JUDICIARY : Keep Tabs On Judiciary 2D IP . ID . (C) & Commerce

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

JUDICIARY : Keep Tabs On Judiciary 2D IP . ID . (C) & Commerce [ You Are On This CLICKs Page ]

INDEX :

CONGRESS FLIPS FROM POKEMON-GO IN HALLOWED HALLs TO POKEMON NO GO Overnight When Privacy Became Concern (c) Carrie Devorah :

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLANNED PARENTOOD DIDN'T PLAN FOR THE ISSUE OVER FETAL TISSUE (c) Carrie Devorah :
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      New York is a one-party kinda town, make that a "one-party consent" law town.

      It is criminal to record an “in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents,” N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05. Which means if you decide to perform a sting in New York state against maybe Planned Parenthood and a StemExpress doctor gushing about Crunchy baby fetal baby parts, you are good to point, click “record” and shoot, that is presuming the video was shot in New York. Each state has its own rules for recording.

      StemExpress is a Placerville, California “…multi-million dollar company that supplies human blood, tissue products, primary cells and other clinical specimens to biomedical researchers.” StemExpress says “Our human tissue products range from fetal to adult and healthy to diseased...” Ironically considering the brouha, StemExpress is listed #35 on Inc 5000 of Inc’s Fastest-Growing Women-Led Private Companies in America. StemExpress’ 2013 revenue was $2.2 million. StemExpress CEO is Cate Dyer. The listing states that StemExpress “supplies biomedical researchers with human blood, tissue products, bone marrow, primary cells, and the clinical specimens they need to perform their research.[1]

      The circulated viral videos of StemExpress doctors awoke people to Planned Parenthood’s practice of custom sales of baby fetal parts, domestically. Nothing has been said about Planned Parenthood’s international reach or about Planned Parenthood’s filed Form 990’s Schedule F, Foreign Forms. Those government forms tell another part of the Planned Parenthood international story, listing the non-profit’s grants given to Sub-Saharan Africa, Central America Caribbean, South America. Planned Parenthoods Form 990’s describe their international relationships are about Reproductive Health, monies moved with wire transfers.

      Contraceptive supplies are moved, too.

      The other ‘more’ to Planned Parenthood’s international story is IPPF. IPPF is International Planned Parenthood Federation.

      Planned Parenthood Federation of America, PPFA, is a non-profit. Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the largest affiliated part of IPPF International Planned Parenthood Federation. Planned Parenthood Federation of America collaborates with the United Nations Development Program aka UNDP, the United Nations Children's Fund aka UNICEF, the United Nations Population Fund aka UNFPA, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development aka OECD and WHO, the World Health Organization. IPPF is PPFA’s European arm in association with the United Nations.

      Congressman Randy Forbes has been raising question as to the United Nations. Planned Parenthood is another arrow in Congressman Forbe’s get-rid of the UN.

      The International Planned Parenthood Federation was organized 1946, in Stockholm Sweden by the Riksforbundet for Sexuell Upplysning; 1948, the International Congress on Population and World Resources in Relation to the Family was held in Chelthenham, England; and since. The International Planned Parenthood Federation was formed in 1952, in Bombay India.

      Planned Parenthood was started in 1914, in America. The US affiliate of IPPF, Planned Parenthood, in 1942. The movement in America began when three women challenged existing Comstock laws. Comstock laws cracked down on mail distribution of lewd, obscene or lascivious publications. The women, Emma Goldman, Mary Dennett and Margaret Sanger distributed their leaflets on self-induced abortions and childbirth concerns. Sanger sent out her newsletter on contraception called “The Woman Rebel.” Sanger had set out to break the law. Instead, she broke the glass ceiling of women’s rights.

      IPPF has since grown to more than 149 Member Associations operating in more than 189 countries. IPPF is now located in London, England. IPPF is funded through the European Commission, the United Nations Population Fund for special projects, through governments, trusts, foundations. and from government official development aid programs.

      Planned Parenthood said it was going to adress child health services, maternal and reproductive health care. Planned Parenthood expanded it’s causes. Planned Parent involved itself in policy. Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. was set up to lobby for the non-profit’s publicized interests. Somehow, selling baby fetal parts had not managed to infiltrate Planned Parenthood’s conversations, that is until….

      The StemExpress undercover videos exposed Planned Parenthood’s downplayed covert activities.

       There is a wrinkle or two for Planned Parenthood. The I.R.S. requires all non-profits to state their mission statement correctly in the annually filed Form 990. Transacting in stocks and investments as donations has compliance requirements, too. As it is, selling fetal tissue and body parts is not stated on Planned Parenthood’s Form 990.

        Guidestar.org shows 202 Planned Parenthood sites filing Form 990s, 7 in New York. New York State Department of Corporations lists 18, Planned Parenthoods.

      The Schedule O addresses Board responsibility, not Mission Statement.

      Planned Parenthood declares on it’s filed I.R.S. Form 990 that the non-profit does grant giving to foreign countries, including Africa. Selling body parts is a problem in Africa just like selling body parts is a problem in America. Trafficking in body parts and tissues is taboo yet it is done.

      Body parts are sold and bought for “medical” purpose too. “Medicine murders” are also called “Muti” murders or ritual murders. The human body parts are wanted for black magic medicines. Muti murders are an open secret. Hospitals sell dead body parts like bones, hearts, brains, genital organs, tongues, ears, eyes, hands, legs, lungs, arms, jaws, fingers, and other human body parts. While Fetal body parts are not listed, it will be fair to ask about now, post the StemExpress video. You see, even Muti magic covets body parts are taken while the body is alive, just like described in by Stemexpress doctor seeking source for her undercover videotaping “clients.”

      StemExpress states on its sites that it’s clients “donate” their body part. This would beggar the notion that Planned Parenthood had its clients sign Fetal Tissue and/or Parts contracts with it’s clients that Planned Parenthood then passed forward to StemExpress. That said, StemExpress’ website says it seeks donors of wholeblood, bone marrow, maternal blood and white blood cells. A search for “fetal tissues” donations comes back “No Hits.” StemExpress says on it’s site that StemExpress gives its donors a $25 to $250 gift card. A $25 to $250 gift card to Planned Parenthood for each fetal donation adds up to more than chump change for Planned Parenthood.

            Planned Parenthood may be misleading Donors. Planned Parenthood’s website solicits donations for “critical services like cancer screenings, birth control and safe, legal abortion deliver reliable, accurate health information; and fight to ensure all people can access quality, affordable health case, no matter what.” Planned Parenthood states “your gift will be shared equally between your local Planned Parenthood affiliate and Planned Parenthood Federation of America… no doubt the most important is the satisfaction of knowing that your support helps advance reproductive and sexual health information and access for people across the globe!”

      No clarification is that “people across the globe” may be the U.N. programs funded government agencies in the U.K. and elsewhere.

      Planned Parenthood solicits a donation alternative to cash. Planned Parenthood solicits donations of stocks and investments, advising the donor to “instruct your broker or bank to call 800-430-4907 to speak with someone on our donor services team or if you hold the physical securities, you can directly mail or hand deliver the certificate(s) without any endorsement or assignment to the address below” at 434 West 33rd Street, New York, New York 10001.

      Donors are told “Your gift of securities will entitle you to a federal income tax charitable deduction when you itemize your tax returns. And in the case of appreciated securities, you may deduct the full fair market value of your gift once you have held onto the securities for at least one year. You may use your deduction up to 30 percent of your adjusted gross income and are permitted to carry any unused deduction forward for up to five additional years. In addition, you will avoid paying capital gains tax on all stock that you chose to donate to Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”

      Donors are told to enclose a cover letter that states the purpose of the Donors gift “(for example, "to benefit all of the national programs of PPFA"). And in a separate envelope, please include a signed stock power form for each gift. (Please note that except for your signature exactly as your name appears on the stock certificate, the stock power form should be blank)” along with a Stock Power form. Some of the Planned Parenthood affiliates tell the Donors which investment advisor firm to work the donation through.

      The I.R.S. says “Donations of stock or other non-cash property are usually valued at the fair market value of the property.”

            Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s International Program is headquartered in New York with 40 staff based in the U.S., Latin America, and Africa. The International regional offices are located in Nairobi, Kenya, and Miami, Florida. Planned Parenthood Federation of America says it co-founded the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

      Planned Parenthood says its “work in the United States to influence foreign policies that affect women’s health and rights worldwide… In Washington, DC, we focus on elevating women’s health issues in broader foreign and economic policy, improving the effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid for family planning and reproductive health….”

      Planned Parenthood says its driving mantra is “When women are able to exercise their rights and access health care, they are able to make informed decisions, free of discrimination, coercion, and violence,” with a stated alleged goal to “to improve the quality of life for women by increasing access to comprehensive reproductive health care and rights.” Trafficking of human tissue seems to be in another “category.”

     Women made choices based upon Planned Parenthood's representations. The question is would Donors and women have made the decision they did if Planned Parenthood had told them their fetus would become Medical Sushi. Deception is not a good thing. It invites ingestigation, in this case, international investigation.

      The IRS tax tip states, “If your goal is a legitimate tax deduction, then you must be giving to a qualified organization. Also, you cannot deduct contributions made to specific individuals, political organizations and candidates,” IRS Publication 526, Charitable Contributions, for rules on what constitutes a qualified organization.

      With Congress calling for heads to roll at the I.R.S., Congress may realize, through the Planned Parenthood travesty, there is a value to the I.R.S. that trusts until notified otherwise, that submitted tax papers are truthful.

       Philanthropedia gives Planned Parenthood a Gold Star rating. That rating was given before the trafficking of human body parts broke news. Since? Planned Parenthood has forever redefined the benchmark for “trust but verify.”

[1] http://www.inc.com/graham-rapier/top-50-women-led-companies.html

WHERE HAVE ALL THE ARTISTS GONE (c) Carrie Devorah :

The hearing on the 14th started on time which is something to be said for Capitol Hill. The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet held a hearing by Chairman Coble under the guise of "The Scope Of Copyright Protection.""

The witnesses included David Nimmer, counsel to Irell & Minella LLP, Glyn S Lunney jr, McGlinchey Staffor Professor of Law at Tulane University Law School, Mark Schiltz Associate Professor of Law and Director of Faculty Development Southern Illinois University School of Law, James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International Patricia Griffin Vice President and General Counsel of American National Standards Institute and Carl Malamud President Public Resource.

The Chairman's question that is of note, testimony and all, addressed the change of the past twenty years in copyright. The change of note is that the consumer and privacy have been drawn in to the conversation of copyright that focused at its onset on the commercial use of copyright. With file sharing, the consumer is now a verb and adjective here. The Chairman followed with a question addressing WIPO and foreign movement in copyright and public performance. The response is of note that while WIPO might like a hat trick post the Marrakech Treaty the movement that is going to get to where it is going in time is a diplomatic agreement of performance rights that may or may not be in lock step with rules of Copyrights current journey.

What is interesting to hear is the references to Performance Rights. In the eyes of the consumer, Performance is stage is Broadway when in fact Performance is what is watched on TV, in the mind and understanding of the everyday person. What goes out over the airwaves, is what the consumer is infringing within seconds of items hitting what used to be airwaves. And then Napster happened, a few years after a witness acknowledged he wrote an opinion addressing distribution which has since changed. Distribution once was something that would change hands. Distribution has come down in the Internet Age, to a click. Today, his opinion is updated to include the changed definition of distribution to include movement by Click.

Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, gave a moment for the witnesses to revisit points raised in the hearing they did not cover in their testimony. James Love suggested that people need to be able to be given a chance to understand the laws they are being told to abide by. David Nimmer said statutory damages need to be revisited. Professor Schultz said the DCMA paradigm is broken, naive and needs to be revisited. Google received its hundred millionth take down notice. Schultz said the everyday person cannot afford to chase every infringement. James Love brought up the issue of Orphan Works, stating he believed the US is on the wrong side of the TPP conversation reminding legislators music is not covered under the Berne Convention. David Nimmer raised the issue of grey market goods being brought into the country impacting America, an issue that was exacerbated by Congress.

Congresswoman Judy Chu adressed the issue of online theft towards the goal of streamlining. David Nimmer supported Small Claims court as a way towards this end goal. Corrected by ...... stating download as part of a prima facia case in file sharing is off base. He said only a few hundred of cases ever go to trial. stating their download is then in play as evidence in the case by tracking the ISP. That is unless the person's computer 'crashes.' Lunney responded to Chu's question about Aereo. Lunney pointed out the courts are locking horns in responses to Aereo. Lunney was clear to point out the reality is addressing where t he revenue for this model is coming from. AND that the courts are the swing here, potentially impacting how copyright is impacted here. What was not said that the revenue, so to speak has been made by these models. AEREO is a project of Barry Diller, having received Seed and VC money along the way with the Silicon Valley mindset that out of ten that are seeded, in startups, one might hit it and if it hits it, hits it big.

Nimmer raised the issue of Moral Rights that America unwillingly begrudgingly agreed to as part of Berne. Nimmer was responding to a question by Congressman Holding, who expressed concern on the issue of copyright adjustments on Free Trade Agreements. Congressman Holding asked the table for opinions of how other countries are handling copyright. One can only hold their head and weep. It is a simple click away if one's committee and staff did their work rather than rely on interpretations of individuals each with their own agendas. Lacking from the panel was an actual representative of the arts community in a matter adressing copyright policy.

A witness might know an artist but knowing the ARTS is another ball game completely

Deutsch raised focus on how one user can share millions of files. The witness said copyright should not be a never ending spigot, assuming as if a competing publisher offered competitive work in the marketplace stating file sharing is ok. Deutch reiterated wanted to understand why file sharing on the internet is not ok when the big box retailer can be guilty of the same- illegal copies. The head shaker is that books are physical, visible and can be carted away while what goes online is like the Vegas commercial- hidden, behind the scenes, and except, unlike Vegas- does not stay in Vegas
referred to diminishment on amount of revenue that should be going to Copyright owners.

Marino asked if the system can be best served by the industry setting standards. the question that is obvious and loud is WHICH INDUSTRY. There are too many to set standards that way which will only lead to further and father dissolution of people to make their livings. Patricia Griffin said consumer should be at the table. WHERE ARE THE ARTISTS?

Copyright is not all a bout music it is prominent about music because music is part of our lives.

Lunney said current system is based upon a 1998 paradigm that requires a separate notice sent for every file. Lunney said if you are the site host profiting in advertising and payment said criminal law should be applied to file sharing. Marino, a former criminal prosecutor, asked about derivative works asked. The witness said he did not have a problem with file sharing if someone takes a poem from a book then puts it to music and makes millions while the author cannot make a living, the witness said it is a derivative work and he has no problem with that.

Darrell Issa asked Patricia griffin said it is a balance between copyright holders stating into the record that his input into the bill is that people have access to ALL the laws they are bound to be under

Jeffries adressed court intent in the issue of artists content creators benefiting from the fruit of their labors. said all agree that a copyright competitor and sells it for less is not a copyright infringer while someone who performs Romeo and Juliet as west side story is not a copyright infringer. Jeffries says file sharing is a study into people and behaviour in this case the case study being copyright. He said as an economist if someone is losing income because of a competitor then they were making too much money to begin with.

Jeffries wants to know if a balance that should be sought is the Register Of Copyrights said in 1965 that we don’t know what the law will be like going forward. Computers had arrived. Comment was derivative of a 10 year study. Lunney tells his students his name rhymes with funny and his is not crazy

Collins challenged Lunney on his statement adressing 'just a poet.' Collins pointed out poets have changed the world citing contemporary. It was just a poet who wrote The Battle Hymn Of The Republic. Asked what is an adaptation of Carl Malamud. Asked what an annotation is. Annotation is copyrighted. Saying you cant take someone else's book and copy it, call it your own. Collins said that is wrong- cite the SCOTUS handbook sold on half.com
AOC is stating pics are copyrighted. Collins said the bigger step is the bigger pictures. Said cannot state that annotation is the law in that it has been transformed. Taking free stuff, the work of someone else. Need to find proper balance. The law itself is non negotiable. Annotation is not. It is work done by someone else. if you do the work the protection is there. If you take a short cut,, not.

