FAIR USE? NOT WHEN TECH TAKES YOUR $$$

Distinguished Toastmaster
BUSINESS & BRANDING COACH . LIFE & LEADERSHIP STRATEGIST MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER SERVING ENTREPRENEURS &
MAIN STREET

FAIR USE? NOT WHEN TECH TAKES YOUR $$$ [ You Are On This CLICKs Page ]

INDEX :

MPAA FORGOT THE "A"s IN THEIR INDUSTRY (c) Carrie Devorah
HR 3309 IS NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME (c) Carrie Devorah
TO MITIGATE FAIR USE ABUSE? VISUALLY HIT THEM FIRST WHERE IT HURTS... PUT (4) WHERE (1) IS - MONEY FIRST (c) Carrie Devorah :
STEVEN KRAMARSKYs ARTICLE ON WHAT IS FAIR USE (c) Carrie Devorah :
SWEAR ON THE BOOK OF MORMON (c) Carrie Devorah :

_
MPAA FORGOT THE "A"s IN THEIR INDUSTRY (c) Carrie Devorah :
_

Creativity starts when you walk in the door, even before you walked in the door, at Creativity in DC, the MPAA's second annual conference in DC coinciding with the White House correspondents annual prom. The White House Annual Prom, "The Dinner" is when Glitterata from around the world of Celeb, and behind the scenes, come to celebrate, as former Senator MPAA’s Chris Dodd said, Innovation and Creativity, Technology and Content coming together. Attendees greeted with exhibits of 3D printing and characters, rushed the Throne from Game Of Thrones, set up for Souvenir takeaway photo memories bragging rights that "I was there and did I actually do that..." Opt in/Opt out was taking the photo print right then and there, OR tweeting or Emailing the photo out to “friends.” The downside to the latter decision was obvious when Up popped a "Read Or Decline" consent. I read. I declined. Users signed away control of their images, the exact issue in Congress from MPAA constituents battling their loss of Right Of Publicity due to Technological dispruption.

Click, "Decline."

Chris Dodd was joined on stage by Microsoft’s Fred Humphries and ABC’s Robin Spurling, a brave woman to stand on stage sans stockings. Robin admitted privately she had black stockings she left in the car. Humphries opined on STEM, Technology’s initiative used as platform to Technology’s push for Immigration despite Google CEO Schimdt stating at Davos Technology is replacing workers in the labor force. Humphries was out of place pushing STEM in a room full of STEAM. Oh, add the A for Arts to STEM you get STEAM. Yeah, Politics has fun making up labels for initiatives they often fail to gauge or tailor to audiences. Case in point, Humphries pushing Technology in a room of Actors, Playwrights, directors, media, moreso with an Artist, stage left, painting his brother up as a werewolf during the course of the morning session. Love to see a Robot do that, painstakingly apply makeup to a Model. Chutzpah, is the word that comes to mind. Technology is putting the A’s, ARTS constituency, out of work.

Spurling acknowledged journalism today is a minute to minute process, boasting 15 million Friends on Facebook, the newest barometer of popularity in a virtual world.Spurling said her challenge, ABC's challenge, is seeking compelling storytelling.

Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee shared his passion for entertainment, sharing bits and pieces of his personal movie watching life. Goodlatte's message to people is consumers have a "long term investment" in entertainment. It isnt for free. Expanded opportunity aside, Goodlatte said Technology and Content need each other. Goodlatte misspoke. Technology needs ARTS creators Content. To that end, Technology is taking ARTS creators Content without paying for it, hiding behind a thin defense of Fair Use and Safe Harbor. Theft is theft no matter how one cuts it. Goodlatte’s major Faux Pas was stating Consumers want to pay for product. No. Consumers will pay for content if forced to or caught but given the Option, just like you, they want Content for free, unless it is their Content being taken without compensation. Faux Deux by Goodlatte was not correcting his interviewer referring to the countries President Obama visited on his Asian trip as being the greater purveyors of theft of IP. Goodlatte called the countries Havens for copyright theft. Wrong. The private companies owning the Internet our ID and IP are trafficked through are American companies- the Googles, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo and the companies that feed off the Tech giants, bundling ARTS creators lives and Content without compensation. Something is wrong when a Legislator fails to get his facts right. That said, there was no shock to me when Goodlatte claimed One Word without attribution. New to the Copyright Stage well over a year, ago, I have been ramming that point home to the Minority and Majority GC’s, Legislators and readers. Over and over again. With a Legislator heavy into Tech’s camp, Failure To Attribute, the battle the ARTS camp is waging, is not a surprise. It is a wakeup to ARTS creators why our worlds are losing ownership to our Property. If the guy at the Committee top neglects basic etiquettes then….

