THE CENTER FOR COPYRIGHT INTEGRITY
  • HOME
    • IP DATA
    • ABOUT CARRIE DEVORAH
  • (C)OPYRIGHT UNIVER$ITY
    • LAWYERS WHO USE LAW AS A CUDGEL
  • COPY.RIGHTs
    • COPYRIGHTS ARE OFTEN WRONGED >
      • "HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU" DECISION SPELLS TROUBLE FOR ONLINERS CLAIMING PUBLIC DOMAIN AS THEIR OWN & PAIN FOR AUTHORS FIGHTING FOR THEIR BOOKS
      • HARPER LEE & THE MYSTERY OF HER NEWLY FOUND "GOLDEN GOOSE" TKAM
      • ENTREPRENEURSHIP ONLINE
      • TECHNOLOGY & LIFE >
        • POKEMON GO & CAMEL JOE ARE TWO OF A MARKETING KIND, almost
        • BILL COSBY, PEREZ HILTON, VENTURE CAPITALISTS & SAFE HARBOR
    • 2D IP (ARTS Intellectual Property) THEFT ONLINE >
      • SLAPP!!!!!!!!! SENATE CUFFS THE WRONG PEOPLE
      • SLATER'S SELFIE MONKEY SAGA
      • COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS 101
    • ID (Identity) THEFT Online >
      • STOP IDENTITY THEFT ONLINE BY INVOKING CA Civil Code 3344-6
    • RIGHT OF PUBLICITY...... >
      • ALL IS FAIR IN SOCIAL MEDIA TO HOLD INTENTIONAL TENANT FRAUDSTERS TO TASK
      • REDSKINS & ETIQUETTE
    • FAIR USE? NOT WHEN TECH TAKES YOUR $$$
    • CHAFFEE AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT STEALING ARTS-iSTs BLIND
    • TECHNOLOGY & Regulations
    • PRIVACY ONLINE SEDUCED THE GREAT REVEAL
    • SECURITY ONLINE & OFF IS NOT SECURE >
      • OUR TAKEAWAY POST THE SAN BERNARDINO DISABILITY CENTER MURDERSge
      • THOUGHTS ON KEEPING THE LIFE LIGHTS ON IN THE FACE OF TERRORISM
      • WHAT TO DEMAND OF RESPONDERS POST PARIS
      • WHY BAD TERRORISM THINGS WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN TO INNOCENT PEOPLE
  • COPYRIGHT LAW TALKs
    • THE WHITE HOUSE 2016
    • THE WHITE HOUSE 2015 (July) -
    • The BERNE CONVENTION : Where America Joined Late >
      • TITLE XVII : The Founding Fathers Promise Of Property Rights
      • THE FOUNDING FATHERS America's Original Inventors & Entrepreneurs
      • MAGNA CARTA The GRANDMOTHER Of IP
    • INTERNATIONAL.EU COPYRIGHT CONVERSATIONS >
      • 1939 GERMANY WALTER HALLSTEIN WARNED
      • THE ROYALS
      • THE UK GOVERNMENT ASKED FOR COMMENTS SO I COMMENTED
      • THE VATICAN & ITS NEW FINANCIAL OIG RENEE BRUHOLDT
      • UNITED NATIONS
      • CHINA: ERIX CHEN
    • ICANN . IANA . WIPO >
      • THE DISASTER IMMINENT POST IANA TAKEN AWAY FROM US TAXPAYERS WHO PAID FOR IT
      • THE EZUBAO STORY THAT IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’s PROBLEM & ICANNs
      • ICANN JON POSTELs RFC REQUEST FOR COMMENTS - ETHICS >
        • DO THE ICANN-NOMINET NON-PROFIT DONATION MATH
        • ICANN . RFC Request For Comment
        • ICANN: PALESTINE COUNTRY CODE MEMO OF RULES
        • ICANN ASSIGNMENTS RFC 1060
        • PEOPLE WHO WORKED ON THE INTERNET RFC 1060
      • WIPO . CYBERSQUATTERS CAST THEIR VOTES