Nadler questioned on bit torrent users. Lunney said anyone who access would pay a levy that would be overseen by a new organization. Would have to decide how to file share along the lines of ASCAP. Malamud was polite. He said he would not prejudge Lunney's idea. Another professor, Fisher, at Harvard proposed a tax. CONGRESS NEEDS TO STEP AWAY FROM THE PROFESSORS as witnesses

ASCAP is a system people enter voluntarily.

There are alot of private rights entities that do solve problems. Love said there is a history of compulsory licenses. The problem is, compulsory licenses have not solved yet it. The suggestion was made to let the Consumer pick way to pay artists through sampling- ie madonna,

There is a model. It is called kickstarter. It is called crowdfunding.

Farenthold asked how many bad guy infringers are downloading and getting away with it. Lunney said the worst part of make available right is that one would never know. IF someone donated a used book to the library or goodwill, is that file sharing?

Farenthold said he file shares within his household. Farenthold says his music files are being shared to his wife, TV, computer. Malamud set it is not file sharing if it is private BUT signals cross through walls. said does he have to negotiate with is local broadcasters to put a sling box in his set so he can watch local Corpus Christi broadcasting while he is in DC.

Patricia Griffin adressed why SEO's are kept low not adressing that money is made from clicks and selling email adresses.

Hank Johnson reminded the gathered that Section 105 is exempt from Copyright otherwise countless lawyers would be infringers. While Johnson thanked Malamud for publishing official state codes. Malamud explained that bulk data is not available. DC waived copyright on the Code. stating that volunteers "improved" the official code. SEARCH HIS ORGANIATION volunteers maybe but who is making money.

Desantis said concern for public safety was the guiding principle. Malamud says he looks for codes that have best presentation of law but then isn’t there the reality that what he is presenting is NOT the law and then a danger because it is not word for word into the law. Griffin said at the end of the day it is about access and if the public has access . Desantis asked what is the risk to the consumer who is not at the table with the mission related organizations who take the standards them sell them for profit to fulfill their mission then who loses are the tax payers who, no one stated, are the ones who funded the standards being written

Zoe Lungren reminded people about SOPA saying she does not believe the public opinion has changed in a year. She said ‘its not going to happen'. She said should review issue of statutory damages. RIIA brought a case against a single mother for downloading images. She said the statutory scheme is irrational and needs to be changed. She said she spent alot of time on Orphan Works and gave up and said it is up to congress to revisit cutting the term and wants to undo her yes vote. The only question to ask of her is, do you have an heirloom in your home and how will you feel when government tells you it is yours for life+ 70. How will you feel parting with your heirloom?

According to Zoe, Congress is afraid of SOPA. She said the path to Wikileaks is SOPS and if SOPA is in the TPP it is dead.

Sheila Jackson Lee capsulated well the internet- that can be seen and that that cannot be seen. Sheila Jackson Lee asked if Congress should change Copyright law - yes or no?

_
Apr 25 2014 Goodlatte Statement on World Intellectual Property Day Washington, D.C. (c) Carrie Devorah:
_

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) released the following statement marking World Intellectual Property (IP) Day.

Chairman Goodlatte: "When the Framers of our great nation crafted the U.S. Constitution, they saw fit to include provisions to provide for the protection of intellectual property. They believed that if authors and inventors had the exclusive ability to use and reap a return on their creations for a limited time, then those artists and inventors would have the financial incentive to create new and exciting products that would benefit society and our economy.

"Today, America is the world leader in innovation and creativity precisely because of our Framers’ foresight and our nation’s strong intellectual property laws. Intellectual property rights in America are a major driving force and job-creating engine of our economy.

"This vital sector of our economy must be protected and able to flourish. Last year, at an event marking World IP Day, I announced that the House Judiciary Committee would conduct a comprehensive review of U.S. copyright law to determine whether the laws are still working in the digital age. As technology continues to rapidly advance, we must ensure that our copyright system can keep pace.

"As part of the copyright review, the Judiciary Committee has held over a half dozen hearings covering issues like the Copyright Principles Project, the roles of the copyright and technology industries in our economy, the scope of copyright protection, voluntary agreements, and the notice and takedown provisions. The Committee intends to continue this thorough review in the months ahead."

Background: April 26, 2014 is the 14th Annual World IP Day. This day was designated by the member nations of the World Intellectual Property Organization in order to raise awareness about how patents, copyright, and trademarks impact daily life, to raise understanding of how protecting IP rights helps promote creativity and innovation, to celebrate the contributions of creators and innovators to societies around the world, and to encourage respect for the IP rights of others.

CHAIRMAN COBLE'S COPYRIGHT 8 BALL WORD TO GET BEHIND- STEALING (c) Carrie Devorah :

Law is business. Stealing Intellectual Property is a crime. Yet, American doesnt quite have the mojo to put laws Congress passes in sync with Enforcement responsible to enforce those laws.

Yet. I am working on it.

A year ago, Congresswoman Judy Chu, California, asked "Where are the artists?" Congresswoman Sheila Jackson, Texas, echoed Judy, too. Why, why, why are men so slow to get what women say? Some author said, it is how we phrase the question, asking ‘can you’ versus ‘will you.’ Maybe, had the question been asked “Why did you not put actual ARTS Content creators instead of these same old witnesses some of whom testified on Orphan Works over 7 years ago?,” the men would have got to where Congressman Marino is today and Congressman Issa, beginning to realize, Intellectual Property is being adressed outside the border of “American Exceptionalism,” with a leg up on where the American Legislators are, adresing IP in the world, today.

Mmmm, probably not. Legislators staff are still drawing on professors and lawyers for witnesses along with IT vested entities with a dog in the Copyright Fight. For many of these witnesses, it isnt their first time up at the Rodeo, still riding the same old bull.

As to where are the ARTISTs? I began gathering them the week, Congresswoman Chu asked her question. And I began aggregating for IP owners, Legislators, Enforcement and Innovators, hyperlinks and insights, into a predictive e-zine, The Center For Copyright Integrity, [ www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com ] to bring the world of Intellectual Property Infringements and Court challenges to Copyright, Trademark and Patent owners. Precious time has been lost with the whack-a-mole approach Congress is being led to decide. Led? Yes. Congress is being distracted away from the crimes that are being broken. Activist judges on various circuits are not hearing the voice of the stakeholders being robbed systematically.

Too much talking going on in a world without borders. That statement alone speaks volumes as to the magnitude of the crimes. It could be cute to say “call the crime what you want- piracy, theft, infringement.” But it isn’t cute at all. It is confusing, trust me from someone who learned every cop, every beat, every county and culture has their own lingo from breaking in to a car with a screwdriver. The matter was mitigated when officers were brought to common word. Enforcement around the world is still learning about common word from a colleague of mine in the UK I would tell Congress to get here and now, Alan Hiscox, an expert in wrangling Police Departments and horses. Congress and Copyright, for Alan? Alan got a horse to jump through a wall of paper on fire. Congress and Copyright would be a snap. (www.alanhiscox.com)

Until a Common word is used as the verb for the crime that is being perpetrated, a word that is actionable allowing law enforcement of all levels to move forward, to tackle the magnitude of this exponential crime, theft of Intellectual property, addressing theft of IP- be it Copyright, Patent, Trademark, Identity and Commerce- will remain like a dog trying to catch its tail- going round and round in circles… until….

Congress needs one word to get ahead of the Copyright 8 ball. Stealing says it best as one word to describe theft of Intellectual Property, agreed?

SafeGuarding Your Data Future Popup Blocker

CRM Pop Up Blocker

Chairman Coble is trying to do just that. A few months back, Coble, Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet convened a hearing titled "The Scope Of Copyright Protection." Staffers are cute at picking hearing names. Witnesses included David Nimmer, counsel to Irell & Minella LLP, Glyn S Lunney jr, McGlinchey Stafford Professor of Law at Tulane University Law School, Mark Schultz Associate Professor of Law and Director of Faculty Development Southern Illinois University School of Law, James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International Patricia Griffin Vice President and General Counsel of American National Standards Institute and Carl Malamud President Public Resource. Malamud was there because he was told that copying Public records to make a living from or non-profit living from is a no-no. Malamud, an archivist activist, as he is called, was testifying to make a point- his own. Flip side of Malamud’s coin are people in public records that are released wondering how their private world became so public, so fast and a commodity bought and sold globally.

