|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Aug 16, 2013 14:18:30 GMT 3
|
|
jkm
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by jkm on Aug 16, 2013 14:54:53 GMT 3
I support MM suing this Jua kali media group for every penny, as the media group is hell bent on shoddy, distorted, tribal reporting in pursuit of profits over independent, objective and ethical journalism that they were famous for many years back.
|
|
|
|
Post by toughluck on Aug 16, 2013 16:49:18 GMT 3
hi, I am unable to download the attachment
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 16, 2013 17:01:10 GMT 3
I support MM suing this Jua kali media group for every penny, as the media group is hell bent on shoddy, distorted, tribal reporting in pursuit of profits over independent, objective and ethical journalism that they were famous for many years back. You completely missed the reason why Miguna is suing the Media Group! It is his intellectual property he is suing for not the tribal reporting that seems to irk you! eiish! |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Aug 16, 2013 21:38:11 GMT 3
Miguna:
Absolutely the right thing to do. We wish you the best of luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 16, 2013 22:56:07 GMT 3
Miguna: Absolutely the right thing to do. We wish you the best of luck. It is a long document. |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 17, 2013 6:46:39 GMT 3
Miguna: Absolutely the right thing to do. We wish you the best of luck. It is a long document. Bwaha ha ha...! That's a terrifically morbid paragraph sentence! He forgot to write a few other things ... like everyones car registration number and where they live .... "... mobile number XXXXXXX, a number .... Mathiu (who drives a M. Benz, car number @!&FU and lives in xyz estate near the river that passes through the city and which is very dirty ....) copyright infringement. |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 17, 2013 10:37:40 GMT 3
Miguna's book is his Intellectual property as it was something he uniquely created. If registered, he has the copyright, and it's use will be trademarked.
Protecting his intellectual property allows Miguna to: stop others using what his created without his permission, and charge others for the right to use what he has created. The type of protection he need depends on what he created. But, he can use more than one type of protection for the same product. He can patent his book and register its name as a trademark.
Any publication of his 'work' must be in accordance with his requirement. He seemed to have agreed for the Book PDF to serialised in the Nation. If he did not agree for the Book to be published in the Internet, then he can sue for that infringement. My point here - whom does he sue?
After reading, the Claim I was lost as to why he is suing the Nation. As I understand it, he is not alleging the Nation published his Book in PDF in the Internet.
In simple terms, Miguna is alleging that a PDF document which contained his Book ( 'work') and which he handed over to Odindo found it way into the internet from where it was accessed freely from which as a result he lost revenue.
That to me is not an intellectual property claim. The PDF was handed over by Miguna, voluntarily. He had an agreement with them that allowed them access to the Book for serialisation. It was not 'stolen' from him. Further, Odindo or the Nation are not alleged to have published that Book PDF in the Internet.
It seems to me, Miguna is saying the Nation and Odindo did not look after the Book PDF with care when it was in their possession. Was that in the agreement that the moment the Book PDF was handed over, the Nation and Odindo was to put a specific regime of protection against, say, theft? I have not seen any such accusation - hence cannot be a breach of contractual agreement.
Secondly, did Miguna agree with the Nation and Odindo to insure the Book PDF when in their possession against the risk of 'theft'? I don't know - if there was an insurance policy -then the matter is not for the Nation or Odindo but for the insurance company to make good on their policy.
Unless there is something not yet made public, I see the Claim to be reckless/negligent type.
If he is arguing the Nation and Odindo were reckless ( or even gross negligent) in storing the Book PDF when it was in their possession, that will be a tall order - as he has to prove their recklessness not by point to the result ( the publication on the Internet) but by highlighting the deficiency on the Nation's operation or procedure resulting in the subsequent Internet publication. He cannot use the aftermath by saying for example the Nation did not conduct investigation after the publication in the Internet to sustain an argument of reckless/negligence in Court.
In others words, the legal test, will be but for the reckless ( or gross negligence) of the Nation and Odindo, the Book PDF would not have been published in the Internet.
Let us wait for the Court to rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Aug 17, 2013 15:51:28 GMT 3
Miguna's book is his Intellectual property as it was something he uniquely created. If registered, he has the copyright, and it's use will be trademarked. Protecting his intellectual property allows Miguna to: stop others using what his created without his permission, and charge others for the right to use what he has created. The type of protection he need depends on what he created. But, he can use more than one type of protection for the same product. He can patent his book and register its name as a trademark. I never heard of such a thing, and I curious: how exactly does one patent a book? Do you have an example of a "patented" book? |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 17, 2013 17:13:07 GMT 3
I would not expect a quack to understand the operation of the Law of Copyright.
