"The effect of the discovery of printing was evident in the savage religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Application of power to communication industries hastened the consolidation of vernaculars, the rise of nationalism, revolution, and new outbreaks of savagery in the twentieth century." Harold Innes, - "Minerva's Owl"
"All sciences are now under the obligation to prepare the ground for the future task of the philosopher, which is to solve the problem of value, to determine the true hierarchy of values."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
"He caun ne'er be bothered but maun e'er be waked. If there is a future in every past that is present Quis est qui non novit quinnigan and Qui quae quot at Quinnigan's Quake! Stump! His producers are they not his consumers? Your exagmination round his factification for incamination of a warping process. Declaim!" - James Joyce, "Finnegan's Wake"
So, allow me to catch everyone up here. We're going to say it's 1943 (in thistimeline) and no coincidence that Albert Hoffman discovers LSD at the same time the AustrioHungaristocracy - German business leaders with companies that would eventually become American institutions (well documented, see - http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/goldp3.html ) having already used their Nietzsche-enraptured prognosticative abilities to divine the fall of the House of Schicklgruber begin moving key personnel and assets out of the country.
The Reich was escaping already and the subsequent attempts at division of spoils by the victors, the Capitalists and the Communists were just for appearances. German business knew that, without the aid of the British (on which many German political and military leaders had counted) that lack of alliance evidenced by the rejection of Rudolph Hess in mid '41, Hitler had no real chance of sustaining an empire for more than 3 to 5 years. The lessons of WWI were not ignored by the pragmatic Prussian intelligensia, rather they used them to plan the continuance of their collective weltanschauung through connivance and Geschäftsmodelle "business models'.
The scientific discovery (prompted by forces most prefer to think of as "fate", but known to the cognoscenti as "engineered" - more on this later) of a psychoactive chemical becomes part of the dispersal of the Reich and its effects, and the movement of an autocratic mindset from a country with no "Magna Carta" to a social experiment born of the Enlightenment begins, propelled by a plan for the infiltration of a nascent greco-republican plutocratic world political system constructed from English common law by an oligarchy of racists dedicated to 'Rasse Ehrfurcht' hegemonic corporonational legacy businesses.
The plan is devised by 1942: The West, where "Capital" will buy ANYTHING (including escape from the prosecution of war crimes) is to be the new fatherland, given that most German social theorists think American capitalism will dominate world politics for a century at least. All that need be done is convince the American ruling classes that the threat of "godless communism" and it's voracious need for even the destitute Ozarkian hillbilly's "private property" can be parlayed into a suitably ferocious looking rhetorical "straw dog" for the frightening of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public.
Patton had been carefully preparing the American Military for the eventual eliding of Nazi criminal histories of SS officers in his role as highest Nazi 'mole' in the U.S. military and began "redacting" infamous Nazi's like Reinhard Heydrich who were supposedly assassinated when in fact they were being relocated and given new identities. Heydrich was the first highly visible officer Patton's relocation machine managed to get to England then the states (you heard it here first thanks to my "disembodied" consultants)but there were many more who's "deaths" were just covers for relocations routed through the states and then to enclaves, like Paraguay/Argentina, South Africa/Rhodesia, Australia/New Zealand prepared well in advance.
While all this was going on, FDR, feebler than any acknowledged world leader since the Visigoths broke all the noses off the staues of Rome, gets rid of Henry Wallace, a Wobbly from birth and the only man with the Woody Guthrie-like social vision and chutzpah prepared to fight the hordes of former Hitler Youth storming the citadel of Anglo-Saxon common-law Magna Carta blessed World intellectual amd moral supremacy and the rest is down the tubes of myopic-tailor-tunnel-vision Harry Truman's hatter-mad sinuses, ruined by radioactive treatments suggested by some of our new "Ubermensch" on their 'hexaphasic sleep schedule'
over at the World-GotterDammurunginating Manhatten Project.