Chairman Coble led off the hearing by addressing the change of the past twenty years impacting Copyright. The Chairman noted Consumers, Privacy and File sharing now dominate a conversation that, at its onset, mostly focused on the commercial use of Copyright. The Consumer, Coble said, is now both a verb and an adjective. Chairman Coble failed to point out, today, the Consumer is also a partner in Crime, Intellectual Infringement crime- stealing, using, selling- words that are more than verbs. These are words that have Actionable Repercussions in Title XVIII- the criminal code.

Chairman Coble wanted to know about WIPO and Foreign Movement in Copyright and Public performance. Easy enough to answer. At this point in the Copyright Hearings, this should have been a fact drummed home, WIPO is part of the United Nations effort to move IP under one roof. This is not speculation…. Drum roll, timeline please…

1952    USPTO (DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE)
1964    OECD (ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION & DEVELOPMENT)
1967     WIPO (UNITED NATIONS)
1988    IANA (DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY)
1998    ICANN (UNITED NATIONS)
2014    UNITARY PATENT (EU SINGLE MARKET)
2014    OCED GLOBAL AUTOMATIC TAX INFORMATION EXCHANGE (ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION & DEVELOPMENT)
2014    COPYRIGHT OFFICE (proposal of collective licensing)

Sorta, says a lot at a time Congress is looking at IP issues within Domestic borders? N’est-ce-pas?

There were references within the hearing to Performance Rights- theatre, TV and nowadays at issue, is streaming over airwaves, cable, broadband, google glass and whatever Technology innovators are working on next. There was little if anything said about 2D ARTS Content – the words and images that keep a Celeb alive long after they are dead. And then Napster happened. The definition of ‘Distribution’ changed. In the Internet Age, “Distribution” has come done to one Click aka file sharing.

Congressman Bob Goodlatte, in his Q&A gave witnesses time to revisit points they did not cover in their testimony. James Love thought people need a chance to understand laws they are told to abide by. David Nimmer said statutory damages need to be revisited. Professor Schultz said the everyday person cannot afford to chase every infringement. Professor Schultz said the DCMA paradigm is broken, naive and needs to be revisited. Professor Schultz said Google received its hundred millionth take down notice. Professor Schultz did not say that Google and other Search Engines are the Number One enemy of the Citizen Stakeholder-IP Innovator. James Love brought up the issue of Orphan Works, stating he believed the US is on the wrong side of the TPP conversation reminding legislators music is not covered under the Berne Convention. David Nimmer raised the issue of grey market goods being brought into the country impacting America, an issue that was exacerbated by Congress. Nimmer did not discuss Honda’s issue with grey market airbags being inserted into cars, to save a few bucks. The airbags explode and Honda gets named and nicked for an airbag Law Enforcement is struggling to stop the Infringement and import of.

So Congress didn’t get the whole story. They got the Usual Suspects POV.

Congresswoman Chu’s question must expand to be- where are the Artists and where are the Cops and why aren’t the robbers here at the table being grilled under hot lights. Congresswoman Judy Chu adressed the issue of online theft towards the goal of streamlining litigations. David Nimmer supported Small Claims court as a way towards this end goal. Corrected by ...... stating download as part of a prima facia case in file sharing is off base. Nimmer said only a few hundred of cases ever go to trial, stating their download is then in play as evidence in the case by tracking the ISP. That is… unless the person's computer 'crashes’, lost, stolen or sold- disappears.

Lunney responded to Chu's question about Aereo. Lunney pointed out the courts are locking horns in responses to Aereo, clear to point out the reality is addressing where the revenue for this model is coming from. AND that the courts are the swing here, potentially impacting how copyright is impacted here. What was not said that the revenue, so to speak has been made by these models. AEREO is a project of Barry Diller, having received Seed and VC money along the way with the Silicon Valley mindset that out of ten that are seeded, in startups, one might hit it and if it hits it, hits it big. And if it doesn’t hit, big or small, that money is being made of Identity- camouflaged as Algorithms, stalking 24/7.

Nimmer raised the issue of Moral Rights that America unwillingly begrudgingly agreed to as part of Berne. Nimmer was responding to a question by Congressman Holding, who expressed concern on the issue of copyright adjustments on Free Trade Agreements. Congressman Holding asked the Witnesses at the table for opinions of how other countries are handling copyright. One can only hold their head and weep. The answer to that question is a simple click away if one's committee, staff and General Counsels did their work rather than rely on Witnesses’ interpretations delivered in an interpretation of their own agendas.

Deutsch raised focus on how one User can share millions of files. The Witness said Copyright should not be a never ending spigot, assuming, as if a competing publisher offered competitive work in the marketplace, then the witness stated file sharing is ok. That statement is like saying someone is a little bit pregnant. You are pregnant or you aren’t pregnant. Not a little pregnant. File sharing under any circumstance other than license is not ok. It is stealing. Plain and simple.

FORBES Magazine created a speedbump of their own. Enter FORBES site, one is greeted with a Motivational Phrase the reader must Click away to get inside the online e-zine....

Fair Use of Weekly Standard Pop Up Blocking Access To A Page Unless An Email Adress Us Provided

Thomas Crawford Image From Library Of Congress https://www.flickr.com/photos/uscapitol/11171778814/

White House Thumbnail

Invalid File Type Message

Deutch reiterated wanting to understand why file sharing on the internet is not ok when the big box retailer can be guilty of the same- illegal copies. Any diminishment on amount of revenue that should be going to Copyright owners is not OK- Big Box Retailer or neighbor next door. Stealing is stealing is stealing is stealing except that at the Big Box Retailer, The head shaker to all readers is that books are physical, visible and can be seen being carted away while what goes online is like the Vegas commercial- hidden, behind the scenes, and except, unlike Vegas- does not stay in Vegas in a virtual world without borders.

Congressman Marino asked if the system can be best served by the industry setting standards. The question that is obvious and loud is WHICH INDUSTRY. There are too many players to create standards for expecting they will jive together towards resolution. That said, there is one standards to make the players comply with. That standard is Title XVIII. Steal? Less than $400. More than $400. Greater than… just aren’t enough officers UNLESS the Perps to pursue are the Private Companies who built and put public the Internet expecting File Sharing was Human’s Nature.

Lunney, who said his name rhymes with Funny and he is not crazy, said current system is based upon a 1998 paradigm that requires a separate notice sent for every file. Lunney said if you are the site host profiting in advertising and payment said criminal law should be applied to file sharing. Congressman Marino, a former criminal prosecutor, asking a Witness’s opinion about derivative works was surprised when the Witness said he did not have a problem with file sharing if someone takes a poem from a book then puts it to music and makes millions while the author cannot make a living. The witness said it is a derivative work and he has no problem with that. The question Marino should have asked was ‘if you were starving and your poem was put to music with that person making millions and giving you non of the profits, how would you feel.” That is the question the Legislators should ask of all witnesses ‘how would you feel if your …. Was stolen, made millions of and you got nothing.” Just wait until you hear what people are not willing to put into the record. As for opinions and hypotheticals? Worth exactly what they are paid for… Free? Worth nothing.

Jeffries adressed court intent in the issue of artists content creators benefiting from the fruit of their labors, inserting himself as the voice for all others, that a Copyright competitor who sells the Intellectual Property for less is not a copyright infringer. OMG, clearly a man who does not watch CSI to know that all thieves fence items for Pennies on the Dollar. Jeffries said as an economist if someone is losing income because of a competitor then they were making too much money to begin with. No Legislator asked who paid Jeffries to testify at the Hearing, paid his expenses etc as an illustration that everything has a price even Copyright Holders should be able to afford. Computers had arrived.

