Throw off the Jackboots of the Nazi Copyright Cartel

IT'S TIME PEOPLE ACROSS THE WORLD THROW OFF THE NAZI JACKBOOTS

Won't be TOOOO long before I find myself in the sixth decade of life. I've seen one theme played over and over in schoolyards, in universities, in corporate settings, in government, and between governments. There are three types of forces. There are bullies, there are cowards, and there are those who stand up to bullies and give them a bloody nose and back them down. Most bullies exert force against weaker individuals or groups, not because they are courageous or strong, but because they are aggressive, and have some advantage over the person or group being bullied. The Nazis were bullies. They gathered unto themselves allies like Japan and Italy. But, sometimes, even bullies are surprised at how little resistance there is offered unto them.

Some bullies are ready to give up and back off if even a small amount of serious aggressive force is offered back. A case in point is how easily Hitler took over Poland. After the ease with which he conquered Poland. He invaded Poland in September 1, 1939 and on September 24th, 1939, Poland surrenders.

In Germany of course, Hitler painted the Jews as parasites, and painted them as scapegoats. The economic downturn of the time made German nationals all too ready that there must be someone to blame, and the Jews, being industrious and putting a great importance on professional careers such as medicine, law, jewelers, etc., and being very saving by nature, were often a bit better off financially, so this
slimy straw man attack, was that of a bully who points to "the other", the "enemy within". As I am half Jewish by genetic heritage, I would love to be able to say
that Hitler was a coward. I don't believe Hitler was personally a coward. He received the coveted IRON CROSS for his valor in World War I, ironically, bestowed upon him by a Jewish military man.

I believe that he BECAME weak and cowardly over the years, but as a young man who had failed in just about everything he did, the only niche he found where he fitted in was in the army, and later of course, in politics. Hitler was a traitor to Germany. As I am 1/4 German by heritage, and have studied about Hitler for most of my life, I saw that his plans were not truly born of plans for a great Germany, but plans for his own personal empire. He had imperial plans, grandiose and maniacal. Hitler admired much about the horrible Roman empire. We can see this in the symbols such as the Roman eagles carried by standard bearers, his alliance with the Fascists in Italy (the sticks, bound together with an ax head at the top, the "fasces" was the symbol of ancient Rome), the nighttime parades with torchlight, his architecture, his cruelty, and on and on.

Germany was a bully personified during the horrible reign of Herr Hitler.

Now, cut to modern times, or MORE modern times. In 20th century USA, we also saw a bully in politics named Joe "Tailgunner" McCarthy. As in the biblical tale of David against Goliath, an attorney named Joe Welsh was able to take the giant poof McCarthy down with a few well chosen words that showed him for the low life coward he truly was. Welsh said,

"I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness," Joseph Welsh, the counsel for the U.S. Army told McCarthy. "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"

Suddenly, we saw that the emperor had no clothes, and the bully, Joe McCarthy, was exposed for the worthless coward he really was.

OK...so where is all this going ? Well, where it is going is this. There are good, hardworking men and women, boys and girls, all over the world, and they are allowing the government, groups like the RIAA, MPAA, BREIN, et al, grind their virtual faces in the mud, rape them at every turn, and are not doing one damn thing about it.

When did the American people, proud warriors who won WW II, proud folks who worked their butts off to go from a poor colony to a world power, when did we become so lazy or so cowardly that we would not stand up to money grubbing, greedy, beetle eyed cowards like the RIAA, MPAA, and when did the people of Norway, descendants of those golden haired warriors the vikings, PIRATES if you will, get so cowardly and get their bellies so close to the mud, that they would let groups like BREIN tell them how they are going to rule over them and persecute anyone they wish, and tell ISPs how to run their companies, and tell Torrent sites what files to host? When did this happen? But, a better question is WHY was it allowed to happen, but the best question is why aren't the people pushing up with their muscular arms, wiping the grit from their faces, and grabbing BREIN, RIAA, MPAA , and the rest, and jerking them down to the virtual ground and tromping on them for having the gall to try to bully a whole nation or nations?

The government SUPPOSEDLY works for the people. Is this true at all?

People of ALL organized countries. Try an experiment. Try to flex your political muscle
for the heck of it and see if your country is run by YOU, or is your country now run
by special interests, and you work for your politicians instead of the other way around.

Are you AFRAID to protest them grinding your face into the pig feces day after day?

Are you AFRAID that the truth is that you NO LONGER control your government?

A COWARD dies a thousand deaths, the brave taste of death but once.

STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS. Say NO to BREIN, Say NO to the RIAA, Say NO
to MPAA, and every other lackey and toadie of the Copyright Cartels.