Getting everyone to the same page to move forward in lockstep, is how I got my PD I was a CCIA at moving forward- IT IS NOT PIRACY, PLAIGARISM, HACKING, FILE SHARING, COPYING, the synonym list goes on and on- IT IS THEFT, Bob, and by the way, you are welcome. It is a small thing but a big thing when talking Credit Theft to credit a source who is not a WSJ headliner.

Goodlatte never ceases to disappoint. He was consistent with his answer on Immigration and VISAs for people with skills, tossing out the names driving his train- Google and Microsoft. Technology has created the ability of "face to face" with someone around the world. Commercials on TV show parents and grandkids talking from opposite ends of the world. That is called Remote. Remote is a non part of the conversation in Visas and Technology, a reform that Bill Gates began pushing in Congress as far back as 2008 if not earlier. Point being made, remoting to work is an active part of how Government in America works. Government does not shut down when Snowmaggedons hit DC. The USPTO, for example, already has in place over 7000 employees telecommunting daily. They work in place at headquarters in VA for two years, then are granted the right to work from 'wherever.' If it is good enough for government, then why must the Tech companies pushing VISA reform, not have these people remote to work rather than playing on Google campuses everywhere.

With all of Goodlatte's jabbering about the value of IP and the Committee he leads, life in the ARTS is not always about Jobs. Life in the Arts is about being a Small Business Entrepreneur. Life in the Arts is about owning one's own IP, Intellectual Property. A mother and a Dad trying to put food on their table for their kids are not Multistakeholders. They are people decisions are being made in deference of.

The next panel was disturbing. The son of a Holocaust survivor talked with a psychologist about life replacing people, not just one body part at a time, but in time completely, their projection being Robot will invade and replace man. The audience chilled as the woman said she wanted to live to 300 as long as she could look 29. Oh, one could say it is catty to say, lady, there is something to dressing and owning one’s age but the fact is, while no one wants to get old, in the real world, Hollywood is outside the boundaries of, people don’t want Technology’s disruptiong, just because it can be done. Seguy to after the panel the audience members I spoke with, left feeling their skin was still crawling the tome was so creepy, I spoke with Avi.

What he said, shocked me. I asked him if his projection of a Robot world where people are modified, assuming super skins for bodies that failed, I asked isn’t that the World of the Nazi’s we in America to this day condem. The son of a Holocaust survivor said, he fears that is the way the world has become so I asked him standing tall in his PARTIALLY 3D printed shoes, (leather uppers). I asked him why he did not say that during the panel. He said that was for another panel. I said NO, it was for now, here and today, to let people know even with all your glibness about the future, you feel we have crossed the line. I walked away. Real life is beyond Hollywood’s borders it seems, where life is about Showtime and being on stage….. shades of Joel Grey in Cabaret. As for the psychologist/Research Manager, Mary Czerwinski? No comment. She remains, here, unnamed. Narcissist, loners, unable to deal with human emotions. We see them in death by Train, or shooters in theaters and workplaces around the world. We hear about them in Japan, men that live with real live dolls." Social skills are lost.

When she said she wanted to live to 300 years and look like 20 and choose when she wants to die, Avi Reichental (CEO 3D Systems), the Holocaust cobblers son said “when you need spare parts, call me.”

Congresswoman Judy Chu, Marsha Blackrun, Lisa Rawlins, Senior VP at Warners spoke, followed by principals of 3D and the President of Disney. He said Hollywood is where people come. They don’t need degrees, he said in a town where College debt is talked on the Hill. He said they need ideas. This a point Congress needs to understand. It isn’t a degree that pays a bill or makes fortunes. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates are two Techies who come to mind. Matt Damon and Ben Affleck are Garage Entrepreneurs who made it big too. With online classes being pushed and entities like General Assembly and Media Bistro and Meetsups like Women Who Code offering new paths forward towards employment in the alternative to debt, it is important Congress take note to back off pushing college. Random poll of people who went for BA’s, MA’s, DR’s et al. Ask them the value of that paper they got, in the real world, they answer…. It’s BS.