Collins challenged Lunney’s statement adressing 'just a poet,' pointing out poets have changed the world. It was ‘just a poet’ who wrote The Battle Hymn Of The Republic. Collins challenged Malamud stating ‘you cant take someone else's book and copy it, call it your own.’ Collins said the bigger step is the bigger picture. Taking free stuff, the work of someone else is wrong, even if it is laws on the books that cities, and counties and districts invested Taxpayer dollars in to creating and printing. Malamud said describing the works as annotated is.

Congressman asked about Bit Torrent users.

Fair Use of Upfront Ventures Screen Grab Pop up

Lunney said anyone with access should pay a levy that would be overseen by a new organization that would decide how to File Share along the lines of ASCAP. ASCAP is a system people enter voluntarily. Is Congress going to force people to join Guilds and Unions? Malamud was polite. He said he would not prejudge Lunney's idea. Love said there is already a history of Compulsory Licenses. Then Love pointed out the obvious. The problem is not solved yet. Professor Fisher at Harvard proposed a tax.

What Congress needs to do is to step away from Professors as witnesses. If one must wonder out loud how America has gone so far so fast, one need not look farther than the Hearing Tables in Congress. Step away from the Lobbyists, the lawyers who are GC’s for Guilds. And listen to where the dollar crosses the counter so to speak. Stop talking to Groups. Go undercover and sit in an audience where a colleague is speaking. Listen. After all, isn’t that what the best conversation is, aren’t we told?

Sometimes one wonders at things witness say, like the suggestion to ‘let Consumers pick Way-To-Pay artists by sampling, for example, Madonnna.’ There is a model. It is called ‘Crowdfunding.’ Word to the wise, the SEC is now looking to regulate that, in a FINRA investor worry world.

Farenthold said he is File Sharing within his household, to his wife, TV, computer. He said does he have to negotiate with local broadcasters to put a Slingbox in his set so he can watch local Corpus Christi broadcasting while he is in DC. Farenthold asked how many bad guy infringers are downloading and getting away with it. That question should have been asked of ICE or INTERPOL who coordinate IP enforcement around the world. Better yet, that answer could have been looked up online in a nanno second. Lunney said the worst part is that one would never know if they’re IP has been File Sharing. Patricia Griffin adressed why SEO's are kept low. That is common sense. Money is made from Cicks and selling email addresses and information gleaned from a visitor who stops at the page, even without their entering the site. All data gleaned is then auctioned, sold around the world.

Hank Johnson thanked Malamud for publishing official state codes. Malamud explained that bulk data is not available. Would Congressman Johnson think differently if research had been done into Public Resource before the hearing, and if Legislators were aware the Non-Profits 2012 bottom line was $1,545,712 [http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/208/842/2012-208842127-09640147-9.pdf]. How would Hank Johnson separate what Malamud does from what the German YUMPU does, collecting Intellectual Property Rights owners PDFs, which YUMPU [http://www.yumpu.com/en/ ] then (a) sells (b) collects advertisting revenue from, without License?

Hank Johnson reminded the gathered that Section 105 is exempt from Copyright otherwise countless lawyers would be infringers. Corrected, this is what Section 105 states; “§ 105 . Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works; Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.” Consensus is lawyers are not exempt from seeking permission to use Copyrighted information in an arbitration or trial if that information has no bearing stated within the Statement of Claim.

Congressman Desantis asked what is the risk to the Consumer who is not at the table with the mission related organizations who take the standards them sell them for profit to fulfill their mission then who loses? Are the tax payers who funded the standards being written the losers? Yes and yes.

Congresswoman Zoe Lungren said she does not believe the public opinion has changed in the year since SOPA. Edward Snowden’s exposure of the NSA data gathering was many SOPA supporters ‘come to Jesus’ moment. Opinions changed when the Technological disruption became personal. Lungren wishes she could undo her vote to extend Copyright Term limit she said is irrational and needs to be changed. Then, what is good for the goose is good for the Gander- there should be term limits on Legislators ALONG with their not receiving pensions when they retire. If Ms Lungren objects to Limits on Legislators terms in Public Service and retirement without Pension, then…. She objects to Limits on Copyright and the ARTS Content Creators being beaten up with Congress’s ‘good ideas’ of Orphan Works and Collective Licensing and any other ideas intent to steal IP Commerce and Control for the ARTS stakeholder. The road goes both ways… for IP and for all heirlooms Ms Lungren has in her home. She has owned them long enough. The money now goes to the People. Lungren told Malamud the business model cannot trump the Model of Law. She is correct. If Title XVIII is the law, why is she hellbent on trying to change it and Title XVII.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee capsulated the internet into what can be seen and what cannot be seen. There was the case of a mother charged with Copyright Infringement. What nailed her wasn’t that she stole IP but that she lied about doing do. Jackson Lee asked if Congress should change law - yes or no? Well, only if Congress changes the law about lying under Oath, too. No. Congress needs to change people to remember there is a Law. There is nothing wrong with the Law. People think IP is a free for all, until its Theft hits home to them or their loved one. And when there will be no law for them to turn to, then what.

Congress would do well to keep in mind with all conversations of IP and the ARTS that there are the Sunday drivers of the art schools who do wine and paint evenings not worried about IP theft impacting their making a living; there are Friday night Salsa dancers versus Prima Ballerinas who make their living from choreographing a Lincoln Theater performance or the gangs dance battling in West Side Story, the movie..

Where does file sharing stop and start? If someone donates a used book to the library or goodwill, is that File Sharing? And when Goodwill or the Library or Second Story Books sell the used book, is that file sharing too?

Does File Sharing have to happen? Not at all. This and many hearings down the road and time wasted in Courts around the world can be rendered Moot, if Legislators would force the Search Engines to provide Lock Down Technology to their Users, as beginning reparations for the innumberable Crimes of Intellectual Property the Search Engines set out to Bank on, pardon the Commerce Stealing pun. Technology has models that use Pop Ups to deter a potential Infringer from stealing. Technology has models in place to prevent images from being shared. The Architect of the Capitol uses a program that converts images on its page in to images that cannot be duplicated. Go ahead. Left click, pull. You will not be guilty of Copyright Infringement. The White House and the Library of Congress use the People’s money to reduce online images to Thumbnails that cannot be amplified up into Actual Size, a bit odd one must agree, since Tax Payers money pays for the White House photographers to cover the Administration and Legislators. There are pages where one cannot move Content from the page at all. THAT is the Law Congress should make mandatory in that it will mitigate the exponential IP Thefts resulting in Litigations that are choking courts globally.

BERNE NOTICE OBJECTIONABLE USE (c) Carrie Devorah :

_
THE ROAD TO MARRAKESH & BACK TO THE JUDICIARY (c) Carrie Devorah :
_

Can the Judiciary see its way to making Judiciary’s last hearing before summer’s Camp For Congress a Do Over so the Blind can lead those Blinded by Technology? Congress has to do a Do Over. This isnt even a question, it’s a must.

September 12 the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University Washington College of Law hosted a round up of The 2013 Marrakesh Treaty: Providing Access To Copyrighted Works For the Blind and Print Disabled that recalibrates the impression of the Blind and Technology. This was the first public forum on the international treaty “with the main focus on defining minimum standards for copyright limitations and exceptions rather than establishing conditions for enhanced proprietary rights”, their words, challenged with doing good without doing bad, knowing there are people out there ‘looking to recalibrate domestic law’ and to use the forum as a door to a human rights treaty.

Professor Peter Jasci moderated the Panelists sharing their experiences of The Miracle at Marrakesh. Audience attendees got a flavor of the challenge of bringing together opposing interests in an endeavor which may be best described as roping cats with a tumbleweed, seemingly impossible. The Miracle of Marrakesh gathered at the first event post the Treaty included Justin Hughes a teacher at Cardozo Law School, Scott LaBarre general counsel of the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado, James Love the US Co-chair of the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue Intellectual Property Policy Committee, Marc Maurer president of the National Federation of the Blind, Lateef Mtima Professor of Law at Howard University School of Law, Ruth Okediji a professor of law at the University of Minnesota’s Law School, Shira Perlmutter Chief Policy Officer a the USPTO, Luis Villarroel director of Research at the Latin American Center For Intellectual Property Research For Development, Nancy Weiss, Allan Adler is the General Counsel Association of American Publishers, Jonathan Band and Daniel Conway amongst others. The Lure For Completion of the Marrakesh Treaty, it seems, was Stevie Wonder’s temptation if the Treaty was finished, Wonder would fly in and perform a Concert.