IT'S TIME PEOPLE ACROSS THE WORLD THROW OFF THE NAZI JACKBOOTS

Won't be TOOOO long before I find myself in the sixth decade of life. I've seen one theme played over and over in schoolyards, in universities, in corporate settings, in government, and between governments. There are three types of forces. There are bullies, there are cowards, and there are those who stand up to bullies and give them a bloody nose and back them down. Most bullies exert force against weaker individuals or groups, not because they are courageous or strong, but because they are aggressive, and have some advantage over the person or group being bullied. The Nazis were bullies. They gathered unto themselves allies like Japan and Italy. But, sometimes, even bullies are surprised at how little resistance there is offered unto them.

Some bullies are ready to give up and back off if even a small amount of serious aggressive force is offered back. A case in point is how easily Hitler took over Poland. After the ease with which he conquered Poland. He invaded Poland in September 1, 1939 and on September 24th, 1939, Poland surrenders.

In Germany of course, Hitler painted the Jews as parasites, and painted them as scapegoats. The economic downturn of the time made German nationals all too ready that there must be someone to blame, and the Jews, being industrious and putting a great importance on professional careers such as medicine, law, jewelers, etc., and being very saving by nature, were often a bit better off financially, so this
slimy straw man attack, was that of a bully who points to "the other", the "enemy within". As I am half Jewish by genetic heritage, I would love to be able to say
that Hitler was a coward. I don't believe Hitler was personally a coward. He received the coveted IRON CROSS for his valor in World War I, ironically, bestowed upon him by a Jewish military man.

I believe that he BECAME weak and cowardly over the years, but as a young man who had failed in just about everything he did, the only niche he found where he fitted in was in the army, and later of course, in politics. Hitler was a traitor to Germany. As I am 1/4 German by heritage, and have studied about Hitler for most of my life, I saw that his plans were not truly born of plans for a great Germany, but plans for his own personal empire. He had imperial plans, grandiose and maniacal. Hitler admired much about the horrible Roman empire. We can see this in the symbols such as the Roman eagles carried by standard bearers, his alliance with the Fascists in Italy (the sticks, bound together with an ax head at the top, the "fasces" was the symbol of ancient Rome), the nighttime parades with torchlight, his architecture, his cruelty, and on and on.

Germany was a bully personified during the horrible reign of Herr Hitler.

Now, cut to modern times, or MORE modern times. In 20th century USA, we also saw a bully in politics named Joe "Tailgunner" McCarthy. As in the biblical tale of David against Goliath, an attorney named Joe Welsh was able to take the giant poof McCarthy down with a few well chosen words that showed him for the low life coward he truly was. Welsh said,

"I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness," Joseph Welsh, the counsel for the U.S. Army told McCarthy. "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"

Suddenly, we saw that the emperor had no clothes, and the bully, Joe McCarthy, was exposed for the worthless coward he really was.

OK...so where is all this going ? Well, where it is going is this. There are good, hardworking men and women, boys and girls, all over the world, and they are allowing the government, groups like the RIAA, MPAA, BREIN, et al, grind their virtual faces in the mud, rape them at every turn, and are not doing one damn thing about it.

When did the American people, proud warriors who won WW II, proud folks who worked their butts off to go from a poor colony to a world power, when did we become so lazy or so cowardly that we would not stand up to money grubbing, greedy, beetle eyed cowards like the RIAA, MPAA, and when did the people of Norway, descendants of those golden haired warriors the vikings, PIRATES if you will, get so cowardly and get their bellies so close to the mud, that they would let groups like BREIN tell them how they are going to rule over them and persecute anyone they wish, and tell ISPs how to run their companies, and tell Torrent sites what files to host? When did this happen? But, a better question is WHY was it allowed to happen, but the best question is why aren't the people pushing up with their muscular arms, wiping the grit from their faces, and grabbing BREIN, RIAA, MPAA , and the rest, and jerking them down to the virtual ground and tromping on them for having the gall to try to bully a whole nation or nations?

The government SUPPOSEDLY works for the people. Is this true at all?

People of ALL organized countries. Try an experiment. Try to flex your political muscle
for the heck of it and see if your country is run by YOU, or is your country now run
by special interests, and you work for your politicians instead of the other way around.

Are you AFRAID to protest them grinding your face into the pig feces day after day?

Are you AFRAID that the truth is that you NO LONGER control your government?

A COWARD dies a thousand deaths, the brave taste of death but once.

STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS. Say NO to BREIN, Say NO to the RIAA, Say NO
to MPAA, and every other lackey and toadie of the Copyright Cartels.