Success will never be about a debt laden piece of paper. Success is about Work Ethics, and the P’s & Q’s of business, moreso in the La La Land of Hollywood where something written 18 years ago, can be pulled out of a drawer, dusted off and then go on to become Blockbuster.

Vice President Biden said immigration is constant, it comes in waves. He said, Steve Job’s advice was challenge orthodoxy, think different. Biden said America is hardwired for disruption. No. Boston Marathon Bombing? 9-11? Politicians are hardwired for disruption. People are not. Biden said stealing IP is theft from the US Gross National product. Yes. Google. Microsoft. Yahoo. Bing. Baidu, the Fagan’s of the User set stealing Intellectual Property. The true number of the damage done to America’s bottom line. Hate to tell the truth. No one knows. Stealing IP and ID is a crime done in private and in public and no one will every know. Biden said Embrace Reform. Change is good. Losing one’s moral compass is not.

The last panel was the Millenials. Imagine, Katie London (Senior Researcher Microsoft) does not even own a TV. Tony Goldwyn (Actor, Director, Producer) acknowledged the power of Tweets. Morgan Spurlock Filmmaker and Producer) says he fills the holes with Content fans want. Amy Powell (President Paramount Television) said Television becomes a Live Event when social media is involved.

Live events are when people are involved, not B2B or P2P but eyeball to eyeball, mano a mano and breath to breath, lost in a world of Binge Watching. A word to the wise to the partnership between Paramount and AP? Sure it reads good on paper unlimited access to people’s stories for content. People are savvier these days understanding the value of their IP and ID being compromised. Better nail your rights dead on, or….. badabing. Like Goldwyn said, fear is the enemy, welcome failure- what is in your head will evolve and change. Maybe people will be able to get back to being people.

And maybe then MPAA will remember the “A”’s in their industry

HR 3309 IS NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME (c) Carrie Devorah :

Case prep of Lawsuits is in the details. Layers of Fraud are uncovered during discovery. That was before the Process went Paperless.

2:00 a.m.

That should mean something to parties involved in the arena of Patent Law change. It did not mean anything to the Chairman of the Judiciary Bob Goodlatte at American Enterprise’s run up to Tuesday’s Judiciary Hearing. Alot can happen between 2:00 a.m. and when America wakes up. Hacking. Document Metadata being altered. Conversations that disappear. ISPs conscripted by the TOR Project assigned to Parties unknown.

Lawyers are discovering what Britain clued in to paperless fears in their Medical Care system- concerns over Disappearing Documents, electronic signatures, altering Metadata. Snapchat, disappearing conversations, is prepping for $200 million VC funding, some of which is coming from a South African investor. Saudi Arabia's prince is dipping into Twitter. Russian titans are in FB. Soon Americans will have nothing left. Maybe soon is now with their Privacy gone.

This is scary. Scarier is none of the above is part of the conversation for the process in H.R.3309. Nor would one presume it to be in a push led by Technology companies seeking Legal "green" lights to bust a way through to use of Owned Technology the Internet associations want access too. Just like Users email lists. Just like Facebook and Google+ becoming megaliths profiting without share back to Users for their content in its original form or from the advertising billions.

2:00 a.m. is the hour at which Patents are released, still on Tuesdays, after all these years. Is 2:00 a.m. just a factoid to be dismissed? No. It is a detail equally as important as shifting or terminating colons and commas in a Bill. 2:00 a.m. is an important detail for the Judiciary Chairman and his staff not to know. 2:00 a.m. is that ungodly hour American patents are published at, while half of humanity is wide awake, getting a 6+ hour head start on improving upon American innovation published for challenge, in the USPTO release.

Congressmen Goodlatte, DeFazio, Coble, Lofgren came together to introduce a Patent Litigation Reform Bill. Cosponsors of the bill include Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Anna Eshoo (D- Calif.), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), Tom Marino (R-Pa.), Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), and George Holding (R-N.C.). Fifty one pages of legalese was a quick read. One conclusion….

HR 3309 (http://judiciary.house.gov/news/2013/10232013%20%20Innovation%20Act.pdf113TH ) just isnt ready for Prime Time.

No, this observation didn’t come from reading HR 3309. I figured this out after attending the USPTO’s GIPA day long seminar addressing the “Madrid Protocol: Tips For Filing International Applications and Maintaining International Registrations.” GIPA? Global Intellectual Property Academy over at the USPTO campus in Alexandria.