June 2013, the Treaty was completed. Stevie Wonder flew in as promised. The wildest attendees rockin’ it out in the aisles, it seems, was the Librarians. Wink. Always suspected that didn’t you…..

It is the words of one man, in particular, the Judiciary must hear, well, two. Justin Hughes clarified the Marrakesh Treaty provides that Royalties are paid to Authors. Hughes has led the US delegation for the Marrakesh Treaty and the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances. Hughes was the Director of Cardozo Law Schools Intellectual Property program and a faculty director at the schools Indie Film Clinic. The other man is Dr. Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind. Dr Maruer says the “organized blind are the best equipped people to solve the problems facing them have set the tone and are guiding the organization in to this exciting new period of growth and accomplishment.”

Justin Hughes made it clear, at American University, that the Marrakesh Treaty did in fact provide for Authors and/or Artists to be paid for their IP along with all other Rights holders. End of story. Almost.

Marc Maurer said it better.

Marc asked for a few more moments before his panel ended to add one more comment. Marc said it has been a few years since he testified before Congress. Marc said words Congress must hear, a point that will counter the wrongful impression Judiciary witness Benetech’s Jim Fruchterman gave of the Blind - of needing charity, of approving that Authors are not paid for their Works and that books are being donated. And the Judiciary will have the opportunity to clarify that in fact Benetech has received over $50 million dollars in Government Grants monies along with millions in Venture Capital funds, over the years for the project(s) Fruchterman says benefits the blind, Fruchterman feels deserve charity.

Fruchterman’s words, in an online interview, his business for the blind is the only one of his ventures to turn a profit, the business using Chaffee Amendment and Fair Use the Blind to be fall guys for File Sharing claims if they are made. Fruchterman testified publishers give him books. Dr Marc Maurer made it clear. The Blind dont want Charity. They just want the same books Seeing People have access too. The Blind just want to be treated normal. The Blind want to pay Authors their due royalties. The Blind don’t want to take money from other people. AND THAT is not was not the walk-away impression attendees to the Judiciary hearing of Innovation and Technology witness, Bookshare’s Jim Fruchterman gave.

It is the words of this one man, Dr. Maurer, the Judiciary must hear. Dr. Marc Maurer said loud and clear, at the Miracle of Marrakesh Reunion up at American Universitty, stating quietly with strength, ‘I don’t want charity. I want to pay.’..

Boom….

There goes the reality of the Bookshare program for the Blind the witness, knew was an illegal file sharing model when he implemented it. Fructherman said so in interviews, one after the other after the other.

The presentation of Blind as indigent is offensive. All Blind and other disabled people want is to be treated normal, given the same opportunity as everyone else. It is the words of Marc Maurer that must become the benchmark for Congress at every Hearing going forward where a person represents their Constituents as needing handouts. Congress, ASK THE CONSTITUENTS. Led the Blind lead the Blinded with their Insights from learning to see inside of people’s motivations.

Books in an accessible format moving the visually disabled community past the Book Famine described by the WBU, the World Blind Union. Few Authors will say no to making money. Few Blind persons will argue paying it to read. I pointed out the road map forward for Blind reading contemporary books is already written in the availability of existing technology for Downloads and Audio books the blind are able to access and listen to. The challenge? Is how do we get the world to see steps forward to accomplish the goal Marc Maurer revealed… Simple. Start with Congress. Legislate that someone who uses disabled to profit isnt fit to testify before Congress.

Blind may be blind. They aren’t disabled. They are proud. They don’t want charity. They want to be just like us…. Simple. Ask the blind dad I met at Sbarros’, father to three blind sons… ask the man I met on the Metro…. Ask Marc, Judiciary, in one seat at the Witness Table. And ask Bookshare about the Blind, about his Human Rights initiatives connectivity linked in his Tax Returns to Benetech and Bookshare… in the other chair….then focus on the real Miracle of Marrakesh…. Bringing the Road To Marrakesh to Celebration on Capitol Hill

_
The Intellectual Property of CHEMICAL WARFARE aka THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED PATENTING OF DEATH (c) Carrie Devorah :
_

It started with a Patent. Nerve gas that is. It started with a Patent. And then it became a bartered item. A swap. Britain gave. America took. America gave Britain took. And years later, it became a debate. Nerve gas that is.

1400 dead? Maybe this past month but over the years…. more. But it started with a Patent, Intellectual Property that Man created and Government “LIKED.” Maybe that is the starting point going forward on how to adress Agents of War…. the Patent and the “new amazing idea” of publishing Patents online.. so where does culpability begin and finger pointing end… and the admission of who ‘screwed up’ and has a real chance for reform…. it started with a Patent.

I would have figured it to be a no brainer in the rhetoric of Chemical Warfare for someone to get to the nucleus of How Things Get Made, things like Chemicals used in Warfare- that part of the process called Intellectual Property and Legislative Debates and Patent Offices. But amazingly with all the intellect online, focus has been repeats and retweets of what another entity or blogger then often cited by Legislators. OMG. What ever happened to digging deeper into dirt on what came first, the patented Intellectual property or the 1400 dead in Syria today with the guarantee of more tomorrow, or the next day or another after that. Oh come on- its called Coincidental Thought or two people who may never meet having a great idea at the same time. In different zipcodes. Under different governments.

The dead in Syria didn’t just fall off the back of a Turnip truck. Their deaths began in a lab somewhere, sometime ago. Frankestinian type mad scientists concocting brews? No. That is the fodder of movies guaranteed to make you pee in your pants from fear. Sometimes, like #*@T, Nerve Gas’ happen, most likely because somewhere some Legislative Body debated things back and forth before stamping the ‘something’ with a Seal of Approval. No. Not saying that Legislators approved Nerve Gas’ but sometimes, it wasn’t Nerve Gas they approved. Other times, it wasn’t only Nerve Gas they were looking at. But like quarters that fall into the pillowed seats of a sofa, that is until Bitcoins came along, facts and details slip between the cracks. You know, Rome wasn’t built in a day nor is a profile of people or a chemical too. Put them both together, sometimes we have a recipe for a Modern Day Maniac or, as in the case of VX, a guy that invented a landscaping chemical that just happens to knock people out a half hour or so after it touches their skin, they rub their eyes, they convulse and dead. Oh, not just them dead but everyone they have come in to contact with between location of contact and moment of Death from an odorless chemical that was intended to kill weeds.

I know, I know, things happen. But while Radio and TV are whipping people into a Frenzy of War just like the NSA built back doors into all the PDAs we use and can NO LONGER take the backs off or batteries or chips out of (ahem iPhone), some of the Big Dog and Poodle countries had back door dealings too which sort of make the postulating a bit of a giggle, gallows giggle that is, considering the consequence.

The Father of Nerve gas was a German Scientist. British Intelligence reportedly brought his gas to Porton Down after World War II. Allied Forces found the Nerve Gas in WWII, in Germany. The discovery excited them.

Now, Chemicals and Congress are not unknown bedfellows. 96% of manufactured consumer goods are produced with chemicals most of which are toxic. And what Congress does is Legislate things it has no clue about but gets ‘briefed on.’ Sit through a hearing or two of people pushing agendas without complete disclosure, one might share the cynicism. But there are legislators with good intentions that try their best to do good. Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and the late Frank Lautenberg co-sponsored S 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, a legislation to adress toxic chemicals in household and manufactured products. Lautenberg and Vitter wanted to shore up the Toxic Substances Control Act. The TSCA had not been amended in its thirty seven years. The TSCA was passed in 1976, intended to regulate existing and new chemicals. Whatever wasn’t on the list in 1976? Wasn’t going to be on the list of “Chemicals.” There wasn’t a list for Toxic. Nor is there a list for Non Toxic. There was clearly no Congressional “dunno list” for Chemicals that might be developed some time down the road. The Legislative oversight attempts to legislate no new chemical being used in manufacturing Consumer Goods or on imported for Consumer Goods.