Still,to this day I am amazed that no-one who read "Naked Lunch", by William Burroughs (who along with Jack Kerouac and Allan Ginsburg, to name a few, were being given new German synthesized drugs, and then paid to write "reports" to the former Obbergruppenfuhrers now runnng things at the OSS/CIA - "Naked Lunch" WAS BURROUGHS REPORT!) Pity no-one in the government at the time picked it up, because underneath the ruse of drug addiction and terminal homosexuality was the most carefully crafted patriotic hatred and horrified description of the (now well accomplished) plans for the future downfall of democracy by the former-Third-Reich-child-rapist-sociopaths-now-US-Government-officials-and scientists one could ever care to stumble across, unredacted (solely due to Burrough's genius). Too bad nobody noticed till the North Beach beatniks caught a whiff of Nietchze wafting across California's central valley with the atomic fallout from the "harmless" A-Bomb tests in desert beyond the pale of picket fences and "Better dead than Red".
Afterword:
(Had to wait for one timeline to catch up to publish this, hence the weeks this lay dormant like the 3 "Gamma" alter personalities I can't wake from their decades slumber at the nadir of all my neuroses. My friends have always thought I was wierd for eschewing cell phones, and always letting a machine answer my phone calls, but read some (not many left now) of the other MKULTRA survivors descriptions of their Gammas. A Mark David Chapman or a Sirhan-Sirhan I hope to never be, you see.)
I don't believe I've ever shared the fact that the timeline into which I was born is no longer capable of supporting life on the Earth. One of the 10% to 12% of those unfortunate parallel Earths that were destroyed in the Cuban-American Holocaust that was so close to being a tipping point in the Hundred Thousand Year War against the Drach's across so many contiguous Earth analogs. I was able to shift away before my constant precognitive childhood visions came to pass. Still, there were a good 3 dozen or so borderline vectorsum reality matrices where the Sci-Fi colored dreams of my later youth, where I survived with a few unfortunate souls in a devastated but not completely "nuclear-winterized" world eked out a meager existence till most were recruited by 'world-hunters' to pioneer better expressions of the cold war elsewhere, mostly in the plague decimated slower timelines.
I have skated across more that one thousand different analogs since '68(113 where I spent more than a week) most of those after my discovery of our (my personal analogs's) little guerilla movement part of the much bigger war. After that it became easier to move about, and I knew that someone (some ME somewhen) had my back. Right now we can consciously reach through 454 analogs, evenly distributed around whichever one has been designated "prime", for our purposes (the "prime" Roger Zelazny, the Sci-Fi author on countless Earths, ultimate cadre-builder/'reality matrix analog theoretician'/Gaia's Guerilla's warrior-teacher always called "Amber").
I have seen quite a few iterations of the same story varying in detail from world to world. This one is similar to most. The same struggles seen to pervade our history in this timeline are apparent in most of the "English Speaking New World Settlement" models in which I have come to specialize. The Nazi's, aided by a small group of "little grays" and Drach's (reptilian timeline travelers) knew that almost all predictions by "vaticination" and forays by their saurian ally's to timelines running faster than those of our amalgam of analogs (and by my faction's diligent interventions over thousands of years) led to the fall of the Third Riech. Human nature, left to itself (our reptilian temporal enemy's attempts at cultural control notwithstanding). More on how this bears on the story of the Third Reich's well planned Post WWII infiltration of world, and American politics and culture in upcoming chapters.
History is porous to the point of almost becoming transparent at times. Once the ability to shift from one timeline to another is accepted, and a plan based on long range Nostradamuslike, (he was ours, the best purveyor of future misinformation of all time) prognostications and actions spread over hundreds of analogs and hundreds of thousands of years, one can take advantage of the fact that some timelines run faster or slower than others. Also, many minor modifications can be made through intervention to models far from "primium mobile" and their results studied to be used as application scenarios for either "redactive false actions" to sully the timestreams or actual applications of demographic leverage aimed at producing a 'real' effect somewhere, somewhen.
Monday, December 06, 2010
"David" Collects Ammo For Battle With "Goliath"
Pertinent Laws and court rulings for R.O.I.O.