      • SANCTIONED BY THE U.S. BUT STILL DOING BUSINESS WITH ICANN
      • THE UNITED NATIONS, THE TALIBAN & THE IANA DECREE
      • GOOGLE is AMERICAs INTERNET ANTI-TRUST MONOPOLY SET UP TO BREAK DOWN THE WORLD
    • FCC . FTC .
    • RoC . USPTO Patents & Trademarks >
      • RACISM IS IN THE EYE OF THE USPTO EXAMINER:
    • SEC . FINRA . IP & ID +$ >
      • PRESIDENT OBAMA COMMUTATED LOW LEVEL CRIMINALS v WALL STREET NEVER JAILED
      • GIVE VIRGINIA FELONS RIGHT TO VOTE BECAUSE SEC "DISCIPLINED" (with no jail) KEEP THEIRs
      • WHY TRUMP SUPPORT OF FLORIDA AG PAM BONDI CONCERNS ME
      • HUSTLED BY FINRA OVER CLAIM OF DRS BEING FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT COMPLIANT
      • THE POLICY OF PUBLIC FINANCIALS
      • THE FAILURE OF SUCCESS
      • MADOFF DID NOT... FINRA/NASD DID
      • BILL H.R. 1098 >
        • TERESA GUIDICE WENT TO JAIL, 45 PAGES OF WALL STREET “OTHERS” DID NOT
        • PRESIDENT WILSON SIGNED A SECRET CALLED THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT…
        • DID GOVERNOR HOGAN PICK WHITE OVER LAW RIGHT IN THE ISSUE OF VOTES, CRIMES & FELONS?
        • SEC BARRING OF STEVEN A COHEN FOR 2 YRS IS PRIME EXAMPLE OF CONGRESSIONAL FIDUCIARY FAILURE LETTING WALL STREET WALK WHEN MAIN STREET GOES TO JAIL
        • YES KEVIN BACON, ELI WIESEL & OTHER HARMED INVESTORS, THERE ARE DEEP POCKETS... STILL >
          • & THIS BRAD PITT, ANSWERS YOU WHY THINGS AREN’T GOING TO CHANGE ON WALL STREET
        • SEC COMMENT: S7-18-15 >
          • THE SUPREMES GOT IT WRONG REJECTING BEBO v SEC
          • CLIFFNOTES ON FINRA, CONGRESS & DRS
        • OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE COMMENT: CONGRESS NEEDS TO SET “FIDUCIARY” DEFINITIONS ASIDE & PUT CONS THAT VIOLATE FIDUCIARY WHERE COPS CAN FIND THEM
        • A BIG DAY FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFOMR THA T CAME & WENT UNNOTICED
        • FINRA RUSH TO THWART INVESTIGATION BURYING FINRA DRS IN FINRA REGULATION >
          • IF THE SEC ACT CITED ANTI-COMPETITION THEN....
          • FINRA CONNED BROKERS BELIEVING FINRA GRANTED S.R.O. STATUS NOT THE S.E.C. OR DID THEY
          • GO FUND ME, FINRA >
            • FINRA FORCED ARBITRATION OF INVESTORS IS UNLAWFUL & NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW CONGRESS WROTE >
              • WHY FINRA WANTS TO HIDE FINRA DRS IN FINRA REGULATION
      • WHEN CRIMINAL JUSTICE WILL HAPPEN.... REALLY
      • CONGRESS CREATED MADOFF >
        • SEC: DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
    • IRS
    • KEEPING Your (C) EYE ON CONGRESS >
      • GOVDELIVERY.com EMAILINGS on 12 . 4
      • SENATE: Keep Tabs On Senate 2D IP . ID . (C) . Commerce & Disability
      • JUDICIARY : Keep Tabs On Judiciary 2D IP . ID . (C) & Commerce
      • ENERGY + COMMERCE : Keep Tabs On E&C 2D IP . ID . (C) & Commerce >