Getting the picture? Good. So you wont lose your lunch when I tell you there are over 85,000 chemicals on the Market. And the EPA? The Agency knows the toxicity of about 200 of those chemicals. The EPA has only taken action against five chemicals or chemical classes? You see, the EPA only knows what the chemical’s manufacturer tells them about toxicity- whistleblowers and all…..

In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security issued a rule called “Chemical Facility Security: Regulation and Issues For Congress”, a Summary, requiring chemical facilities with certain types and amounts of stuff the Secretary determined were hazardous to let the DHS know then undergo a screening process to determine the sites CVI, Chemical Terrorism Vulnerability Information category, which chemical facilities were high risk needing additional security. The sites were to provide the DHS with a site security plan and a vulnerability plan for the Secretary to approve or to disapprove. The Summary highlighted issues Congress had discussed. There was the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. There were HR 1530, HR 1574 and HR 1633 that the House introduced for chemical site security. Then there was the 2007 Farm Bill S 2302 and HR 2419, the Appropriations Bills HR 2638 and S 1644, for starters.

Any wonder Legislative pocket change continues to fall out of pockets and in between sofa pillows? Hearings are held all the time. One can only legislate disclosed entities. The reality is that around the world there is someone, somewhere, in a lab, in a garage, in a home, on a farm not just in a multi dollar conglomerate looking to make product cheaper and better that will get government approval. Or not. It is the Or Not that is worrisome.

The disclosed entities let their chemicals go through test phases. Some of the chemicals make it on to the streets as product, some don’t. And some that do make the streets get clawed back for one thing or another. Usually for death(s) or causing disability. More often, at that put, claw back attempts are when it is too late to put the rabbit back in the box.

You see the process is the problem. Ideas are Intellectual Property. And Intellectual Property get protected, at least, with First to Claim Ownership. Over at the USPTO, papers are pushed forward from Application to Published Patent or IP, Intellectual Property. With the USPTO all online these days, anyone anywhere in the world can see what is being made or protection sought for AND how to do it better.

A patent is a patent is a patent whether the patent is for a new button, Google eyeglass or in the chemical or pharmaceuticals industry sensory irritation through its chemical action.” Classified? By how they affect people.

There are the Choking Agents… they make breathing difficult… ie Chlorine gas. There are Blister Agents… they irritate skin and eye ie Mustard gas. There are the fast acting and lethal agents like Arsenic or cyanide. There are the Nerve agents like Sarin or VX. They disrupt the nervous system.

Tear gas sound familiar? On the streets of America, tear gas is called a ‘riot control agent’ used for law enforcement. But if used in war, tear gas is termed a chemical weapon. There is White Phosphorus used both home and abroad. Incendiary as a weapon, it has its benefits, it seems.

What they all have, Chemical Agents, is the Taboo Attitude on the impact of Chemical weaponry to civilian populations, dating a hundred years back. As Man evolved, or devolved, as the opinion might be, Technology advanced, as did man’s ability to impact foreign cultures. Hiroshima, ring a bell? Someone aught to remind Secretary Kerry. Post WWI, by the time of WWII, a lot of countries ‘volunteered’ to rule out chemical warfare on the battlefield. A lot of paper pushing and protocol which all looks good like the Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibiting poisonous gas as war weaponry. There was the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993 that took the 1925 agreement further… except not everyone signed on to that agreement a decade ago- Syria, North Korea, EGYPT and Angola.- not promising to voluntarily outlaw production, stockpile, transfer and use of chemical weapons.

Gerhard, was a German Biochemist. Full name Gerhard Schrader. In 1936, Gerhard was working on a pesticide. Instead or in addition, Gerhard discovered Organo-Phosphates and their effect on human beings. Gerhard was his own guinea pig, accidentally. A splish splash of some chemicals into each other and he wasn’t feeling so good. A day later, Gerhard had trouble breathing. His eyesight was on the fritz, no pun intended. He was spasming and his arm, within a week was paralyzed. Gerhard hit it out of the ballpark of inhumanity, discovering the ancestor of Nerve Gases, that, depending on how much was used and absorbed through the skin, was fatal within 5 to 15 minutes. N Gas. That is what the Nazis called it, in 1936.

Yup.

Porton Down is a United Kingdom government military science park situated slightly northeast of Porton near Salisbury in Wiltshire, England. To the northwest lies the MoD Boscombe Down test range facility which is operated by QinetiQ. Porton Down, about 7000 acres in recent years, started out as a few cottages and farm buildings scattered on the downs at Porton and Idmiston. Porton Down opened as a test site for chemical weapons. It was called the Royal Engineers Experimental Station. Purpose? To study Chlorine, Phosgene and Mustard Gas in WWI. There were two huts. Two years later, there more over 1100 people at Porton Down, still focused on anti gas defense and breathing. Porton Down became a skeleton after the Armistice was signed.

Fourteen years after Schrader’s N Gas discovery, in 1952, British scientist Dr Ranajit Ghosh, working with JF Newman, at Britain’s Porton Down’s chemical warfare laboratory, patented diethyl S-2-diethylaminoethyl phosphono- thioate, November of that year. Gosh was working for ICI, Imperial Chemical Industries, a British firm, in their Plant Protection Land when Gosh focused on investigating Organophosate compounds, the same compounds Gerhard Schrader looked into in the ‘30s. ICI took one of Gosh’s compounds, Amiton, to market,only to withdraw Amition from market. It was too toxic, for home use, it seemed but perfect for warfare. Samples had been sent to the British Armed Forces Research facility, Porton Downs. The two Men had improved on Schrader’s N Agent. The scientists had developed V Agents, the newest Nerve Agents aka the Tammelin Esters named after Lars- Erik Tammelin of the SDRA, the Swedish Defense Research Agency. Patented. IP. Intellectual Property.The most famous one, code name Purple Possum?

As it turns out, a few years earlier, the Russians and other scientists, independent of each other or the companies they worked for, discovered more potent Nerve gases. That is how people are- even when something is bad, they play with ‘fire’ as the expression goes and come up with great ideas they may not be aware someone else had discovered. Scientists enamored with these deadly elements, continued their exploration going forward, discovering ways to make the chemicals less combustible and other challenges, normal people, outside of Government and Mad Scientists, would run from let alone trade in.

Come WWII, Porton Down focused on anthrax bio weaponry, botulinum toxins and nitgrogen mustard. The Allies learned about organophsorous nerve agents in Germany- Tabun, Sarin and Soman which springboarded research off the German Nerve Agents starting point. And VX was born. In Britain.

The government paid hospitals for skin removed from patients. The Scientists wanted Real McCoy test results not hypotheticals so what better to test a skin agent on but skin which, as it turned out, the patients had no clue they had donated. The practice of using patient skin began in 1995 and was stopped after the Alder Hey report was released. A Ministry of Defense spokeswoman, speaking on behalf of Dera, confirming the skin was used in chemical warfare tests said, “Most of the chemical tests done were for the benefit of civilians. They were with corrosive chemicals that are used in the home and work place, to see how the skin would be affected by a spillage.” The Patient’s Consent form said ‘use in medical research…” which by the way, the hospital was paid dearly for, over 17,000 pounds, without any statement, wink, patients who went in for a tummy tuck and breast ‘nips’ or other vanity surgeries got a discount from the hospital for their hide, without explaining that it was being used by the Defense Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA, which runs the facilities on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire.

Gets better. The Brits traded VX to the Yanks in exchange for information on thermo-nuclear weapons. That was in 1958. Technically, work on such agents stopped in 1955 when lethality of the research was acknowledged. Technically. The US began producing VX in 1961. Newport Chemical Depot. The known countries to have VX are Russia, France and the US. KNOWN being the operative word. Wishing to un-create VX is like a mom threatening her bad child she wishes she could put them back up inside. Not going to happen. VX, which is rumored to be the chemical that Sadaam lost into Syria back in the early 2000’s?

