James: The following sums up some ground covered quite some time ago ( cross-post ):
BYU wouldn't dare send us one of those "cease and desist" letters. I would eat them for lunch. An organization that does what they did is frankly Anti-American. I expect such behavior from politicians, not Universities. > [ name removed ]: > > That's pretty wild! I make one reference to BYU on our "New to Silver" essay. I would not remove it if requested by BYU. ... > In reality, they cannot legally prevent reference to the studies done. If they are not claiming copyright infringement, they don't have a "leg to stand on". I'd love to take a look at the article that you put online, in its original form. If you're interested, I'd love to publish it in full, and deal with BYU myself. > > If BYU has a problem, they should address it with their staff members that interview with the press. Deseret news has published many news articles on the subject. > > If they are claiming copyrights protection, they would first have to acknowledge the fact that the studies were done, and that the rights belong to them... > > I'd love to get clarification on the issue! Any chance I could see a copy of the letter they sent as well? > ... > If there IS a copyright infringement going on, it needs to be dealt with the American Silver LLC, who published the extensive letter from BYU, and has it on their ( and their authorized distributors' ) website(s) without copyright declarations. > > All of this needs to be brought to the attention of BYU. If BYU is adamant about being unkind about the whole situation, then the public needs to be made aware of this. Normally universities understand that situations like this can end up backfiring on them, causing a whole world of hurt in public relations. > > I'd also like to know why they've chosen to act now, since the information has been readily available since 1999. Timely enforcement of copyright is required by copyright law, and a judge might simply rule against BYU based on the fact that they waited almost four years to enforce it. That study, by default, may be able to be placed in public domain by default. > > A counter-lawsuit might be in order ( of course, based only on the legal sparring in things like these, not a real interest in suing BYU ); it could be a prejudicial request, unless BYU is planning on sending similiar letters to the ~140 others who have published direct references. I doubt that they would ask Deseret news to remove their news articles, in that the department of microbiology willingly interviewed with them, and agents of the media aren't likely to succumb to any pressure under those circumstances! > ... > Kind Regards, > > Jason ------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: [ name removed ] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:09 PM BYU Sent out hundreds of letters to all Colloidal Producers, including several private Information sites. They cited Copyright Violations and even stated that Bleach is an effective Antibacterial and is an effective alternative to Colloidal Silver, etc... I have a Two-Page letter from them as well as the stupid Bleach statement against ASAP Silver's original letter and Study. It came from the Office of BYU Counsel, Attorney, Et All. We took off all the references to BYU, Logos, Names, etc, but left the Study up on our site. We have never seen any Copyright Material anywhere, and we have seen copies of the Original Report, circulating here in Utah. Wonder what ASAP's position is now on the matter? I would have thought that they would have Copyrighted the Study, if it could be done so in the first place. ... [ Name removed ] --------------------- Hi Jason. I'm wondering if we should post their letter publically or are they going to sue us, because it has BYU's name and Logo on it. Is your investigation thus far leading you to believe that we should not include any direct references to BYU by name in referring to this particular test. It would be easy enough to say a prominent university although I'd prefer to be able to name them. I have never seen anything claiming copyright on this report other than that which appeared in the C&D letter Doesn't one have to show at least a copyright mark on copyrighted material if one expects others to honor that copyright? Particularly in light of the fact that this particular report has been written up in newspaper articles and currently appears in numerous places on the web. I discovered BTW that CS Pro does still have the report on their site it is just not featured quite as prominently. ... [ name removed ] ------- From: Jason I've recently reviewed the original article that BYU was complaining about ( forwarded from [ name removed ] ). I can see maybe two or three words to be changed, aside from the actual study data referenced. Quoting .. --------- While colloidal silver is primarily being used and recommended by "alternative practitioners", the mainstream medical and scientific community are also beginning to reexamine the value of colloidal silver. A recent study done at Brigham Young University shows quite conclusively that colloidal silver is a very effective antimicrobial. The researchers were quite enthusiastic in their support for colloidal silver, saying colloidal silver is "a broad spectrum antimicrobial agent-it is able to effectively stop the growth of, and in fact kill, a variety of bacteria." ---- there is certainly NOTHING wrong with that paragraph. BYU cannot deny that the study was done on their university grounds, as, again, this is a matter of public record, and not subject to the whims of lawyers. Quoting: ----- That study by BYU points up another advantage of colloidal silver over pharmaceutical antibiotics. Whereas antibiotics are relatively specific in their effectiveness, different ones being needed for different bacteria, colloidal silver is effective against a very wide range of bacteria, including those which have become antibiotic resistant. In addition, colloidal silver is also effective against fungal and viral infections against which antibiotics have no effect. ----- Here, perhaps the phrase "That study by BYU points..." perhaps might better read "The study conducted by researchers at BYU..." Perhaps also, since we're splitting hairs, "In addition, colloidal silver is also effective against fungal and viral infections..." might read "...is also effective against virii and fungi..." However, even concerning the actual scientific data, if BYU denies sponsoring the study, then it is unlikely they can show copyright ownership. Who owns those studies? The microbiologists? I'm assuming they are conviently neglecting to state copyrights when they send these letters out... ie.... this study is copyright 1999 BYU. It certainly would be interesting to have an attorney look over everything. It is almost ridiculous to compare CS with bleach... A whole host of sarcastic replies come to mind, none of which are very productive. ... The problem is: Those with a financial interest in colloidal silver products cannot afford the trouble such a lawsuit would bring. Those who are just providing information are doing so in the spirit of good will, and really neither desire nor need nor have time for any trouble from paid lawyers. The lawyers know this. Thanks for the info, [ Name Removed ]! Jason ----------------------- From: Jason Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 8:50 PM All: I have reviewed the letter from the BYU lawyers. I've seen such "blanket letters" in the past... Letters that are mostly smoke and mirrors, containing little legal substance. This one is neat, in that it closes with a warning that basically says if you don't listen to our letter, THEN we will consider that any infringement is willful. These types of letters are designed to have a desired effect; one without making a legal commitment or risking further legal expenses. "The misuse of use without permission of BYU's trademarks and trade names raises potential trademark infringement and dilution issues. Further, dissemenation of proprietary studies with BYU's permission my give rise to copyright infringement issues." "Understanding this, BYU hereby demands that you cease and desist the use of our copyrighted research report, any and all references to Brigham Young University or BYU and the use of any of its insignia, logos, trademark or other indicia." One has to read each word very carefully in order to realize that the only accusation made here is that there may be a copyright infringement, but this has not been established. That is why BYU did not give legal notification of the exact copyrights. They are not making a direct accusation of copyright infringement. They claim the right to prevent the use of the BYU name in association with the study. That depends on how the statement is worded. They do not ( as they will soon learn ) have the right to retract items that are a matter of public record, anymore than Enron could stop newspapers from printing the truth of the corporation's financial disasters because it does not suit their private agenda. That's what the first amendment is all about. If the BYU microbiologists didn't want the study to become public knowledge, then they shouldn't have given press interviews. If they want the study to remain copyright, closed for use, then they should police the copyright universally. ... My next step is to put up a version of the study that does not infringe upon the trademarks or copyrights of BYU, and personally invite Mr. Angerhofer to send out one of these letters. Jason - end of cross post - ----- Original Message ----- From: "James-Osborn: Holmes-Junior" <a...@cybermesa.com> To: <silver-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:14 PM Subject: RE: CS>CS and BYU again > Hi Jason, > > Can you give more information on this subject? -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