Largely, lawyers and paralegals attended the panels presented by USPTO staff and WIPO attorneys, Rodrigo Garcia-Conde and Alan Datri. The overview sessions addressed filling out Madrid Protocol forms; e-pay, paperless Patent filings. Quite by chance, by observation, the conversation turned to Fraud- Patent Fraud. Patent Fraud takes place. Patent Fraud is documented. Patent Fraud was just not discussed until someone, moi, asking if Patent Fraud takes place, raising concern on building paper trails in a paperless world of litigation.

HR 3309 does not adress Fraud amongst all the points made in its 51 pages. Fraud, in a legal case, has repercussions even in a world where Millenials think nothing wrong of Snap Chats disappearing in seconds or metadata altered. A Google+ employee was matter of fact of his altering musical metadata. Web crawlers scrape metadata from content; online contracts alter without notice-of-change to their service users. The list goes on and on. Documentuary evidence can make or break a case. Falsified or absent papers? Doomsday.

A world full of trusting idiots who fell asleep at the wheel are now waking up to realizing their error to not advising Patent holders to preserve, maintain and backup copies of their original papers. Online security has emerged as an oxymoron. Has “Paperless” gone too far? Maybe.

WIPO’s Geneva based Rodrigo Garcia-Conde flew in for the Madrid Protocol panel. Garcia became eager when asked about security dangers for the Patent Process in an E-payment and Paperless world. Garcia-Conde didn’t think anyone wanted to see his Rogue’s File of Patent Fraud. I did. I think the Judiciary should too in that HR 3309 is intended to impact the Judicial process. I think the Judiciary should invite Rodrigo to show the seedy side of Patents, Hill staff overlooked in their race to placate Tech companies wanting access to OPT, Other People’s Technologies.

Garcia-Conde will tell Congress the other side to HR 3309 that must be considered in writing the Bill if it is to succeed. There is more than just the companies being sued for use of Patents by people whose ownership they questions. There are the stories of fraud victims who cannot pay for a redo of their fraudulent applications. Rodrigo’s big heart gets the better of him. The papers are processed. Empathy has a cost. In America, there is a penalty for filing fraudulent papers…… and such

Rodrigo will show Legislators that “WARNING NOTICE” is located page bottom, bottom right, seen only and when someone scrolls all the way down the virtual page. “WARNING NOTICE” should be upper right, bold, flashing. It should be, I told Rodrigo. He liked that idea. I hear Geneva is lovely come Spring.

Spring is a ways off. HR 3309 is here.

Page 6 of 51 of HR 3309 adresses “§ 285. Fees and other expenses.” It does not adress that many corporations set up shell companies to absorb litigation and absorb the hit. Technology giants keep a minimal presence in their home state Entity filings with a far greater number and variety in the Tax Haven states in Delaware and Nevada. Who then is sued? The corporation kept slim in its home state presence or shall the defendant be required to divulge all of its entities along with the holding company.

SEC. 4. of HR 3309 adresses “TRANSPARENCY OF PATENT OWNERSHIP.” It does not adress the stickywicket created when the US Government “crowdsources” as discussed at a Judiciary hearing, takes place.

Oddly enough, for a Bill which is promoted to adress Patent Trolls, the term does not appear once in the Bill. Wikipedia.com states “A patent troll, also called a patent assertion entity, is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. ...”

HR 3309 adresses Patent Trolls. It does not adress the process nor does it adress the other side of the litigation coin- shell companies set up to avoid judgment, doing so by homing in multiple states other than home state, more often that not, setting up in Tax Haven states, Delaware and Nevada, multiples of entities tethered to the parent corporation, declaring little stock in terms of “par shares” worth little in “stock value” mitigating judgment loss when taken to court then to task. Shell companies are found to be without officers and/or assets.

Chairman Goodlatte said “Abusive patent litigation is a drag on our economy. Everyone from independent inventors, to start-ups, to mid and large sized businesses face this constant threat. The tens of billions of dollars spent on settlements and litigation expenses associated with abusive patent suits represent truly wasted capital – wasted capital that could have been used to create new jobs, fund R&D, and create new innovations and technologies.”