JAMMIE THOMAS RASSET POST VERDICT INTERVIEW ON CBS NEWS

Watch CBS Videos Online

THE FACADE OF SUCCESS IS A PATINA THAT HAS TO BE RE-LACQUERED EVERY DAY

"The facade of success is a patina that has to be re-lacquered every day." -CodeWarriorz Thoughts

DISSECTING THE JAMMIE THOMAS-RASSET FIASCO

People who rant and rave about file sharing, often forget to do a cold, critical analysis of things.

Just for the sake of argument, let's presume that Jammie Thomas not only had copyrighted
songs in a common folder which could, THEORETICALLY be shared with others, but,
for argument's sake, let's say she even WILLFULLY shared them (something I don't think
was proven).

OK, then what did she REALLY DO? Assuming the foregoing was proven (which I say it
was not) then she had digital copies of allegedly copyrighted materials, BUT these were
not identical to the copyrighted songs which the RIAA claims they are suing about.
Firstly, the original tunes were NOT released in am MP3 format. MP3 is not the
format found on professional released CDs. MP3s, by their very nature, are LOSSY,
and by lossy I mean that they DO NOT CONTAIN ALL THE ORIGINAL DATA
IN THE SAME FORM.

So, if you were to use , oh, say a published book as an analogy, the MP3s would be merely small amounts of the original. Authors use small amounts of published works all the time, which are copyrighted and which they do not own the copyright to, and which they do not always seek approval from the copyright owner to copy. How is this allowed? It is allowed because of something called the FAIR USE doctrine. The problem with the Fair Use doctrine is that , in my view, it can be interpreted in different ways by different people.

As I am NOT a legal scholar, I shall post links to others who are, and who
give their views on Fair Use.
http://music.utsa.edu/tdml/conf-VIII/VIII-Harper&Bruenger.html
" Fair use is set out in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. It has two parts. The first part describes uses that are typical fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, and research. This list is not exhaustive, however, and even a use that is listed may not be a fair use. That's because each proposed fair use must satisfy the second part of the statute: the four factors the statute lays out for consideration in each case. The four factors are:

1. The purpose and character of the use;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work to be used;
3. The amount and substantiality of the part used;
4. The effect of the use on the market for or value of the work.

The statute employs a "weighing and balancing" technique that introduces many opportunities for judgment. It is quite possible for two people to consider the same use and come to different conclusions about whether it is fair. I have summarized my knowledge about how the fair use test works in the article, "Fair Use of Copyrighted Works," and urge you to read it for more information about how this test works.

The important thing to see at this point is that fair use is not a blanket exemption for educators. It’s an exemption that permits certain uses of certain works for certain purposes, taking into consideration the interests of the copyright owner.

Fair Use Guidelines

The ambiguity of the fair use test has brought copyright owners and users together to try to achieve some consensus on what would actually be fair uses in various educational contexts. The agreements reached are referred to as guideline and most were created at the urging of government officials, but none has the force of law. In every case, they do not define the limits of fair use, but rather the minimum of fair use, a safe harbor, so to speak. The guidelines are much more specific than the statute, giving actual amounts of works that can be used in many cases. The trouble is that the amounts are pretty small. That and other limits imposed on the uses can make the guidelines less helpful for higher education. This doesn't mean that they should not be used as a starting point, because if a use fits within them, the user need go no further to determine that the use is fair. If a use exceeds them, the user still has recourse to the statute. Thus, using both the guidelines and the statute gives educators the maximum flexibility."

http://news.cnet.com/2010-1071-281607.html
" Now the music industry has 30 million enemies.

Getting back to our historical recollections, after audiocassettes, there were VCRs. In the '80s, movie studios complained that videotape recorders would "steal" their copyrighted materials. However, it was quickly realized that VCRs actually increased the market for movies and the studios, which saw their profits double with sales of prerecorded videotapes. The fact that VCRs were analog devices just kept this inevitable conflict over fair use at bay.

The first victory of the music labels over digital technology was with something called DAT. The labels successfully had this early digital audio technology relegated to professional markets, insisting that the digital copying of music that DAT would enable would put them out of business. Minidisk was another technology and attempt at bringing digital audio technology to the masses. But it was not until MP3 that a format, technology and channel of distribution would appear that would really give the labels a scare.

And we all know what happened to Napster.

So here we are with a new generation of peer-to-peer services that are being sued by the RIAA--with the music industry readying to offer consumers pay-per-listen services like MusicNet and PressPlay. However, if you look into the details of how these services will work, it quickly becomes apparent that any former concept of "fair use" has been thrown out. What's becoming clear is that--from the labels' point of view--they think it's time to print up money without having to spend anything on costs of goods, physical distribution or warehousing.

However, one of the terms of the MusicNet license is that as long as you continue to pay your monthly fee, you get to keep those songs you've downloaded. But if you at any time stop paying your monthly service fee, then those songs, which you've rightly paid for already, will stop working. This is going too far. This is in direct violation of the copyright fair use clause.