[Be advised that much of this material is from pertinent Wikipedia files, and other than my fair use in illustrating my case (permission pending) all material is from their site. Links to the 3 articles drawn from are at the end of this post.]
(NOTE: The co-option of MY copyrighted musical works, by iTunes, Apple, Microsoft and Windows Media, and these entities assumption of legal basis for having done, and doing so, evidenced by the lack of licence exception for personally produced independent intellectual property,is a separate Class Action, with a MUCH more easily defined set of illegal infringements upon Independent Artists by the aforementioned media concerns. It will be addressed forthwith.)
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works has protected the copyrights on literary, scientific, and artistic works since 1886. Article 9 of the Convention states that: Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form. [...] Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention.[7]
Under the Berne Convention, when a composer puts a new song in a "fixed form," for example sheet music or an audio recording, copyright law grants them the exclusive right to control who may perform that song (called performing rights) as well as control over how any derivative work is used, such as a recording of a performance of that song. These rights are retained for at least 50 years after the composer's death (typically longer). In some cases, if the song being performed is in the public domain or is free content and is performed faithfully, no copyright is violated by recording it; however such a recording may still violate performers rights, a type of neighboring right that is recognized in many nations. Where they exist, performers rights may have a shorter duration than full copyright; for example, the Rome Convention sets a minimum term of twenty years after the performance.
Most artists have made little effort to pursue legal action about bootleg recordings, viewing such "rarities trading" as harmless provided that it is not being done for profit. The benefits of interfering with such trading are fairly minimal compared to the potential ill-will generated against the artist, as the illicit works are generally circulated among the artist's most loyal fans, which have the most interest. Most record companies also have not shown an interest in pursuing or prosecuting small-scale bootleggers, but this could change at any time.
In 2004 U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. struck down a 1994 law banning the sale of bootleg recordings of live music, ruling that the law unfairly grants a seemingly perpetual copyright period to the original performances.[10] He dismissed a federal indictment of Jean Martignon, who was running a Manhattan mail-order and Internet business that sells bootleg recordings. The Recording Industry Association of America disagreed with the ruling, saying the decision "stands in marked contrast to existing law and prior decisions that have determined that Congress was well within its constitutional authority to adopt legislation that prevented trafficking in copies of unauthorized recordings of live performances", according to spokesman Jonathan Lamy.[11] In 2007, Judge Baer's ruling was overruled, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the anti-bootlegging statute was within the power of congress. 492 F. 3d 140
Fair Use Defense:
Turning to the question of fair use, the Circuit court agreed with the district court's "general analysis of Napster system uses" as well as with its analysis of the three "alleged fair uses identified by Napster" -- which were "sampling, where users make temporary copies of a work before purchasing; space-shifting, where users access a sound recording through the Napster system that they already own in audio CD format; and permissive distribution of recordings by both new and established artists."
The court first considered four factors on an abstract level of the system itself; of which #3 is salient, on point and now constitutes legal precedent and accepted case law:
3) They considered the potential that in some cases, wholesale copying of a work may be protected, noting time-shifting as an example.
The court then turned to the three uses Napster identified as fair use in the conduct of its users; of which, #s 2 & 3 are salient, on point and now constitute legal precedent and accepted case law:
2) space-shifting, where users access a sound recording through the Napster system that they already own in audio CD format; here the District Court found that neither of the shifting analyses used in the Sony or RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia[9] cases applied in this case because the "shifting" in neither case included or enabled distribution. The space-shifting argument did not succeed because, while the shift to a digital format may have been a personal storage use, it was accompanied by making the file available to the rest of the system's users.
[NOTE: Such is NOT THE CASE IN THIS CASE, because in adhering to the legally accepted conditions of R.O.I.O. acquisition, as decided in this and "Sony or R.I.A.A v. Diamond Media", for the private users of "DimeADozen" aka: "EZTorrent"; "shifting" of R.O.I.O was allowed by the artists, who had absolute authority to ban any R.O.I.O. of any and/or all of their performances, ever, which policy was then rigorously adhered to by the Administration and "Moderators" of said site, including the prohibition of posting any incidence of a specific recording of a specific performance from a specific source, independent or not, that had EVER been commercially released in production quantities, bootlegged or not.
