A week ago, DSIO pm'd me advising that some crappy website had uploaded one of my essays and was touting it as having been written by "Goldsmithwatchworks" as shown in the pic below.



I contacted the owner of the website and politely asked for it to be taken down. Expecting a sorry or an offer of attribution, I was bowled over to receive the following vexatious codswallop. Of course it's disingenuous, but it's also a very entertaining window into the state of mind of the writer.
Longish I know, enjoy!

"Greetings:

I am a published writer and have conducted 30 free speech, lanham act, copyright act and 1st amendment matter of law cases over the last 20 years. From Superior Courts and ICANN to FEDERAL Court, I have never lost a claim or a charge. The reason? I do not steel peoples works nor do we ever take credit for others works or ideas and we protect the works of others.. Now, the work in question is a PDF that YOU made available, it's use within the rights of the US COPYRIGHT ACT [Title 17 ] and, possible, the LANHAM ACT [15 U.S.C. ch.22
JUST AS YOU OFFERED IT, THIS PDF IS IN FACT COPYRIGHT BY DESMOND GUILFOYLE ON EVERY PAGE AND NOT GOLDSMITHWATCHWORKS or any person, persona, company,organization,company, business, profit or not.
The PDF resides on http://timefraud.com and not http://goldsmithwatchworks.com/563-OMEGA.pdf
The GSWW link is a forwarder.
Exclusive rights
Section 106 granted five exclusive rights to copyright holders, all of which are subject to the remaining sections in chapter 1 (currently, sections 107-122):
the right to reproduce (copy) the work into copies and phonorecords,
the right to create derivative works of the original work,
the right to distribute copies and phonorecords of the work to the public by sale, lease, or rental,
the right to perform the work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, motion picture, or other audiovisual work), and
the right to display the work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, motion picture, or other audiovisual work
Of the RIGHTS., we are in NUMBER FIVE, DISPLAY THE WORK PUBLICLY . The fact is, the PDF in question is located on timefraud.com , A NON PROFIT EDUCATIONAL WEBSITE ON WATCHES. And, if I am correct, it was on GOLDSMITHTRAINING.COM a free educational website. The link on GOLDSMITHWATCHWORKS was a forwarder. And, in fact, it';s use was and has been as no charge,it has never and cannot be ever, altered or changed, that we have not utilized said article PDF to raise income, fees, goodwill --outside of a training content, not have we ever taken credit nor made it look, act or be an PDF ARTICLE written produced or stated as same to be ours, whether through an individual, company, organization or website. That we in fact have many articles submitted for publication in the same context as your article and that, in fact, with 1.3 million page calls every 14 days, have shows YOUR article WITH YOUR NAME well over 60,000 times. Allowing YOU to benefit from YOUR stated training article PDF.
Fair use
Additionally, the fair use defense to copyright infringement was codified for the first time in section 107 of the 1976 Act. Fair use was not a novel proposition in 1976, however, as federal courts had been using a common law form of the doctrine since the 1840s (an English version of fair use appeared much earlier). The Act codified this common law doctrine with little modification. Under section 107, the fair use of a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement, even if such use technically violates section 106. While fair use explicitly applies to use of copyrighted work for criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, the defense is not limited to these areas. The Act gives four factors to be considered to determine whether a particular use is a fair use:
the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, transformative or reproductive);
the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the degree of creativity);
the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used; and
the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work.
The Act was later amended to extend the fair use defense to unpublished works.
The PDF in question has not been altered nor has it been stated anywhere that GOLDSMITHWATCHWORKS , OR ANY ORGANIZATION, PERSONA, PAGE, ESSAY, OWNED OPERATED BY OR WRITTEN BY or FOR goldsmithwatchworks. or affiliated org, company, or persona wrote it, published it or had anything to do with it.
GoldSmithWatchWorks has over 4000 PDF articles written by others. TIMEFRAUD.COM is a non profit and utilizes information of others in a free speech context. YOUR ARTICLE PDF is actually HOSTED BY TIMEFRAUD.COM as an educational tool to show the facts of genuine Omega Movements.
The fact that you accuse me of copyright infringement bothers me. Now, you have advised me that you believe that I am in fact committing copyright infringement. I state that I am not and I personally take full credit for placing the PDF online..
I say:
a) The PDF titled: 563-OMEGA.PDF was offered by you with your COPYRIGHT on every page
b) that we have little use for it besides as WHAT YOU INTENDED OF IT , a training and educational tool that remains as you distributed it.
c) that we have not utilized said PDF to earn income, elevate our status, and, have not benefited by its display other than, perhaps, credit for offering this great tool
d) that the document actually resides on a FREE SPEECH non profit non-advertising website dedicated to halting fraud, copyright and lanham act infringement, and counterfeiting within the vintage watch and watch movement arena .
e) that making this PDF available to the public as a teaching/training tool that has not been altered nor credit removed has assisted many others and its availability is of public interest.
f) that no where in said PDF does any note, caption, or innuendo lead any person to believe it was not meant as a public orientated document to teach said interested public and individuals the facts about the evolution of the Omega Automatic Cal 551 through 751.
g) that without this fantastic, well researched and written article, in non-altering state of PDF format, we would not be able to DEMONSTRATE THE FACTS OF OMEGA AUTOMATIC ,MOVEMENTS AND SHOW THAT THE FAKE OMEGA AUTOMATICS THAT ARE BEING SOLD ON EBAY BY THE THOUSANDS EVERY WEEK ARE IN FACT FAKES.
Now, personally speaking, we truly have no use for your article outside of helping others have access to it. And, I agree with you as to copyright rights. I would rather remove the PDF than keep it up simply because I hate copyright infringement. One case took me 10 years and three different courts to win. I hate it. But on the other, the article truly assists many. And, I am in worry that if I simply remove it, I will be violating the other rights of this outstanding act. That those whom have been assisted will by it. No more would others have that right to learn from your excellent article. The reason and cause of it being on TimeFraud is that we know it will be available as lone as we live. Other than that I care less.
So, understand, that it is NOT about us doing anything but allowing others to view your works within the rights of he COPYRIGHT ACT. With 10,000 articles, PDF, Information on 30 websites and 35000 photos, it is difficult to keep up with all the information. But you actually began your notice by defaming me. Your note went to seven people not just me or GSWW. Mail gets copied, as of 2pm est usa, over 13 people have read your accusations. This constitutes defamation and libel. And, as I write this I am sure you are spreading rumors that I infringed on your works with intent to defraud.
Thus, after digesting my answer to your claims, I invite you to counter my reasoning and offer a way that we both are justified and not defamed.
Rock Scarfone