The LA Times wrote “Goodlatte's bill would allow the manufacturer or supplier of an allegedly infringing product or component to intervene in suits brought against its customers — typically the end user of the product — shielding the latter while the court decides whether any infringement occurred.” Search Engines and ISPs must, then, be reminded they cannot hide behind defenses of Safe Harbor to distance themselves from Users’ Violations when using the Service. One cannot serve two masters. The Judiciary should not send out mixed signals under pressure from Big Technology. Or Small Companies. Using someone else’s Technology is just that.

Litigation is an enormous drain on time and finances for an ARTS creator defending their IP. Subcommittee Chairman Coble says, “This system is not working.” It is not. People winning IP challenges spend money to litigate, often left with judgments they cannot collect from shell corporations set up specifically to defend against judgment.

Counterfeit Items are on display at GIPA USPTO. Counterfeiters decided they prefered to utilize designs and Patents rather than license the Intellectual Property of golf clubs and balls and cameras
and sunglasses.

While the claim is HR 3900 ”Modernizes Fee Shifting”, question must be asked, what about companies that hide behind corporate shells to avoid court judgments and decisions. Section 285 as it is written is not judicial or fair.

Stating that “Patent trolls pad their pockets by buying patents on products they didn’t create and then suing companies from every industry for infringement,” is disconnected from Rights Procurement in other IP Industries. A fee comes with use whether or not the Person wanting to use that Technology believes the Patent owner has owned it long enough, a defense for IP activism held out by the EFF.

In all of the legislation there is ONE glaring oversight, that is the definition of a Patent Troll.

Patent Trolls are Patent Holders defending their rights, which it seems, Technology wants to use, so they do- go ahead and use it, reminiscent of Google Books? Remember. Google forged ahead with copying people’s books claiming this was done for the Good of Libraries. The matter has been prolonged and protracted in the Courts, Patent Troll gone Commando, Copyright Style.

Congress should not be making Technological advancement easier for Tech Companies by conscripting other people’s ideas. Deciding an Owner’s Limitations over their Patent will ripple over into Copyright and Trademarks. Tech companies have been active removing metadata, creating Orphans Works. Patents have a shelf life. If the Tech Companies want the patents, let them wait until the Patents are in the public domain or if they want access sooner, offer a good price or, in the alternative, take on the Founding Fathers challenge and do it better yourself.

There remain gaps in the Innovation Act. While the Innovation Act does not “diminish or devalue patent rights in any way”, it fails to adress fraud already known to exist in the filing system. It fails to adress the loss of historic papers in a world that raced to Go Green. It fails to adress that documents can be altered, files or systems can disappear or companies can be hacked. It fails to adress e-signatures so in fact court’s time and resources are not preserved. Greater transparency and information do make the patent system stronger. Rules have to be in place. As the USPTO staff attorneys say ‘we don’t make the laws, we just enforce what the guys over there (head toss in the direction of the US Capitol) write up as law. We don’t even interpret.”

Until then HR 3900 is not ready for primetime without adressing Fraud documented by WIPO to be occurring. As a Two-fer, make sure Patents are released at 8:00 – 9:00 a.m., a small thing but a big thing when it comes to protecting American exceptionalism.

The “Takeaway” here might be advice given by Fark.com founder Drew Curtis, during his Ted Talk. Curtis gives the impression he knew he took a step risking litigation when, he identified his aggregator as a News rather than PR aggregator in emails. Curtis’ said, “Fight the infringement not the Patent.” (http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_curtis_how_i_beat_a_patent_troll.html )

TO MITIGATE FAIR USE ABUSE? VISUALLY HIT THEM FIRST WHERE IT HURTS... PUT (4) WHERE (1) IS - MONEY FIRST
(c) Carrie Devorah :

17 USC § 107 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use is about Fair Use. 17 USC § 107 is highly abused. Why? Because of its order of (1) - (4). To mitigate? Turn it upside down to make the order run (4) - (1). Why? People think twice when it hurts them in their pocket books or wallet.....

It is a rule of thumb that people rarely read to the bottom of a page. I school people to read a page backwards- UP to TOP- to “get” the points they are missing. The eye is an Optic catching words by reversing the flow of the ‘read’, that are lost while reading in a flow. Reading in reverse makes words stand out as Individuals rather than being lost in the string of ‘tale telling.’

You want someone to see something, put it in their face where they cant miss it. In the marketing world, its called IDIOT PROOF MARKETING.