The digital file quality of the music comprising the only allowed format for tracking, "lossless" (.wav, .shn, .flac, .APE,.aiff etc) so completely demonstrated the recordings origins, through digitally irrefutable waveform analyses (even generations of cassette tape to cassette tape transfers were identifiable) that no recordings of any "for sale" files were allowed to be tracked, or accessed by users. Scrupulous records were kept, and vast databases of 'released' material maintained to guarantee the legality of both the site, and it's user's utilization thereof.]
[It might also be noted that most of the users were audiophiles who preferred the non-compressed audio quality of "lossless" recordings to the "tinny" timbre and 'lifeless' ambience of commercial (MP3) recordings, which comprised only 1/10 (10%) the audio data of the original recordings, the aforementioned (.wav etc.) 'lossless' digital (or analog) recordings. Many of these recordings were from the musicians themselves, who agreed that archiving historically important recordings whose media (magnetic tape) had degraded beyond any sound recall, amongst aficionados who could not even fit 2 or 3 lossless CDs into an iPod (as opposed to hundreds of the 'junk' MP3 music files - the better to create profits for recording companies) constituted a type of digital "seedbank" as it were, of some of the most important music of the 20th Century.]
3) permissive distribution of recordings by both new and established artists who have authorized their music to be disseminated in the Napster system, which the District Court ruled was not an infringing use and could continue, along with chat rooms and other non-distributory features of Napster.
By contrast, the court found that the owners of Napster could control the infringing behavior of users, and therefore had a duty to do so. (As IS BEING DONE ON DimeADozen) The Ninth Circuit affirmed this analysis, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that Napster did not have a valid fair use defense.
Contributory Infringement
In order to prove contributory infringement, a plaintiff must show that a defendant had knowledge of infringement (here, that Napster knew that its users were distributing copyrighted content without permission across its network) and that defendant supplied material support to that infringement.
Knowledge. The District Court ruled that the "law does not require knowledge of 'specific acts of infringement'"[1] and rejected Napster's assertion that, because they could not distinguish between infringing and non-infringing files, they did not have knowledge of copyright infringement. The Ninth Circuit upheld this analysis, accepting that Napster had "knowledge, both actual and constructive, of direct infringement."
(As noted above, every .torrent and every audio file submitted for tracking on "Dime" is subject to digital scrutiny far stricter than even Treasury counterfeit inspections - fake money spends the same, but no member of the Dime" community" would stoop to even lend an ear to the 'mass market' soundbytes that pass for commercial music these days, and that's a fact!)
Additionally (pursuant to slight differences between the lower court's & the Ninth Circuit's Appeal ruling):
Unlike Judge Patel, the Ninth Circuit accepted that "Religious Technology Center v. Netcom" might be relevant. Based on that case:
"We agree that if a computer system operator learns of specific infringing material available on his system and fails to purge such material from the system, the operator knows of and contributes to direct infringement. ... Conversely, absent any specific information which identifies infringing activity, a computer system operator cannot be liable for contributory infringement merely because the structure of the system allows for the exchange of copyrighted material."
The "Vicarious Infringement" claims are inapplicable to Dime, because it is solely vonuntary donation supported.
Oddly:
In its defense against the injunction, Napster also cited the Audio Home Recording Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 1001-10).[10] and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor clause (17 U.S.C. § 512).[11] The Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court's finding that downloading MP3 files is not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. The Ninth Circuit disagreed slightly with the District Court on the safe harbor issue, however, finding that the contributory infringement does not necessarily exclude a party from safe harbor protection. The court held that the safe harbor issue would be explored further at trial.[1]
(NOTE: lossless digital recordings of "tape" sources, ARE COVERED BY THE ACT, and legal for home use!)