GoldSmithWorks.Com
GoldsmithWatchWorks.com
MilitaryWatchBox.Com
TimeFraud.Com
GoldSmithTraining.Com
eCallInteriors.Com
CorporateHosting.Org
800 438 6894

 

Stick it to them HARD Desmond. They're trying to throw a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo at you to get away with plagiarism. As a part time author myself, I'd fire at them with all the guns I had at my disposal.

BTW, any thread titled like this is a must read.

 

Boy does this guy have a lot of free time on his hands.

LOL

 

I am sorry to hear that. Those guys use crappy reasoning and legal mumbo-jumbo to cover their unethical conduct.
Hope everything works out well for you.....

 

what an idiot...but this bit did make me laugh "i am a published writer....i do not steel peoples works" he's obviously not an editor!

 

While I don't know the law concerning this stuff, I can say with absolute certainty that the guy who owns that site is A COMPLETE ASS

 

I would write him back and point out any mis-spelled words and grammatical errors.
What a tool.

 

Hi Desmond
While I am legally trained, I am not a lawyer. Nevertheless this demonstrates the issues associated with copyright in an Internet age. Here is a document written in Australia, published in (wherever Desmond's blog is hosted) and copied by a person residing in a 3rd country and published on their server, possibly in a 4th country. Which country's law applies? Or all of them?

He hasn't just "made available" or "displayed", he has copied - by uploading it onto his server.

The fair use exemption is vague. And depends on all of the circumstances. However all of the examples cites by the US Copyright Office involve summaries, quotes or excepts - not copying the entire document. The Australian Law Reform Commission point out that:

272. The legislative provisions for ‘fair dealing’ that are found in countries such as the UK and Australia, and for the US-style ‘fair use’ share the same common law source: early English cases that were often concerned with an exception for abridgments.

I.e it is for quoting, not wholesale copying. For example, at university, you can photocopy a few pages, not the entire book.

Another key point is that he could achieve his objective by posting a link to Desmond's blog, instead of posting the PDF himself.

But there really is almost nothing you can do about this.....

 

He's a crook by any other title morality wise.......... and he knows it!

 

Perhaps I can reblog his entire site and lifes work on the Internet and say that it was written by me.......gotta take it to dish it out......what a tool!

 

Thanks for your input, observations and solidarity guys.

Yes, I agree the guy is a tool-head and thugeroo (at least verbally), and has demonstrated a talent to interpret copyright law slightly inferior to that of a wombat on crystal meth-amphetamines. Reviewing his on-line record as a person who has "led an interesting and eventful life" I am struck by what I would interpret as the sheer narcissism and megalomania of the said individual. As the old saying goes, this man could only be free in Georgia. Elsewhere he would have been forced by a court of law to take his psychotropic medications daily.

It's said that he was born with severe clubbed feet. These match his severe clubbed head and how he has given it license to operate, but these minor afflictions do not in any way prevent a maniac from being let loose on the www. I don't particularly see any remedy except that of scorn, mockery and derision: three particularly effective remedies that seem to get up his Sicilian nostrils. I don't think any amount of threats would stop him "steeling" others work and presenting it as that commissioned by one of his 'entities'.

So scorn, mockery and derision will have to do.

Cheers

desmond

 

Link him to this thread.

 

His real name is Joseph Baffa, the fairy tale name and the one he often uses in the third person is Rock Scarfone. A vanity published author of his own life story. A good Google will reveal all.