        • CASHING IN ON HEALTHCARE.gov CLICKS
        • Energy & Commerce (Patent Troll) PATTERN AND PRACTICE
      • STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND IMMUNITY IN COPYRIGHT
  • ARCHIVE(s)
    • ARCHIVES: SEPTEMBER 2019 (transferred)
    • ARCHIVES: AUGUST 2019 (transferred)
    • ARCHIVE JULY 2019 (transfered)
    • ARCHIVES: JUNE 2019 (transfer)
    • ARCHIVES: MAY (Transferred) 2019
    • ARCHIVES: APRIL 2019 (transfered)
    • ARCHIVES: MARCH 2019 (transferred)
    • ARCHIVES: FEBRUARY 2019 (transferred)
    • ARCHIVE: JANUARY 2019 (transferred)
    • ARCHIVES: DECEMBER (transferred 2018)
    • ARCHIVES: NOVEMBER 2018 (transferred)
    • ARCHIVES: OCTOBER 2018 (transferred)
    • ARCHIVES: SEPTEMBER 2018 (transferred)
    • ARCHIVES: AUGUST (transferred) 2018
    • ARCHIVES: JULY (transferred) 2018
    • ARCHIVES: JUNE 2018 (transferred)
    • ARCHIVES: MAY II 2018 (transferred)
    • ARCHIVES: MAY I (Transfered) 2018
    • ARCHIVES: APRIL (Transferred) 2018
    • ARCHIVES: MARCH (Transferred) 2018
    • ARCHIVE: FEBRUARY (Transferred)2018
    • ARCHIVE: JANUARY 2018 (transferred)
    • ARCHIVE: DECEMBER (transferred)
    • ARCHIVES: NOVEMBER 2017 (transfered)
    • ARCHIVES: OCTOBER 2017
    • ARCHIVE: SEPTEMBER 2017
    • ARCHIVE: AUGUST 2017
    • ARCHIVE: JULY 2017
    • ARCHIVE: MAY 1/2017
    • ARCHIVE: APRIL 2017
    • ARCHIVE JANUARY 2017
    • ARCHIVE OCTOBER 2016
    • ARCHIVE AUGUST 2016
    • ARCHIVE JULY 2016
    • ARCHIVE MARCH 2016 -
    • ARCHIVE JANUARY 2016
    • ARCHIVE JUNE 2014 (a)
    • ARCHIVE JUNE 2014 (b)
    • ARCHIVE JUNE 2014 (b)
    • ARCHIVE JUNE 2014 (c)
    • ARCHIVE JUNE 2014 (d)
    • ARCHIVE JUNE 2014 (e)
    • ARCHIIVE OCTOBER 2015
    • ARCHIVE JANUARY 2015
    • ARCHIVE AUGUST 2015
    • ARCHIVE * MAY 2014
    • ARCHIVE * MARCH 2014
    • ARCHIVE * JANUARY 2014
    • ARCHIVE 2013 - 6/2014
    • ARCHIVE 2013 >
      • ARCHIVE 2013 (a)
      • ARCHIVE 2013 (b)
      • ARCHIVE 2013 (c)
      • ARCHIVE 2013 (d)
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 :
  • PLANNED PARENTOOD DIDN'T PLAN FOR THE ISSUE OVER FETAL TISSUE  (c) Carrie Devorah                                                             
  • WHERE HAVE ALL THE ARTISTS GONE   (c) Carrie Devorah 
  • Apr 25 2014   Goodlatte Statement on World Intellectual Property Day Washington, D.C. –
  • CHAIRMAN COBLE'S COPYRIGHT 8 BALL WORD TO GET BEHIND- STEALING (c) Carrie Devorah
  • BERNE NOTICE OBJECTIONABLE USE (c) Carrie Devorah
  • THE ROAD TO MARRAKESH  & BACK TO THE JUDICIARY (c) Carrie Devorah
  • The Intellectual Property of CHEMICAL WARFARE  aka THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED PATENTING OF DEATH (c) Carrie Devorah
  • THE CENTER OF THE COPYRIGHT CREATORS UNIVERSE (c) Carrie Devorah
  • Passing the Intellectual Property Popcorn Please (c) Carrie Devorah