Criticism and Impact
Among a number of amicus briefs filed on behalf of both sides of the dispute, one particularly critical brief filed by a consortium of eighteen copyright law professors at United States universities argued that the District Court misread Sony and took too narrow a view of fair use. They wrote:
"Napster is the best-known example of a new technology deploying what has come to be called peer-to-peer networking, a system in which individuals can search for and share files that reside on the hard drives of other personal computers connected to the Internet. Peer-to-peer file sharing allows individuals to bypass central providers of content and to find and exchange material with one another. The decentralized model of peer-to-peer networking poses a significant challenge to sectors of the entertainment and information businesses that follow a model of centralized control over content distribution. However, this is not the sort of challenge that copyright law is designed to redress. The district court’s ruling would ban a new technology in order to protect existing business models, and would invoke copyright to stifle innovation, not to promote it.[12]"
The professors further argued that the overbroad nature of the injunction threatened the development and deployment of any future peer-to-peer file-sharing network on the Internet because it insisted on a restructuring that defeated peer-to-peer technology itself. They also argued that the finding of contributory liability was erroneous because of Napster's significant non-infringing uses and because not all unauthorized uses within the system were infringement. They concluded, " If Plaintiffs want copyright law extended to allow the suppression of new technologies, they must make their case to Congress."[12]
I fully intend to distribute copies of this precis (with the permission of WikiPedia, of which I am a member) to all these Professors in furtherence of my Class Action suit.
DimeTOS:Bootleg Sellers
From DimeWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
DIME has a zero-tolerance policy against the sale of bootlegs. Collecting revenue for the works of performers without proper compensation to them is unethical and impardonable.
Users lose access to the tracker if they are found to be engaged, involved, or cooperating in the sale of bootlegs, whether or not any of their offerings can be traced to DIME torrents. Any donations they had made are forfeited.
Dubitable cases will be resolved ex cathedra by DIME management. Use of DIME is neither a civil right nor a necessity to life, and management reserves the right to refuse access to anyone for any reason at its sole discretion.
Wikilinks to sources of materiel used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc.
http://wiki.dimeadozen.org/index.php/DimeTOS:Bootleg_Sellers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROIO
[Be advised that much of this material is from pertinent Wikipedia files, and other than my fair use in illustrating my case (permission pending) all material is from their site. Links to the 3 articles drawn from are at the end of this post.]
(NOTE: The co-option of MY copyrighted musical works, by iTunes, Apple, Microsoft and Windows Media, and these entities assumption of legal basis for having done, and doing so, evidenced by the lack of licence exception for personally produced independent intellectual property,is a separate Class Action, with a MUCH more easily defined set of illegal infringements upon Independent Artists by the aforementioned media concerns. It will be addressed forthwith.)
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works has protected the copyrights on literary, scientific, and artistic works since 1886. Article 9 of the Convention states that: Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form. [...] Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention.[7]
Under the Berne Convention, when a composer puts a new song in a "fixed form," for example sheet music or an audio recording, copyright law grants them the exclusive right to control who may perform that song (called performing rights) as well as control over how any derivative work is used, such as a recording of a performance of that song. These rights are retained for at least 50 years after the composer's death (typically longer). In some cases, if the song being performed is in the public domain or is free content and is performed faithfully, no copyright is violated by recording it; however such a recording may still violate performers rights, a type of neighboring right that is recognized in many nations. Where they exist, performers rights may have a shorter duration than full copyright; for example, the Rome Convention sets a minimum term of twenty years after the performance.
Most artists have made little effort to pursue legal action about bootleg recordings, viewing such "rarities trading" as harmless provided that it is not being done for profit. The benefits of interfering with such trading are fairly minimal compared to the potential ill-will generated against the artist, as the illicit works are generally circulated among the artist's most loyal fans, which have the most interest. Most record companies also have not shown an interest in pursuing or prosecuting small-scale bootleggers, but this could change at any time.
