Rodchester

All copyrights are Federal copyrights in the U.S—Federal law preempts all state law w/regard to copyright. You don’t have to apply for the Federal protection, you automatically have such protection by default. The registering of a copyright simply (1) Makes it possible for the owner to sue for infringement of the registered copyright; (2) entitles the owner (in the court’s discretion) to statutory damages; (3) entitles the owner to attorney’s fees. And the watermarking of the “copyright” notice on the photos doesn’t have to be so blatant—a small © symbol anywhere on the photo would do. In fact, since March 1, 1989 (when the US joined the Berne Convention), marking a photo (or any copyrightable work) as “copyrighted” is no longer required for protection (although, by using a copyright indicator, infringers cannot successfully argue that they didn’t know something was copyrighted). This is a very common misconception, or misunderstanding of the law. I've litigated copyright infringement actions under both federal law, 17 U.S.C § 101 et seq., in Federal Court and under common law in State Court. If you have not registered the copyright with the federal copyright office, then you are not afforded the protections of the statute: i.e. access to federal courts, attorney fees/costs, statutory presumptions of damages, etc. In order to bring action under the Copyright Act, an owner must, in addition to holding exclusive right, register copyright claim in accordance with Copyright Act. See Tang v. Hwang, E.D.Pa.1992, 799 F.Supp. 499. However, one may still register the copyright after an infringement and thereby access the Federal Court and the protections of the Copyright statute. Morgan, Inc. v. White Rock Distilleries, Inc., D.Me.2002, 230 F.Supp.2d 104. While a copyright holder can register copyright and file suit after infringement occurs, doing so negates recovery of statutory damages, as opposed to actual damages. See Olan Mills, Inc. v. Linn Photo Co., C.A.8 (Iowa) 1994, 23 F.3d 1345, 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1798, rehearing denied. So preemption ONLY applies IF you register the copyright with the federal copyright office. (This is often referred to as “statutory copyright.”) Even then state courts can still have concurrent jurisdiction, applying the Federal Copyright statute. So it is correct to say that regardless of registration a copyright still exists, however it is incorrect to say that preemption always applies. The same is true for trade names, trade dress, and trademarks. However, very few ever proceed solely under common law protections, because the common law protections pale in comparison to the protections of the Federal Copyright statute. I’m sure that I bored the hell out of many of you. However, this is a very common misconception that I find to be very pervasive among amateur photographers, especially climbers. If you are actually selling the photos, through a retail outlet, I highly suggest that you register the copyright with the Copyright Office. TheLawGod's statement is not incorrect, but it is not correct either. Good luck.

Overstock.com Thought these were pretty darn cheap and I wanted to pass it on to anyone looking for a pair of aluminum crampons to beat up.

Some great pictures.... Did you apply for Federal copyright? Or are relying on common-law copy right?

Erik: I mean to direct that part to Ice, not you. Sorry for the confusion.

Good point Erik...check second ascent if in Seattle. Or in my case: I-tent or Eldo for slow & light. 2 people, no gear, fits in narrow locations.

I have and love the I-tent. But no room for gear. If the Bombshelter is the three man (2+ gear) Bibler, I'd go for that. RBW: Is that the 3 man or is that the Fitzroy?

Oh oh. That's PR Erik. You can't compare shoes to parka Ice. That's lame.

ICE: I think you missed the point. We're not discussing whether the GoreTex used by one is better than the other. I simply suggested that the bulkiness complained of is being addressed by some companies. i.e. Arctetryx and Pataguci. Pataguci especially has introduced some hardshells with stretch WP Breathable materials. Remember, it was you that said you were concerened with . Don't you think referring to a strech WP Breathable is exactly on your point Sure its preference..that why I suggested that one "look at" these other companies. Overall I don't find Marmot's hardshells to be innovative. Overall I find them to be cut poorly giving a bulky feel to the shell. How is this PR? (Public Relations) Especially when coming from me? Sorry man. But I gotta chuckle at you on that one. What do you think I work for Pataguci? Or maybe I'm just the anti-Marmot?

Bunglehead: There are many manufacturers out there that are now making hardshells that are not so bulky. Patagonia is making some with strech capability. Marmot isn't exactly the best. They aren't very inovative with thier hardshells and thier cut is way too bulky and sloppy. (good sleepig bags , but mediocre shells ) Look around. Look at Arcteryx and Patagonia in particular.

Softshell has a niche. That said, almost every outdoor fabric has/requires a DWR to work effectively. DWR = Duarable Water Repellant. Of course, we all know what Water Repellant means. But too many forget what Durable means. It doesn't mean permanent. You have to apply additional DWR periodically. Generally, the more you wash a garment, the more often you'll have to apply additional DWR. Each fabric or material is different in the length of time that it can maintain the DWR. After the garment has been washed, lay it flat and srinkle water on it. If it beads up, the DWR should still be good. If not, it may be time to apply new DWR.

I met and spoke with Pete Takeda at the Teton Climbers Ranch this September. Really nice and pretty funny guy.