________________________________________________________________
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?

Picture
SafeGuarding Your Data Future Popup Blocker
Picture
Picture
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....
Picture
Fair Use of Weekly Standard Pop Up Blocking Access To A Page Unless An Email Adress Us Provided
Picture
Thomas Crawford Image From Library Of Congress https://www.flickr.com/photos/uscapitol/11171778814/
Picture
White House Thumbnail
Picture
Picture
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. 
Picture
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 :
______________________________________________________________

 I am beginning to think the problem with Intellectual Property in the Technological world is the same problem in the world of horse racing- overbreeding. Too many IP ideas and too much talking by everyone except the horse, in this case, the ARTS content creator. Put a bunch of Witnesses at a table before Committee, there is a lot of jawing about horse trading but not enough common sense about horses or about bunkhouse logic.

Chairman Coble started the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet on "Preservation and Reuse of Copyrighted Works" by sharing his passion for his home state's Blue Grass music, an artform Coble does not want lost, he said.Hearing witnesses included Gregory Lukow, Chief at the Library of Congress Packard Campus for Audio Visual Conservation located out in Culpepper; Richard Rudick, co-chair fo the Section 108 Study Group with Section 108 referring to Section 108 of the Copyright Code; Jan Constantine General Counsel for the Authors’ Guild; Michael C Donaldson, Partner at Donaldson and Callif, LLP a lawyer dabbling in documentary film making; Jeffrey Sedlik, president and CEP of Plus Coalition, a photographer; and James Neal, Copyright Rockstar, Vice President for Information Services and University Librarian at Columbia University. NOT!!!! James is so much more than that, one learns upon reading his bio. James has not only been active in Copyright affirmation, he is lead librarian over dozens of other libraries. Neal’s Library is something special. It self sustains on, amongst other sources, patrons of the ARTS.


As hearings go, the room was sparsely filled. There was more leather showing on the seats than suit fabric in them. New York Congressman Jerry Nadler spoke next after Coble, fast reading his script. Nadler said his goal was to strike a balance between preservation and an owner's right to control their ARTS. Nadler raised the issue of Orphan Works, a conversation that was brought to legal light in the fallout of Google's mass digitization of books.

Witnesses testified. The witness that should be listened to, Jim Neal, spoke with clarity and surety on not changing Title XVII, the Copyright Code. Jim Neal, the uber librarian, is the Intellectual Property Oracle amongst False Gods. Neal is an advocate of changing the attitude of Copyright abusers. Neal’s position on ARTS owners rights was overshadowed in a voice of 5 to 1. The witness one would have expected to support Jim Neal in testimony, Gregory Lukow, didn’t. Lukow focused on the Library of Congress goal of more funding for digital preservation. The point Lukow needed to make to Legislators, on point with the theme of the hearing, Lukow did not make until a private sidebar, post hearing. Legislators did not hear Lukow state that when SONY donated the film the Maltese Falcon to the Library of Congress, SONY withheld all the Maltese Falcon’s IP rights, which brings into question, Lukow’s agenda of wanting rights to reproduce films for preservation and other purposes. Reproducing rights of the Maltese Falcon, would be quite a coup. And if paid for, quite a cost. Lukow knew all about Conditional Donations. Why, I must ask, didn’t he tell the Legislators? Wanting funding for the Library’s mass digitization program is a pretty good guess, based upon his testimony, a pitch for Congressional bucks.

It wasn’t rocket science that Lukow made his admission to me. I already knew the answer hence I knew the question to ask. I am a historical gifter. I donated or gifted select of my ART specimens and photograph specimens to the Smithsonian and Library of Congress along as to other museum collections around the world, no less than 13 in fact.

The conditional terms of my donations were accepted. My gifts are of the actual  physical specimens. My donations are unique. A scribal replacement wedding contract written in traditional Aramaic along with a copy of my book, best known still to this day, “Handbook Of Hebrew Calligraphy.” I retain all rights to my IP. (i) my donations could not be sold (ii) my donations could not be given elsewhere without me, and my heirs, being given notice and without me, and my heirs, ability to approve or disapprove, of the proposed recipient. My agreement did not allow resell of my donation. My agreement did not allow the institution to reproduce museum or library story of my item(s) on T-shirts mugs, posters and other items without a license, from me.

Testimony, game changer.

After the hearing, Jim Neal said he concurs there is too much content in the world, with not enough money in the world to archive it or preserve it, answering Congressman Marino’s question of the Lukow, with the country 13 Trillion dollars in debt, did Lukow think America should be held hostage to preserving America’s Arts path for the future?

No, not at all.