In 2004 U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. struck down a 1994 law banning the sale of bootleg recordings of live music, ruling that the law unfairly grants a seemingly perpetual copyright period to the original performances.[10] He dismissed a federal indictment of Jean Martignon, who was running a Manhattan mail-order and Internet business that sells bootleg recordings. The Recording Industry Association of America disagreed with the ruling, saying the decision "stands in marked contrast to existing law and prior decisions that have determined that Congress was well within its constitutional authority to adopt legislation that prevented trafficking in copies of unauthorized recordings of live performances", according to spokesman Jonathan Lamy.[11] In 2007, Judge Baer's ruling was overruled, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the anti-bootlegging statute was within the power of congress. 492 F. 3d 140
Fair Use Defense:
Turning to the question of fair use, the Circuit court agreed with the district court's "general analysis of Napster system uses" as well as with its analysis of the three "alleged fair uses identified by Napster" -- which were "sampling, where users make temporary copies of a work before purchasing; space-shifting, where users access a sound recording through the Napster system that they already own in audio CD format; and permissive distribution of recordings by both new and established artists."
The court first considered four factors on an abstract level of the system itself; of which #3 is salient, on point and now constitutes legal precedent and accepted case law:
3) They considered the potential that in some cases, wholesale copying of a work may be protected, noting time-shifting as an example.
The court then turned to the three uses Napster identified as fair use in the conduct of its users; of which, #s 2 & 3 are salient, on point and now constitute legal precedent and accepted case law:
2) space-shifting, where users access a sound recording through the Napster system that they already own in audio CD format; here the District Court found that neither of the shifting analyses used in the Sony or RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia[9] cases applied in this case because the "shifting" in neither case included or enabled distribution. The space-shifting argument did not succeed because, while the shift to a digital format may have been a personal storage use, it was accompanied by making the file available to the rest of the system's users.
[NOTE: Such is NOT THE CASE IN THIS CASE, because in adhering to the legally accepted conditions of R.O.I.O. acquisition, as decided in this and "Sony or R.I.A.A v. Diamond Media", for the private users of "DimeADozen" aka: "EZTorrent"; "shifting" of R.O.I.O was allowed by the artists, who had absolute authority to ban any R.O.I.O. of any and/or all of their performances, ever, which policy was then rigorously adhered to by the Administration and "Moderators" of said site, including the prohibition of posting any incidence of a specific recording of a specific performance from a specific source, independent or not, that had EVER been commercially released in production quantities, bootlegged or not.
The digital file quality of the music comprising the only allowed format for tracking, "lossless" (.wav, .shn, .flac, .APE,.aiff etc) so completely demonstrated the recordings origins, through digitally irrefutable waveform analyses (even generations of cassette tape to cassette tape transfers were identifiable) that no recordings of any "for sale" files were allowed to be tracked, or accessed by users. Scrupulous records were kept, and vast databases of 'released' material maintained to guarantee the legality of both the site, and it's user's utilization thereof.]
[It might also be noted that most of the users were audiophiles who preferred the non-compressed audio quality of "lossless" recordings to the "tinny" timbre and 'lifeless' ambience of commercial (MP3) recordings, which comprised only 1/10 (10%) the audio data of the original recordings, the aforementioned (.wav etc.) 'lossless' digital (or analog) recordings. Many of these recordings were from the musicians themselves, who agreed that archiving historically important recordings whose media (magnetic tape) had degraded beyond any sound recall, amongst aficionados who could not even fit 2 or 3 lossless CDs into an iPod (as opposed to hundreds of the 'junk' MP3 music files - the better to create profits for recording companies) constituted a type of digital "seedbank" as it were, of some of the most important music of the 20th Century.]
3) permissive distribution of recordings by both new and established artists who have authorized their music to be disseminated in the Napster system, which the District Court ruled was not an infringing use and could continue, along with chat rooms and other non-distributory features of Napster.
By contrast, the court found that the owners of Napster could control the infringing behavior of users, and therefore had a duty to do so. (As IS BEING DONE ON DimeADozen) The Ninth Circuit affirmed this analysis, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that Napster did not have a valid fair use defense.
Contributory Infringement
In order to prove contributory infringement, a plaintiff must show that a defendant had knowledge of infringement (here, that Napster knew that its users were distributing copyrighted content without permission across its network) and that defendant supplied material support to that infringement.