The same thing is happening with the Replay injunction that the movie studios are attempting to instill upon Sonicblue. They claim that Replay's "Send Show" feature will start another P2P Napster-like stampede of copying and illegal distribution. However, Replay's "Send Show" feature, which none of us will really know about until we actually get our Replays, claims to limit the feature to only friends you know--and a maximum of 15 copies.

If this is true, then the movie studios have no right to try and place an injunction on Sonicblue. This is exactly what the "fair use" clause is all about. I shouldn't be able to take music and give it away to millions of people who I don't know, but it certainly seems fair for me to send my friends and family a copy of my favorite "Sex in the City" or "Sopranos" episode or the entire "Band of Brothers" series."

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/
"

Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this freedom, copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work.

Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or arbitration. If it's not a fair use, then you are infringing upon the rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for damages."

=========SNIP========
So, one has a limited amount of "quoted" material in a few files on their own computer, and PERHAPS, they were going to use this in some sort of critical analysis of the song, and they were
not in any way going to make money from this material, and did not claim they created it,
and in fact gave full attribution, why is an MP3 used in that way, NOT "Fair Use".
If no one copied the file, and, just for grins, let's say that that MP3 was a rip from an
album that person purchased legally, it furthermore tends to get its nose under the FAIR USE
tent. We cannot go on treating digital files as if they are different than printed books or oil paintings.
The original folks who wrote Copyright Laws, were big business and government (Queen Anne and the Stationer's Guild) and the purpose was to control public discourse and make money respectively.

~Code

Is Jammie Thomas-Rasset the P2P's first Martyr?

Both the defense side and plaintiff side has had lawyers who have commented about their level of surprise at the 1.92 million dollar judgment against Jammie. To put this in perspective, in Texas, in a medical malpractice trial in which sloppy actions of a doctor end up in the DEATH of someone, there is a cap that brings even a 40 million dollar judgment, immediately down to 250,000 dollars (claims on or before September 1,2003), and often, judges on appeal have even thrown THOSE out by saying the case was not properly proven.
http://www.mcandl.com/texas.html#VII
" In a medical malpractice action filed on or after September 1, 2003, regardless of the number of causes of action asserted, non-economic damages are limited to a total of $250,000 from all doctors and other individuals. Non-economic damages are limited to $250,000 from each hospital or other institution and a total of $500,000 from all institutions. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. § 74.301 (Westlaw 2007). The cap applies to each "claimant," which includes everyone seeking damages due to one person's injury or death. Id.; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. § 74.001(a)(2) (Westlaw 2007). A constitutional amendment authorizes this legislation. Tex. Const. art. III, § 66.

In a medical malpractice action for wrongful death, damages (both economic and non-economic) are limited to $500,000 (in 1977 dollars) plus the cost of any necessary medical or custodial care. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. § 74.303 (Westlaw 2007). The predecessor of this statute was intended to apply to all medical malpractice, but was held to be unconstitutional except for causes of action created by statute, like wrongful death. Rose v. Doctors Hospital, 801 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. 1990). The cap is adjusted annually for inflation, § 74.303(b), and is now approximately $1,650,000. In actions filed on or after September 1, 2003, this limit applies to the total recovery, not separately to each defendant, and includes exemplary damages. § 74.303(a).

In any action not based on certain types of intentional criminal conduct, exemplary damages are limited to the larger of the following amounts: (a) non-economic damages (up to a maximum of $750,000) plus two times economic damages, or (b) $200,000. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41.008 (Westlaw 2007)."

So, is the jury saying that downloading a few digital tunes, that one could usually pick up for a buck a piece online, is anywhere from almost 4 to 8 times worse than killing someone on the operating table through gross negligence?

If they are, then I humbly suggest a two week case in ethics and morals be given to all prospective jurors. It is beyond ludricrous to say that it is far worse for someone to make available on their computer, a few files of ones and zeros, and that be worse in exponential magnitudes, that causing the PERMANENT death of someone.

Methinks something is rotten not only in Demark, but in the jury room.
"So it goes."-Kurt Vonnegut
~Code

THE RIAA MUST GO AWAY

Well, 1.9 plus million dollar verdict was returned against Jammie Thomas-Rasset, but, the RIAA surely means this as a symbolic victory against US, online customers and P2P users. They KNOW Jammie never won the lottery, and is not the CEO of a bailed out Bank, so do they really expect to bring in almost TWO MILLION from Jammie?

NO. It's scare tactics. Sure your customer, and scare their neighbor. It's time for people to get off their DUFF, and do SERIOUS boycotting of every label the RIAA is associated with.

http://www.twitter.com/codewarriorz