As a Content Creator, my being active in Congress’s conversation on Orphan Works, Mass Digitization and Collective Licensing helped make my decision of  my ARTS fate, simpler. Just like a DNR or a Organ Donate on a Driver’s License, my decision is that if my kids don’t want my storage locker of ARTS that earned the money which helped me, a single mom raise  them, or if I can’t figure out how to sell my ARTS created over decades, then I will go to storage, sit, open one box at a time, revisit my ART and then tear each piece up, one by one by one. I want to make sure my ARTS does not suffer the fate Congress is debating before my very eyes, loss of ownership, loss of control. I have seen the fate of other Artists whose works became Orphaned, artists who studied at the Phoenix School of Design before it was taken over by Pratt Institute. To this day, 40 years later, I remember rescuing incredibly stunning artworks that fell to the streets out of the garbage bins they had been tossed in to. The owners were dead, gone or moved on. I watched people walk right on top of them.

Every so often, I watch the reality TV show, Storage Wars. Strangers blind bid on abandoned locker units, hoping there are treasures inside worth something. No one tells the Storage War bidders, the lockers contents are Orphaned Works. The only diligence shown to finding information is time spent checking out street value. Someone owns the content of those lockers just like someone owns ARTS works on the Internet without identifying information, with one slight difference. ARTS works on the Internet are intentionally stripped of their identification, sort of like a of a Chop Shop were serial numbers are intentionally removed from car parts and other treasures..

It is Government’s job to go after those Criminals intentionally orphaning my ARTS works. It is not the role of Legislators to hold hearings on ways to help Criminals fence stolen goods. It is Government’s job to uphold Title XVII to stop this Technological crime wave sweeping the globe .

I attended a conference where a German attorney who worked on the EU Unitary patents spoke. In the Q&A, I asked the attorney where was the EU “speed bump” to mitigate IP theft. The German attorney’s Power Point presentation graph had, in great detail, laid out all levels of EU’s Patent Courts being built as a “one size fits all” solution to Patent disputes- from Local to Regional to the Top of the Tier of Judicial seats in London, Paris and Germany. The EU solicitor said ONE “click” will report the Patent infringement to all of the Stakeholders, 28 of them. That is the plan, he said proudly. He is one of the designers of the One Click For All. Women forever remind men the awful truth of one size. It’s a myth that will never fit all, nor will it work here, as a Unitary.

I knew, from when I covered horseracing, internationally, each stakeholder also has their own currency and dialects. So, I asked the question- what was the currency the Infringement, across 28 Stakeholders, was going to be paid in, I sorta had guessed at the solicitor’s answer, “Good question. We didn’t think of that.” Then I observed the great expense it was costing to build the Unitary Patent system ‘outwards’ to handle the anticipated problems the Courts would be needed for. My question was a bit sarcastic at that point, “What speed bumps are put in place to mitigate the exponential infringement of ALL Intellectual Property on line which is being facilitated by the Technology companies like the Googles, spiders, bots, etc?” The lawyer answered, again, “Good question, we didn’t think about that.”

I did. I am a Content owner. I know the value of a paper stating Copyright, Trademark of Patent Owner. The paper gives a right to sue. The paper does not force a lawyer to take a case he feels has merit but not financially worth his time to take on as a client. My question was intended as a ‘ya’ think?’   

Orphan Works, Mass Digitization, Collective Licensing is a Fire Sale of Content Creators works.

Michael Donaldson, a documentary film maker, reminded Legislators of Canada’s failed Collective licensing effort, illustrating Author’s Registry “success” is to be questioned, too. In Canada, $70,000 was gathered over 12 years. No one stepped up to collect the money which sits there, presumably to this day. Most likely, other than the Parliamentarians who came up with this brilliant failure, few artists knew about it or cared. When pennies are being brought in where dollars before used to be earned, is it worth the effort most likely in that the starving ARTS content creators are on the public dole by this time.

The Guild representative who testified her constituents agree to Orphan Works and Collective licensing is to be vetted. Do diligence, Congress. Random poll Members of the Music, Actors, Writers and Artists Guilds and collectives if their Guild members testifying to Congress actually speak for them. This is easy to do in these days of LINKEDIN. ARTS content members ask me how IP things have got so bad for them so fast, I don’t hold back. I ask them, tell me who is the person your Guild sent to Congress to speak for you. AND what did this person tell Congress in your name? They don’t know. I tell them a lawyer, most often, is testifying for them. I tell them lawyers think law, thinking their job is to help write the law, because that is what lawyers do, often. I tell them the lawyer gets paid, good job or not. And if this job doesn’t work out for them, the lawyer gets another job while Guild members are left with adverse agreements costing the members their ability to make a living. Sad part of the hearing was, even C-Span didn’t think enough of the hearing to have a camera there. Media at the table? One. Photographers? One. Paid for by a witness. Sorta sad, isn’t it. That is what I tell the self employed starving artist who loses works and income are stolen by Technology. You did what all good people do- you trusted.

