DANGER IN COPYRIGHT

I FOUND THIS INTERESTING PIECE ON STRAWMAN COPYRIGHT. THE MORE I STUDY AND RESEARCH ABOUT REDEMPTION THE MORE IT MAKES ME BELIEVE THAT ALL THIS COPYRIGHT AND STRAWMAN IS A BUNCH OF HOOEY.



LOGIC, REASON AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS IS PROBABLY WHERE I'LL FIND MOST OF MY ANSWERS.



HERE'S THE ARTICLE:



Strawman revisited, “I copyrighted my name”:



When the Strawman theologians could not prove their specious theory and the attempt to prove their U.C.C. process was less than successful or to enhance what little success they believed they might have, they decided that they could secure their beliefs by simply copyrighting their names. Then logically they could hold Corp. U.S. and the Corp. States accountable for copyright violation if their copyrighted name was misused, Right?



Wrong! Again, it is helpful to know the law. In fact, copyright law does not work that way. Even book publishers and Hollywood producers with “All Rights Reserved” in their copyrights cannot copyright the title to a book or a movie. Two of the movies I have on my shelf are both titled, “The Patriot”: one stars Stephen Segal where he is a modern doctor fighting to save the people from a deadly virus that was turned loose by a maniacal self proclaimed patriot; the other movie stars Mel Gibson, who plays the part of a Revolutionary War patriot fighting the British. Also, several of my books have the exact same title, with entirely different: authors, publishers and content; all copyrighted, with “All Rights Reserved”, and none of them having permission from the others to use the title (nor do they need such, copyright law does not protect titles).



Even without knowing the law this myth is debunked with simple logic:

Think about it; how many people are there in the world with the name, “John Smith”? If a person was to formally copyright their name, “John Smith”, would that mean that no other person that already had the same name, with that same spelling, could ever use their name again? Obviously not. It would have no effect on anyone that already had the name, whether that other person was a natural person or a business entity. So would that copyright keep any father out there of the name, “John Smith” from naming his newborn son, “John Smith”? No, it would not. So what effect would it have if a person was to copyright their name? It would have absolutely no effect at all (copyright law does not protect names or titles).



There is a real danger though in copyrighting ones name if a person then attempts to use that copyrighted name to secure any right, property or privilege from any other person (real or business entity). That danger is the charge of identity theft. We have already been appraised of governance entities prosecuting people for felony identity theft in relation to this very myth.



If you fell for it in the past, your simplest remedy might be to simply not attempt to enforce the alleged copyrighted name.

[Jerseee]

PJT04,



Good research.



There is some truth in that article but there is a fallacy in thinking as presumptions are made. Let me explain...



The UCC redemtpion gurus pushed this copyright thing as way for people to attack anyone using their property. As this is possible it is also a two-edged sword. From my readings and even talking with some folks about this--some are under the impression that the copyright is a weapon--when in fact it is a private contract. It is not a blanket type copyright.



With that said, the article is based on the fact that some folks ran amuck with this and tried to attack everyone that used their names. In this sense of the article the author has a point. But here is where the author appears to be at a loss....



No one can use your property for personal gain--not even the government. Its called "eminent domain"--I'm sure you've probably heard of of that (not to insult your intelligence). Now when it is a private matter and someone is doing that--unjust enrichment of their coffers by use of your property--then they should be on notice of the terms of use of that property without authorization.



I personally use it as a deterrance. Not that I would take anyone to court over it--but it is a nicety to let them know that I'm not a push over. So basically, my bark is worse than my bite that's if you stay on the other side of the fence and do not come into the yard.



Further, responsible behavior is needed when using such a tool. You do not need government approval to copyright your property when it is done properly through public notice. So there is some strength to the copyright if not abused and knowledge is abundant. Some try to collect, others just want to be left alone.

[Smart-Aleck]

I totally agree with you, I allways thought it was odd to try and copyright your name. What happens when the newspaper prints your name in the "police reports" section after getting pulled over, are you going to sue the newspaper for unauthorized use? How about all the online database archives such as questdex or people search?



Here is what the Republic of Texas interim government has to say about copyrighting names:



*****************************************



Some groups are advising people to copyright their names, their so-called strawman names, or even other people’s names.



I cannot find any reason for doing so under Texas Common Law.



Under English Common Law, Texas Common Law, and American Common Law no one can copyright anything they did not author and originate themselves. Common law copyrights only protect ‘unpublished’ writings and artistic works. Once published, there is no common law copyright protection. Common law and statutory laws forbid copyrighting a name or title.



If you are a Texian National citizen, then an attempt to copyright your name is against the law. We have pledged our allegiance to integrity and given our consent to live by Texas Common Law.



It is hypocritical of a Texian National to say on one hand that he/she supports common law, then turn around and violate that pledge by copyrighting a name or a title.



The Republic of Texas Interim Government does not advise or endorse this scheme, which unlawfully purports to copyright any name.



Regardless, of what you may have been told, it is a violation of Texas Common law to copyright your name.



Even if the strawman theory is true, and I do think some of the research has validity, you cannot change the fact with a violation of law, our law, Texas Common Law.