REPAGINATE

Put Clause 4 where Clause 1 is; Clause 1 where Clause 3 is; Clause 3 where Clause 2 is and Clause 2 where Clause 4 is assuring that what WILL be seen by lawyers arguing issues of Fair Use is the first declaration that FAIR USE isnt when a Copyright Owner is denied Income/Commerce.

“… shall include-
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work
from
“… shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.”

To review from beginning to end, the repaginated 17 USC § 107 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use, will read:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
[1] the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work ( formerly (4))
[2] the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole (formerly (3))
[3] the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes (formerly (1))
[4] the nature of the copyrighted work (formerly (2))

_
STEVE KRAMARSKYs ARTICLE ON WHAT IS FAIR USE
(c) Carrie Devorah :
_

A peer sent me a link. He asked my thoughts. He knows I am speaking up for 2D IP, ID and Commerce. IP? One of the rights the Founding Fathers gave us, a Property Right being stolen one webcrawler at a time. The first thing I did is track down attorney Kramarsky. Hi Five! An attorney who should be testifying before Congress but the Judiciary manages to find mostly voices of witnesses wanting to strip IP, Intellectual Property, owners of their rights, in lock step with the Register of Copyrights, ISPs and Search Engines. Got to wish I was doing the Witness Casting for the theatre the world calls Congress. Good one, here Congressmen Goodlatte and Upton!

Stephen Kramarsky wrote a lengthy article on What is Fair Use, suggesting that Google May Have The Answer. http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202610952208 . I answer. No. Google does not.

In the eyes of countless 2D IP creators, Google is their problem. Increasingly, so. Along with Yahoo, AOL, Bing, the list goes on. THOSE are the search engines revealed to persons in North America. What is not revealed are the multiple search engines in countries around the world using images removed without authorization or permission or license from 2D IP owners.

The question lawyers, IP and otherwise, should be addressing with clients wanting to use IP they themselves did not create, is not “Can I (the client) use this?” (without risking getting caught, but “why not do it yourself, make your own” or risk getting sued for Unauthorized Use, something lawyers are at risk for in these days of the Internet- removing a copyright owner’s 2D IP from the Internet, to make a point in their case, violating the IP Owners copyright and culpable of Unauthorized Use, themselves. Being a lawyer is not a license to steal, even IP.

Clients know there are laws protecting someone else’s work, keyword PROTECTING. Moreso than ever before, Copyright laws are used as guides on ‘how to steal IP and hopefully not get caught.’ The concerted effort in Congress by Search Engines and ISP lobbyists and wonks is to orchestrate convincing hearings and presentations to Congress toward the Search Engines and ISPS goals of removing more and more Copyright ownership, to change Copyright ownership defined by time- Life+ 70- creating a GREAT NEW COPYRIGHT LAW that will protect and monetize their use of ORPHAN WORKS neutered technologically from 2D IP by webcrawlers and such.

There is a dirty secret the Search Engines and ISPS aren’t keen to admit to. They are behind advancing technologies creating the Orphan Works they want use of. In fairness, I have covered this topic in my comment filed with Maria Pallante. Rather than repeat myself, here… http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/noi_10222012/Devorah-Carrie.pdf Easier read than repeated.

Clients who want to make use of someone else’s work without license or permission should be told by their attorney out of the chute “ it isnt yours, go make it yourself but DON’T USE WHAT BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE. In the American courts, taking what doesn’t belong to you is called theft. END OF STORY.” If your client was in China or India intending to steal someone’s IP, they’d be processed through the Criminal Courts, a model I want to see used here in North America.

An honest attorney would tell his client, listen, you want my advice, you heard it. You get sued, you know how to find me for X dollars an hour. Go forth and pro-creative rather than putting time into figuring out IF you can get away with stealing, under the definition of FAIR USE.

FAIR USE is clearly defined. How a court adjudicates FAIR USE does come down to how well a lawyer communicates with the Arts Protecting Community, artists versed in the value of a copyright rather than referring only to case history.

Abusers of FAIR USE focus on the ‘how much can be used without being caught’ part of the definition, while 2D IP creators focus on loss of their income “(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the work.”

Fact is, there is no market left for the 2D IP creator once webcrawlers have stolen their IP. Like my grandmother used to say, ‘why pay for milk if the cow gives it away for free.’ The term “Transformative” does not even belong in the equation. What the heck is “transformative?” If you take what is mine, no matter HOW you parse it, doll it up or otherwise, it was still MINE that you took. Go on to google gallery Images, search my name and Click. Transformative, my foot. Google is giving away for free, my images in Small, Medium, Large and Actual Size, usable as thumbnails or avatars or as large as the images can go hence putting representing Agencies like mine, and me, out of business.