Knowledge. The District Court ruled that the "law does not require knowledge of 'specific acts of infringement'"[1] and rejected Napster's assertion that, because they could not distinguish between infringing and non-infringing files, they did not have knowledge of copyright infringement. The Ninth Circuit upheld this analysis, accepting that Napster had "knowledge, both actual and constructive, of direct infringement."
(As noted above, every .torrent and every audio file submitted for tracking on "Dime" is subject to digital scrutiny far stricter than even Treasury counterfeit inspections - fake money spends the same, but no member of the Dime" community" would stoop to even lend an ear to the 'mass market' soundbytes that pass for commercial music these days, and that's a fact!)
Additionally (pursuant to slight differences between the lower court's & the Ninth Circuit's Appeal ruling):
Unlike Judge Patel, the Ninth Circuit accepted that "Religious Technology Center v. Netcom" might be relevant. Based on that case:
"We agree that if a computer system operator learns of specific infringing material available on his system and fails to purge such material from the system, the operator knows of and contributes to direct infringement. ... Conversely, absent any specific information which identifies infringing activity, a computer system operator cannot be liable for contributory infringement merely because the structure of the system allows for the exchange of copyrighted material."
The "Vicarious Infringement" claims are inapplicable to Dime, because it is solely vonuntary donation supported.
Oddly:
In its defense against the injunction, Napster also cited the Audio Home Recording Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 1001-10).[10] and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor clause (17 U.S.C. § 512).[11] The Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court's finding that downloading MP3 files is not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. The Ninth Circuit disagreed slightly with the District Court on the safe harbor issue, however, finding that the contributory infringement does not necessarily exclude a party from safe harbor protection. The court held that the safe harbor issue would be explored further at trial.[1]
(NOTE: lossless digital recordings of "tape" sources, ARE COVERED BY THE ACT, and legal for home use!)
Criticism and Impact
Among a number of amicus briefs filed on behalf of both sides of the dispute, one particularly critical brief filed by a consortium of eighteen copyright law professors at United States universities argued that the District Court misread Sony and took too narrow a view of fair use. They wrote:
"Napster is the best-known example of a new technology deploying what has come to be called peer-to-peer networking, a system in which individuals can search for and share files that reside on the hard drives of other personal computers connected to the Internet. Peer-to-peer file sharing allows individuals to bypass central providers of content and to find and exchange material with one another. The decentralized model of peer-to-peer networking poses a significant challenge to sectors of the entertainment and information businesses that follow a model of centralized control over content distribution. However, this is not the sort of challenge that copyright law is designed to redress. The district court’s ruling would ban a new technology in order to protect existing business models, and would invoke copyright to stifle innovation, not to promote it.[12]"
The professors further argued that the overbroad nature of the injunction threatened the development and deployment of any future peer-to-peer file-sharing network on the Internet because it insisted on a restructuring that defeated peer-to-peer technology itself. They also argued that the finding of contributory liability was erroneous because of Napster's significant non-infringing uses and because not all unauthorized uses within the system were infringement. They concluded, " If Plaintiffs want copyright law extended to allow the suppression of new technologies, they must make their case to Congress."[12]
I fully intend to distribute copies of this precis (with the permission of WikiPedia, of which I am a member) to all these Professors in furtherence of my Class Action suit.
DimeTOS:Bootleg Sellers
From DimeWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
DIME has a zero-tolerance policy against the sale of bootlegs. Collecting revenue for the works of performers without proper compensation to them is unethical and impardonable.
Users lose access to the tracker if they are found to be engaged, involved, or cooperating in the sale of bootlegs, whether or not any of their offerings can be traced to DIME torrents. Any donations they had made are forfeited.
Dubitable cases will be resolved ex cathedra by DIME management. Use of DIME is neither a civil right nor a necessity to life, and management reserves the right to refuse access to anyone for any reason at its sole discretion.
Wikilinks to sources of materiel used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc.
http://wiki.dimeadozen.org/index.php/DimeTOS:Bootleg_Sellers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROIO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)