You have been forewarned that this practice is unlawful. The wise will heed this warning. I find that some people have attempted to ‘charge’ others outrageous amounts for using an alleged copyrighted name. This amounts to extortion and fraud, since there is no basis in law, any law, for copyrighting a name, or a title.



You are either a Texian operating in truth, or you’re something else, playing in the occupier’s games with their tools and weapons.



*****************************************

Link to PDF.

*****************************************

[Jerseee]

smart-aleck,



I am in agreement with you up to a point. That one point being, unjust enrichment. Your name is your property and it is not for anyone to profit off of other than the owner. In this certain instance--I see this as a viable method for protecting yourself. Other than that--I agree with you to the utmost.



Just ask Oprah Winfrey, Diane Sawyer, Michael Jordan, George Bush what they would do if they found out that someone was getting rich by using her name in an unjust way. Newspapers and informational items and such are one thing--but to charge something to your name and receive compensation for the charge--without the owner receiving compensation is unjust enrichment, theft and the like.



Your name is your property. Common law does protect private property from theft. Now any other use of a copyright--I would hold suspect. But one does have a right to protect their property from thieves.



What would you do if I used your name to charge up all kinds of debts in your name and have you pay for it?

[squirrel]

I have been listening to ken evans, and such for a while now, and this is where I got my templet for my copyright from

http://www.wtplc.freeservers.com



YOU ARE NOT COPYRIGHTING YOUR NAME !!!!! you cannot do that, you are copyrighting an all caps legal fiction "IF" it is to pertain to you.



PUBLIC RECORD IS THE FREE INHABITANTS COMMAN LAW !!!



WE NEED TO KEEP AWAY FROM THESE TERMS "PERSON" "NATURAL PERSONS" AND THE LIKE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO BEARING ON SOVEREIGN FREE INHABITANTS OF THE REPUBLIC.



DO NOT MIX COPYRIGHTING UP WITH THE REDEMPTION SCEME.

[Jerseee]

Squirrel, (without the "s")



Like I said, I agree to a point. This guy Ken Evans, has a point. But redemption and libel and slander are different animals altogether.



There is a way you can copyright your name. It is a commercial venture. YOu can do a DBA and that will stand as proof that there is a difference.



You can give public notice of your intentions and the terms of your contract. But to use this in a heinous vengeful way is not the answer.



YOu have to be able to protect yourself in commerce. This method is just a tool to deter such actions. I have one and it is effective to scare the bejesus out of alleged debt collectors.



I don't recommend it. But you can do it. Even though there are other methods to protect your name.

[seeker]

I have a question -- if you are a sole proprietor, and have or aare a DBA, would it be beneficial to have your name copywrited, or some such to separate the living soul from the "corporation"... and does the law recognize that distinction? One ofthe biggest hazards of DBA soleprop is that the flesh and blood is assumed to hold final resposibility/liability. Thoughts?



Along the same line, and I know we discussed these issue separately, but perhaps a comparision might be helpful -- Trust, revocable, living, pure, etc ), corp sole, LLC, sol prop -- other "business entities" the good/bad/benefit/liabilities -- want to protect my assets; do not want to pay big bucks to do so, especially if I don't understand the process- and want to disperse or liquidate when and to whom I choose--> Anyone knowledgable and up to the task?



Seeker

GOOD INSIGHT JERSEEE BUT I'M STILL UNSURE ABOUT THIS WHOLE CONCEPT.

THE PART THAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS WHEN YOU HAVE A COMMON NAME SUCH AS "JOHN SMITH" AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF OTHER JOHNS SMITHS OUT THERE.

ARE YOU GOING TO COPYRIGHT THIS NAME SO NO ONE ELSE CAN CLAIM ITS USE? THIS JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. THERE'S SOMETHING MISSING HERE.

[squirrel]

YOU ARE NOT COPYRIGHTING YOUR NAME !!!!! you cannot do that, you are copyrighting an all caps legal fiction, an idem sonans, "IF" it is to pertain to YOU. take a look at the copyright in the download section or the one given in the web address above.

[Jerseee]

PJT04,



Read squirrel's last post.



Now to answer your question. John Smith can copyright John Smith if someone is trying to defraud that particular John Smith. Like I said, the copyright chould not be used for malicious or vindictive behavior. So to say that no one can use John Smith is vindictive and malicious since the other John Smiths are not trying to commit a commerical crime against the other John Smith or even represent himself as another John Smith. You can do what you want as long as you do not damage someone else.



Squirrel,



Show me where that it is written under Common Law?



Remember, I use my copyright for people who are trying to damage my commercial person in which I have an interest in. Common Law is common amongst men---as long as I do not infringe on your rights, its is fine.



I use it to protect myself from financial predators--nothing more. I do not use it to mandate that no one else can use Jerseee. I do not legislate it to make a public decree that anyone who uses it will pay a price. These things are ridiculous and harmful to society. So if you can show me where it is written in Common Law--I will gladly re-think my position and retract my statements.



Seeker,



Take a business law course. It will open your eyes even more and you will have the answer to most of your questions. Not to mention more insight on how they work.