So what now…… there’s the ticker. You cant see VX, smell it, taste it but one half hour after contact one witnesses horrific devolution into death. The United Nations classified IUPAC, O-ethyl S-[2-(diisopropylamino)ethyl] methylphosphonothioate, the technical name for VX, as a Weapon of Mass Destruction in UN Resolution 687 then outlawed in the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.

Arghhhh. Getting it yet? The old story, ten people can be working on the same thing at the same time and name it something different without the dots being connected until, it is, here in the case of Nerve Agents, too late. For all the protocol and hoopla about getting countries to stand down on Toxic time bombs… somewhere, around there world there is someone about to make the same discovery too, and somewhere, someone about to get a patent for their Intellectual Property of mass murder… again.

What does one do? Pray is probably the best first answer. Second answer? Maybe committees will learn to dig deeper into the bad of the New Greatest Bestest idea being pitched at legislators, like THE INTERNET (cough)….boy, wasn’t that a rapid descent into the Devil’s Lair. Try grabbing that one by the tail and rolling things back to the way things used to be. With all good there comes bad and within all bad there is good. And that somewhere someone in a patent office saw the idea for Nerve Agents then rubber stamped it LIKE for a production go ahead. And with the USPTO racing to put everything online, good guess is more of these dastardly things people wish they could uninvent will be discovered by the next home grown terrorist on immigrant with a bone to pick with his mom he takes out on innocent people going for a run in the 5K.

The Holland Committee was set up by the War Office in 1919. The Cabinet decided a year later to continue building the Porton Down program. By 1922, there were 380 servicemen, and a mix of fifty or so civil servants and scientists. Three years later, there were even more. Britain ratified the Geneva Protocol of 1925, in 1930, which allowed Chemical Warfare agents only in retaliation.

Around twenty to thirty years later, 1970, the renamed Porton Down, Chemical Defence Establishment, was paying attention to reports of chemical warfare by the Iraqis against their Kurdish population and Iran. Porton Down changed its name again in 2001- Defense Evaluation and Research Agency still so secretive Members of British Parliament are reported to have admitted they aren’t completely aware of what goes on there even after having visited the site. Although word is the site is working on medical strains of Cannabis and the related patents.

The US Army’s early method of disposal of its stockpiled Agents was the CHASE technique- Cut Holes and Sink ‘Em. Old ships packed with nerve agents were sunk to the bottom of the sea. The SS Cpl Eric G Gibson was sunk 7200 feet deep of Atlantic City, New Jersey. There are over 7,000 VX rockets on board the Gibson. 124 tons of VX were sunk off the shores of New York, New Jersey and Florida, between 1919 and 1970- one land mine, over 1400 pounds of bulk container and about 22000 M55 rockets. Some sites incinerated VX as late as going in to Christmas Eve 2008. The Blue Grass Pilot Plant destruction of their VX is the last of the VX bunch waiting to be destroyed. If it wasn’t one thing or another causing the delays, it was one thing or another. Russia and America were working together to reduce Russia’s over 5900 tons of Nerve Agents stored a former chemical weapons depot. 14% o the chemical weapons there are from Russia.

Secretary Kerry testified the day before September 11, America’s anniversary of sadness, America’s connection to standing away from Chemical warfare was 1925. Geez louise, Momma T. Take John on vacation to Porton Down on a Study Abroad on Nerve Agents. To boot, the same day, John Sano, former deputy director of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, who oversaw the day-to-day management of the agency’s covert operations, discusses how the CIA gathers and uses intelligence, said on C-Span Washington’s Journal that he didn’t know who developed Nerve Gas. Sano has top Secret Clearance. When asked to concur, or not, Sano agrees that whomever developed or sold the Nerve Gas should be held accountable……. Which is the largest OMG, the Sano doesn’t know the history of the Alphabetical Agents or that the finger points…. omg

As for the book the officer in the photo is reading? Probably a good idea to collect and destroy. The book, that is. Erroneous information. The author incorrectly listed America as the country that discovered VX. So much for experts on topics but in these days of War Crimes and War Tribunals

…. Get my drift.

THE CENTER OF THE COPYRIGHT CREATORS UNIVERSE (c) Carrie Devorah :

_
PASSING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POPCORN PLEASE (c) Carrie Devorah :
_

_
CONGRESSMAN WATTS SPOKE AT THE USPTOs INVENTOR SYMPOSIUM A BIT AGO (C) Carrie Devorah [ Archival ] :
_

Congressman Watts spoke at the USPTOs Inventor Symposium a bit ago.

The USPTO United States Patent & Trademark Office held is 1 ½ day INVENTORS SYMPOSIUM at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in the Nan Tucker McEvoy Auditorium. The Smithsonian American Art Museum used to be the Patent Office, a historic landmark, was conceived to be a TEMPLE TO INVENTION. Walt Whitman described the building, a Greek Revival Design, in 1863, to be the noblest of Washington buildings. President Andrew Jackson chose the site for the building along with the architects for the 333,000 foot building. The original planners saw the building of the Museum to Patent Models to be “a place to celebrate and present the achievements of the American people.” President Jackson signed in to law a statute that that is the United States Art Museum and a statute that has remained core to the US Patent System. President Jackson wrote in to Law, the requirement that patent examiners must ascertain a proposed patent met the tests of ‘utlity, patentability and novelty.”

The site, a barracks and military hospital during the Civil War, was the location of President Lincoln’s second inaugural ball, March 6 1865. Three bands , entertained the guests- promenade music in the east gallery the Lincoln Gallery, dance music in the north wing and dinner music in the west wing. Over 4000 guests partied until 4:00am. The East Model Hall remains historically intact to the day. The First Rhode Island Regiment was billeted in the west model hall. President Lincoln watched them parade on 9th Street. He witnessed the American flag being raised above the building. A month after his second Inaugural Ball, President Lincoln was killed by an assassin’s bullet, one block over from the Patent Building.

The top floor was the hospital. Poet Walt Whitman tended the wounded. Clara Barton was hired by the patent commissioner as his assistant. Her salary was $1400 a year. Clara Barton was attacked, morally and otherwise. The Ladies Relief Association held a Grand National Fair in the building to support the troops. The women raised $25,000.

Robert Mills, a South Carolinian architect, was appointed by President Jackson to oversee construction of the US Patent Building. Mills, architect of the Treasury Building designed the interiors of the south and east wings and the top floor’s great vaulted exhibition halls. The exterior of the building was designed by William P Elliot. Architect Thomas Walter replaced Mills on the job of supervising the building. Walter constructed the west and north wings. The south wing was constructed from Aquia Creek, Virginia sandstone used to build the White House and the Capitol. Walter’s work was disastrous. His system was not fireproof.

September 24, 1877, sparks from a chimney flue set the west wing roof on fire. Flammable materials stored in below the roof caught fire. A wind carried the fire to the north wing. There was not enough water pressure in the hydrants to reach the roof. The fire wagons were able to help but not enough to save the building touted to be fireproof. Thousands of spectators watched as employees raced to save what artifacts they could save. 211,000 patent drawings were saved. The heat from the fire collapsed the building. 87,000 patent models were destroyed.

Adolf Cluss was hired to rebuild the building. Cluss, who designed a church up the block at the corner of 8th and H Streets, selected modern Renaissance, a Victorian scheme complete with faux marble finishes, fancy railings, stained glass and tiled floors. After the rebuild, the department outgrew the building. Patent applications had grown exponentially. By the 1890’s, the Patent building was packed.

The Civil Service Commission resided in the building from 1932 until 1963. The marble surfaces were painted government green. The building was upgraded with elevators, ductwork and fluorescent lighting.

The building was acquired by the Smithsonian in the 1950’s after it was threatened to be torn down and replaced with a parking garage in 1953. President Dwight Eisenhower ordered the building saved. The building was restored. The Smithsonian took it over for museum use in 1958. In 1968, the site reopened as the Smithsonian Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery. The site was overhauled to the tune of $266 million. It reopened to the public in July 2006. Sir Norman Foster designed the courtyard canopy covering made with blue jean material quieting the courtyard with its ability to absorb noise. The courtyard opened in 2007.

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

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