. If you refuse to answer it --
well, isn't that an admission?

He doesn't have to prove that he's not a criminal. That's not his
burden of proof in a criminal proceeding. In a criminal proceeding he
does not have to testify. If he does testify, he may have to answer the
question unless he asserts a right or privilege not to. An improper
refusal to answer a question is not an admission against interest--it is
a failure to answer that may be sanctioned via contempt and from which
inferences can be drawn by the finder of fact.

An admission against interest, on the other hand, is an admissible
hearsay statement that allows a witness to testify about a statement of
another that is in some way damaging to the maker of the statement.

Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:

samsloan wrote:
Who's copyright are you claiming that I have infringed?

Name some names.

Then explain why nobody has objected.

Sam Sloan


In 1978, Elo owned the copyright to his book. Unless he voluntarily
transferred it, the copyright now belongs to his heirs. If he did
transfer it, it belongs to whoever he sold/gave it to. Explain how and
when you acquired the right to publish it. You can prove you're not a
criminal by answering a simple question. If you refuse to answer it --
well, isn't that an admission?

He doesn't have to prove that he's not a criminal. That's not his
burden of proof in a criminal proceeding. In a criminal proceeding he
does not have to testify. If he does testify, he may have to answer the
question unless he asserts a right or privilege not to. An improper
refusal to answer a question is not an admission against interest--it is
a failure to answer that may be sanctioned via contempt and from which
inferences can be drawn by the finder of fact.

An admission against interest, on the other hand, is an admissible
hearsay statement that allows a witness to testify about a statement of
another that is in some way damaging to the maker of the statement.


Legally that's true. In the real world, nonsense. If you refuse to
answer such a question, people (not courts) will assume that you are
guilty. Of course, if Sloan doesn't care about his reputation (and
pretty clearly he does not), he is under no obligation to clear it.

Do you happen to know who owns the rights to the Elo book?

Do you happen to know who owns the Elo rating system?

Do you happen to know how much money the USCF pays to Elo each year
for using the Elo Rating System?

Do you happen to know how much money FIDE pays to Elo each year for
using the Elo Rating System?

We are honored to have amongst us no less a distinguished authority on
the Elo Rating System than Taylor Kingston, who openly admits that he
has a 2300+ Elo Rating. Do you happen to know how much Kingston paid
to Elo for that 2300+ rating?

wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
samsloan wrote:
Who's copyright are you claiming that I have infringed?

Name some names.

Then explain why nobody has objected.

Sam Sloan

In 1978, Elo owned the copyright to his book. Unless he voluntarily
transferred it, the copyright now belongs to his heirs. If he did
transfer it, it belongs to whoever he sold/gave it to. Explain how and
when you acquired the right to publish it. You can prove you're not a
criminal by answering a simple question. If you refuse to answer it --
well, isn't that an admission?
He doesn't have to prove that he's not a criminal. That's not his
burden of proof in a criminal proceeding. In a criminal proceeding he
does not have to testify. If he does testify, he may have to answer the
question unless he asserts a right or privilege not to. An improper
refusal to answer a question is not an admission against interest--it is
a failure to answer that may be sanctioned via contempt and from which
inferences can be drawn by the finder of fact.

An admission against interest, on the other hand, is an admissible
hearsay statement that allows a witness to testify about a statement of
another that is in some way damaging to the maker of the statement.


Legally that's true. In the real world, nonsense.

Law is very much real world.


If you refuse to
answer such a question, people (not courts) will assume that you are
guilty.
I think Grotius was nearer the core of the issue when he stated, "For
without some visible act, silence is not of itself sufficient to warrant
a probable conjecture of intention." Civil law is not as willing to
find that silence is consent as the tradition in common law jurisdictions.

But there's another issue. Can silence in response to a question from
an asshole ever be considered consent? IMO, no.


Of course, if Sloan doesn't care about his reputation (and
pretty clearly he does not), he is under no obligation to clear it.

I suspect that the issue is not whether or not Sloan cares about his
reputation (I think he does, regardless of what one may think of that)
but whether or but whether or not Sloan or anyone feels compelled to
answer any question from those who are perceived as not worthy of a
response.

On May 19, 1:51 pm, Jürgen R. wrote:
Copyright infringement might seem to be a relatively
safe form of theft. Generally the copyright owner
has to file a civil suit and when the thief is an indigent
derelict such as Sloan, and if damages are small,
this is a waste of time. This seems to be Sloan's
speculation.

In fact, it turns out that copyright infringement is
a criminal offence when when committed "for
purposes of commercial advantage or private
financial gain". See USC Title 17, Chapter 5,
§506.

This seems to apply not only to Sloan but also
to Amazon.

I doubt Amazon is in any peril. The worst that would happen is that
they would stop selling the book(s) in question.

Instructions for reporting criminal
infringement can be found athttp://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html

Two main FBI divisions investigate intellectual
property crimes:

Cyber Division
-investigates intellectual property crimes involving
all digital and electronic works (including Internet,
CDs, DVDs, etc)www.fbi.gov/ipr

Financial Institution Fraud Unit
-all other intellectual property crimes
There are three ways a complaint made be filed:

1. Complainants may contact their local FBI field office,
and the complaint will be properly referred.
2. A complaint may be filed online at the Internet
Crime Complaint Centerwww.ic3.govand,
again, it will be properly routed.
3. Suspected criminal activity of any nature may
be reported online athttps://tips.fbi.govand will
be routed accordingly.

Far be it from me to accuse anyone of this
particularly low form of theft. Although it is clear
that the real Sam Sloan is quite stupid, can it be
that he is dumb enough to steal and then
brag about his theft on usenet?

Until further evidence becomes available
I will assume that it was the fake SS who announced
that the real SS and the Fishi Press (which should make sure
of filing a U.S. tax return this year) are in the business
of reprinting books without owning the copyrights.

It is an odd fact that the Soviet foreign language
publishers 'Mir' and 'Fizkultura i Sport' seem to
have vanished without leaving a trace on the internet.
I suspect that one of the oligarchs
owns the rights but has bigger fish to fry at the
moment. Sooner or later there will be a knock on
your door.

The rights to the Kasparyan books may actually be
valuable - more so in Russian than in English. One
of his collections was published as late as 1988
in an edition of 100'000 copies. As long as you
stick to trash like the autobiographies of presidential
floozies you are probably safe.

"samsloan" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Who's copyright are you claiming that I have infringed?

Name some names.

Then explain why nobody has objected.

Sam Sloan