On point and record for the value of “Transformative” is AP v Shepard Fairey. Shepard had a home run on Unauthorized Use until he opened his mouth outing himself for having used AP stringer, Manny Garcia’s photo of Obama at the George Clooney presser. Yes, back then, Obama was a “move, your blocking my shot” guy standing next to La George.

The problem with many Law Review articles is they are being written by professors who aught to spend more time talking to 2D IP creators than writing articles. Theft of IP comes at a cost- to artists, to art institutions, to Creative Sorts of all kinds and connections. Anyone who is afraid to get out in the real world and make their living based on their smarts should not be tossing in their two cents worth until they try it themselves. 2D IP Creators are not only the entrepreneurs of the past but the way the economy is going under the STEAL THIS IP administration, owning one’s IP without having to fight tooth and nail for it may just be what keeps people out of the poorhouse, including salaried professors with tenure (or hoping for it) whose University wont be able to pay their salary or pension because students wont be able to attend… you got it… a modern day version of For The Want Of A Nail A Kingdom Is Lost…. faster even so in these days and times using Webcrawlers. Think of the Flying Monkey Army the Wicked Witch of the West sent out to terrorize the world outside of her castle, and their mission to bring Dorothy, Toto, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion and Straw Man back. THAT is what Webcrawlers are…. Nasty things that steal and destroy hopes, in the name of technological advancement.

Perfect 10 is a case that cost the 2D IP community, dearly. That decision CAN and will be undone. It comes down to lawyers with clients who understand the worth of their IP. Pornography is not even part of the equation. There is NO difference between a flesh and blood woman taking her top (and bottom) off for Perfect 10 or a sculpture down at the National Gallery of Art. A naked body is a naked body. What cost the case was understanding. License agreements clarify there is no such thing as transformative when it comes to the arts otherwise anyone drawing a mouse would be in violation, potentially of Mickey. Licensors portion off rights to licensees defining territories defined by land, use and time. THAT puts an end to Transformative as a defense. Zada’s images, on any and all of the sites used on should have been won on that merit alone. That and, Judge Chin, the country was founded on the principles of the Ten Commandments. Thou Shalt Not Steal applies to everyone, including GOOGLE.

Google can maintain all it wants “increases the visibility of many works, while still protecting authors’ rights.” If GOOGLE wants to be a licensing agent for 2D IP (1) that is my idea so Google, pay the lady and (2) get in line and sign a contract with the creator other than that, otherwise, as the expression goes ‘one can put as much paint as you want on the ol’ search engines face, but a whore will always be a whore.’

A thief will always be a thief.

I SWEAR ON THE BOOK OF MORMON (c) Carrie Devorah :

FIGHT THEFT OF COPYRIGHTS
<>
SUPPORT

A ROCKSTAR
AGAINST
IP & ID ABUSE BY
TECHNOLOGY

_________________
WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
____________________

___________________
Capitol Hill Switchboard
(202) 224 3121 _____________________

WRITE YOUR
SENATOR
___________________

__________________
KNOW YOUR CONGRESSMAN OR
SENATOR
?
SEARCH BY ZIPCODE
__________________

Create
The 2D ARTS IP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
PROTECTION
ACT
FOR
TREASURED
HEIRLOOM
ARTS
LEGACY
INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
PROTECTION
SIGN THE PETITION

______________

__________________
TELL HERE HOW COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT HURT YOU ______________

_____
TELL
TECHNOLOGY
KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF
MY
COPYRIGHT

HONORING THOSE WHO GAVE THEIR ALL
SO WE MIGHT HAVE OUR
PROPERTY RIGHTS
THANK YOU

The wild west of the Internet has unleashed a commerce tsunami of unauthorized, unlicensed, unregulated behaviours impacting Broadway performances economic stability in the worst of ways. Broadway show ticket prices are going higher and higher. Producers, investors, owners and union have caved to scalpers exploitation of consumer passion for Broadway shows. Scalped tickets are sold on the street and online. To no surprise, tickets are still being bought after all business profits on Demand = Fulfillment.

Rather than beat the scalpers by implementing viable roadblocks to stem the scalpers abusing the passion of show goers, the tactic Broadway took was to join scalpers in charging the sky high ticket prices audience was paying. After all, as in politics, consumers don’t boycott, they pay then complain.