Let me be charitable and explain - one cannot protect an idea - but one can often protect what one does with that idea. You asked for an example, here. One cannot protect an idea for a book. But when a book is written, one can protect the words written in it.
If you are confused with the terminology, in Copyright Law, trademark, patent and trademark as used differently from the common layman usage. Just like the usage of the term libel/defamation or assault/battery.
Kappish!
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Aug 17, 2013 17:42:53 GMT 3
I would not expect a quack to understand the operation of the Law of Copyright. Let me be charitable and explain - one cannot protect an idea - but one can often protect what one does with that idea. You asked for an example, here. One cannot protect an idea for a book. But when a book is written, one can protect the words written in it. If you are confused with the terminology, in Copyright Law, trademark, patent and trademark as used differently from the common layman usage. Just like the usage of the term libel/defamation or assault/battery. Kappish! Sadik: Copyright, patent, trademark, etc. are all very different things, and the terms are all used differently in law. Miguna's publisher already has the copyrights, so let's stick to your idea of Miguna patenting his book. Contrary to what you say--- "He can patent his book" ---it is impossible to patent a book as far as I can tell. What I asked for was an example of a "patented book". Most of the big patent databases (USPTO, EPO, etc.) are these days available online, and even Google Patents is available. Can you point to examples of patents on books that might help Miguna patent his book should he wish to? And let's try to stay away from unhelpful insults. "Positive and friendly" is what we aim for here on Jukwaa. |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 17, 2013 17:55:27 GMT 3
You are getting carried away by the word 'patent", and in the process are trying to derail this thread. My point was more to analyse the claim against the Nation - not whether the Book was copyrighted, patented or trademarked. My usage of the term 'patent' was done loosely - not in the sense you are implying. Generally, patents refer to inventions, which are created from scratch, uniquely by the person claiming and asserting ownership. Books are not usually protected by a patent, the same applies to music or paintings because they are not seen as inventions. Usually they are copyrighted, meaning one is not allowed to reproduce it without the permission of the person asserting ownership. Titles and illustration on the Books are usually trademarked, so others cannot borrow them.
Can the discussion now go back to the claim against the Nation, which is the title of this thread - on what basis are you supporting it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 20, 2013 17:25:47 GMT 3
I thought the resident juakali lawyer had a view on this matter.
Kumbe wapi!
|
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 21, 2013 19:59:46 GMT 3
I asked if Miguna was right to sue the Nation, as a company. He handed his Book PDF to Odindo who should be held responsible. Further, there was no agreement in place [ as far as I know] between Miguna and the Nation that they will insure his Book PDF against all adversities, say fire or theft.
So, I was asked, then whom should Miguna sue, when it is clear his rights under the copyright Law is transgressed?
The primary responsibility to safeguard copyright falls on publisher of a material from where the copyrighted material is alleged to have been breached. That will be Miguna's publishers suing those that publish the PDF Book in the Internet. In this case, that is the Internet website which published the illegally acquired material in the form of Book PDF and uploaded it in its website. The second culprits must be the servers under which the upload was facilitated. Both the website and the servers can be tracked down. IP address is becoming easier to identify. - that person who insults me frequent, take note I know your IP address - which is SOAS''s - the no. is.... maybe I should stay shtop until when I need to take drastic action.
What makes this matter interested, is that it is usually the publisher, in this case Miguna's Publishers, who should be suing for the breach, as they are the people who are generally the custodian of the copyright, not the actual author. The Publishers should have been the one who organise the serialisations and then sue for a breach as they would be the one with whom contract are written and signed. The author usually sits back and enjoys the royalties. But, in this situation, the author himself is seeking remedy as the aggrieved party bypassing his publishers.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 22, 2013 8:29:13 GMT 3
Sadik
Without seeing the agreement between Miguna and his Publisher, it is difficult to know who holds the Intellectual Property to the book - Miguna or the Publisher. So we must assume that Miguna is asserting his rights to the IP on the book hence decision to sue.
As for who to sue, I think he correctly sues NMG and Odindo jointly and severally as handing over the memory stick with the PDF version to Odindo was on the basis that Odindo was taking it on behalf of NMG whom they had a serialisation agreement with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 22, 2013 10:49:43 GMT 3
Kamalet
Miguna is not suing the Nation for breach of his copyright. He is alleging that they allowed the PDF Book he gave them through Odindo to be pirated in the Internet. I say allowed by not probably securing it. That is not copyright claim. The Nation with whom he had serialisation agreement did not breach that agreement. If they did, then there would be a copyright action.
When you copy pirated music, it is the producer ( usually a record company) that comes after you, not the music artist. That is the same scenario here, with Miguna the author and his Publishers.
|
|