JoshK and Ice: I agree with Josh that the Moonstone bags rock. My wife has one that lofts beyond any other bag I've seen. It is an older 800 fill -5 degree dryloft. That bag really impresses me. A buddy has the same bag. Anyway...I was wondering about the length issue. The one my wife has came in 5 ft. 6 in - 6 ft. and 6 ft. 6 in. versions. The Moonstone page doesn't say the lengths. At least I couldn't find the lengths, just regular and long. Does anyone know of a store that actually stocks these things?

I am looking for opinions on the Moonstone 800 Lucid 20 degree sleeping bag. Moonstaone Lucid 800 I am looking for a lightweight sleeping bag that has a little more warmth than my Marmot Arroyo 30 degree bag. Has anyone actually used this lightweight bag? Opinions? Does anyone know of any stores that carry it, and have it in stock in the Seattle area? Thanks in advance.

When do they close the road up to the parking area on Pilchuck? Anybody?

Yeah...don't know much about Gov't contracts uh? The system has a built in preference for those already contracted. There has not been what is refered to as an open bid in many years. So to say there has been an actual competetive bid is bung. In fact even under this new proposed system, Lou's gang gets a prefernce. I have heard some in the park refer to the proposed plan as the "Lou and two plan." RMI is in like Flynn and the two remaining spots are open for competition. I'm not in love with any of the plans, but since these are the choices, I'll take the "Lou and two plan." And why is it soo many people have such ahtred in thier hearts about Bush? I'm certainly no Bush lover, but come on.

I can stand that... you are a [insert insult implying stupid with money]. This is a different Senator offering a different bill that would effectively end the fee system (park pass) as we know it. I think it is a great idea to eliminate it. Lummox...if you want to keep paying the fees to use the National Forest lands, that's your opinion...but I disagree. I want to see the parking and volcano pass end. The National Park's system of fees is different and entrance fees have always existed. Not that I love them, but I'll put up with it. I'll take the non-fee use of the National Forests any day.

I can stand that...

Minx: I too have spent lots of time there and love it. However, I have often wondered if I could adjust to year round living in WY. Jackson can be cool, but sooo touristy and crowded. Other towns like Dubious are really cool, but sooo small. My wife insists that I'd go crazy and that the winters are too cold for her. I had a buddy that lived in the Jackson area for five years when he was in his early to mid 20s and he loved it then and still looks back foldly on his time in the area. Another buddy moved to Bozeman for a year and a half and also loved it, but eventually came back to Seattle. I think a large part of the problem would be making a living. If you can do it, I'd try it for a couple of years. Good luck with your decision.

Agree...not saying it is super hard or anything, but it was harder than 5.4. Cool route though. I'd say 5.6.

The Federal Wilderness Act dates back to the 1960s..I think 1965. It is Federal and controls specifcially designated Wilderness areas in National Forests. That has always been my understanding (I actully did some research on it in law school some years ago). But I can't confirm this 100%. I am curious, because if this is the case then Camp Muir is a violation of the Act. Do you have a cite for the Washington law that you refer to?

I'll second the Lowe packs. I also have an Alpine Attack 50 and really like it...though I'd love it if it had the same tool system as my TNF pack. But be advised it now has a light frame...great for humping moderate alpine loads and occasionally heavier loads. But if you want an old fashioned rucksack, its not your pack. Alpine Attck 50 Also check out the South Peak for a smaller pack.

Some of the TNF packs have a version of "tool tubes" that aren't actually a "tube" of material, but a ring at the top and bottom (with the same quick release. This allows you to slide in any tool, bent, straight, or whatever. I have an older version and love it. I don't know the names of the packs now-a-days. Good luck.

This doesn't sound like a way to recoup costs, but a way to raise cash for other things. That is pure BS. This would in effect make rescues a profit center for the Sheriff's Dept. This could in turn raise other potential liability issues. A very dangerous path for the county. Some lawyer MIGHT get rich on this one. yea...all those guys getting rich at the sheriff's dept! Give me a break. Those helis are expensive. I sure $1000 doesn't even cover their costs for one rescue. I think it encourages a little more responsibility. You missed the point. A governmental entity is USUALLY immune from suit, unless it is conducting a business. If it is disclosed, as they did here, that the intent is to raise cash for other services (not cover costs) then a solid argument could be made that they are in the rescue business...and their immunity could be lost. This could open them up to suits that might otherwise be barred due to their immunity. I did not say anything about cops making money off of it. I said it could be viewed as a profit center. If it generates profits (i.e. funds to be spent on other things) this could create a situation of liability. Sorry if you thought I meant profits as in barney Fife gets to take home money.

This doesn't sound like a way to recoup costs, but a way to raise cash for other things. That is pure BS. This would in effect make rescues a profit center for the Sheriff's Dept. This could in turn raise other potential liability issues. A very dangerous path for the county. Some lawyer MIGHT get rich on this one.

Not climbing, but adventure: Shakelton's Antarctic trip with the crew of the Endurance is in my mind the greatest epic of survival of all time. It even makes Simpson’s story seem almost short and sweet. Well, almost anyway.