The Book of Mormon is sold out years in advance. Specialty seat prices top $477.00. Regular seat ticketing prices start at $175 a ticket plus a $2 per ticket handling charge. The Book of Mormon fills the house every show. The Book of Mormon tickets are not on discount as are other Broadway shows for which last minute ticket buyers can purchase at TKTS in Duffys Square, for 80% or less off the seat price. Audience can buy SRO standing room only tickets for cheap. Audience can wait on the cancellations line or even enter their name in to a lottery drawing for tickets that aren’t cheaper than regular seats just another chance to get an available ticket or two per customer. A lucky someone might snag a ticket being given away for free from someone with a leftover ticket feeling in the holiday spirit.

Minimal steps have been taken to regulate violation of ticket sales from sources other than the theatres themselves despite there being printed on the back of a tickets “Tickets purchased from unauthorized sources may be counterfeit or otherwise invalid; such purchases are made at your own risk. This ticket may not been copied nor reproduced in any form. Management reserves the right to revoke any rights granted herein including without limitation, to eject any person whose conduct is deemed disorderly or for the protection of other patrons. RESALE PROTECTIONS: venues in NY: this ticket cannot be resold within 500 feet of the venue for this event. Venues in PA: this ticket may not be resold at a price exceeding the established price printed on the ticket plus 25% of the price of the ticket or the sum of five dollars whichever shall be more plus lawful taxes other than pursuant to section 2(c) of 2007 PA laws 32 or by ticket brokers duly licensed by a city of the first class as of June 1 2007. Other resale restrictions may apply to venues in other states.” The problem is not the warning but failure to enforce the policy. Scalpers violate the 500 feet Resale Protection by standing outside theatre doors. Scalpers are even brazen enough to enter theatre lobbies soliciting people standing on the Cancellation Line.

The Eugene O’Neill theatre guest facilitator cautions buying tickets from scalpers, stubhub.com and similar sources because the ticket may be a fake. The Theatre industry facilitates scalpers by allowing purchasers of scalped tickets to SCAN the scalped ticket to vet its authenticity. No word if the scalper sticks around to hear from the scalped ticket purchaser to see if the paid for ticket is authentic.

Judge Judy presided on her TV show over the claim by three men seeking reimbursement of bogus tickets they bought from a scalper outside of a baseball game. The men sued the original ticket holder with whom they had no contact. They could not find the scalper. Somewhere between the owner and the reseller, the owner’s tickets were duplicated and sold multiple times.

There are two models theatre industry can implement theater tickets being scalped. Model 1 would impliment Resale Royalty Act initiated in California. The Resale Royalty Act provides Resale Benefits to the person who owns the copyright, providing them entitlements to proceeds from the “purchase as or not as contracted.” At issue is the willingness of show producers to invest a little bit more into the price of the show tickets. Model 2 is using design on to the ticket face of the event/shows copyright and Trademarked images placing the scalper, selling the ticket, in violation of unauthorized use of a Trademark. If the sale is online and interstate, the scalper might be in violation of RICO, wire act. This model works if venue owners are willing to pay for the design of tickets bearing the shows copyrighted name and logo. The ticket bearing the copyrighted images could become collectibles for theatre goers.

At fault? Consumers willing to pay the price of an event ticket at all cost. Consumers paid $48000 for a single 12 12 12 concert seat offered on Craigslist. No word on if any of that $48,000 money went to the Robin Hood Foundation to help the victims of Hurrican Sandy.

Bottom line, the failure of scalped ticket enforcement remains with Legislators failing to uphold original copyright and IP Intellectual property law. Instead, legislators pandering to constituents, dilute the original intention of Copyright Law. Reselling of artwork, dance, etc without authorization is the same violation no different of the skill or discipline. Legislators are best served to define legal speed bumps that allow copyright holders to pursue unauthorized copyrights users easier in courts. Fair Usage as a unauthorized users defense must be eliminated. Owning a copyright is owning a copyright. Using something that does not belong to you is stealing, one of the Ten Commandments legislators legislate under.

I swear on the Book of Mormon….

______________________________________________________________________________________________
ALL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STARTS with a Pencil &Paper in 2D(dimension)
Everything Else about IP(intellectual property) comes down to COMMERCE .
_______________________________________________________________________________________________