During this push to change Title XVII, the other question I’ve learned to ask ARTS content creators I meet is a lesson gleaned from the Bible, the story of King Solomon and the two mom’s. I ask ARTS content creators, “is this your hobby or your day job,” an important distinction to make. Real job v Sunday painter colors their attitude to the value of their IP. The real mom, told Solomon, was willing to die to save her child; the fake mom’s “what-ever,” being listened to with greater weight than 24/7 bonafide ARTS Content creators who don’t have a backup income with which to subsidize their expenses with is worrisome to me. Attitudes, like size, differ.

Artists want control of their Content before and after the ARTS creator’s death. I had to smile during the Hearing. This thought crossed my mind. Would God have licensed “Noah” to be a Hollywood Script if He had been told the story would dramatically change from how the script was written? Or would a snake have told God he had to go along with the plan, like it or not.

The circumstance of Universities and donations was a bit misrepresented to Legislators. University collections are amped up by Alumni given Tax credits in return. Truth is even Universities don’t take everything offered to them, setting guidelines for what is acceptable for donation. A common guideline is if the University has need of it. You see, the gift is expensive, as librarians will tell you. Like all businesses, there is a limit on inventory that can be accepted. And if the inventory fails to perform, unless a huge check accompanied it, the gift will find itself out the door. Brides and grooms call it “re-gifting.” Others call it “one man’s trash, another man’s treasure.”

No one from Committee asked the Librarians present how they feel about the Digital Public Library of America. There was alot of talk of the lawsuit against Hathi but what about www.dp.la  The Digital Public Library of America describes themselves best. Te ABOUT section on the site says:


"About DPLA The Digital Public Library of America brings together the riches of America’s libraries, archives, and museums, and makes them freely available to the world. It strives to contain the full breadth of human expression, from the written word, to works of art and culture, to records of America’s heritage, to the efforts and data of science. The DPLA aims to expand this crucial realm of openly available materials, and make those riches more easily discovered and more widely usable and used, through its three main elements:

1. A portal that delivers students, teachers, scholars, and the public to incredible resources, wherever they may be in America.
Far more than a search engine, the
portal provides innovative ways to search and scan through the united collection of millions of items, including by timeline, map, virtual bookshelf, format, and topic.

2. A platform that enables new and transformative uses of our digitized cultural heritage. With an application programming interface (API) and maximally open data, the DPLA can be used by software developers, researchers, and others to create novel environments for learning, tools for discovery, and engaging apps.

3. An advocate for a strong public option in the twenty-first century. For most of American history, the ability to access materials for free through public libraries has been a central part of our culture, producing generations of avid readers and a knowledgeable, engaged citizenry. The DPLA works, along with like-minded organizations and individuals, to ensure that this critical, open intellectual landscape remains vibrant and broad in the face of increasingly restrictive digital options. The DPLA seeks to multiply openly accessible materials to strengthen the public option that libraries represent in their communities.

Partners include
    HathiTrust, Smithsonian Institution, Mountain West Digital Library, National Archives and Records Administration, The Portal to Texas History, University of Southern California. Libraries, Digital Library of Georgia, North Carolina Digital Heritage Center, Biodiversity Heritage Library, Internet Archive, Kentucky Digital Library, Digital Commonwealth, South Carolina Digital Library, David Rumsey, Minnesota Digital Library, University of Virginia Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, New York Public Library, Harvard Library, ARTstor

5.3 states:
"5.3. Visual Assets The Visual Assets displayed as part of any Exhibitions are subject to the rights granted within the metadata associated with each Visual Asset, if any. If you would like more information how to license these Visual Assets, please contact the relevant rights-holder. Please refrain from scraping or copying any of the Visual Assets from the Services. If you do, you do so at your own risk, and are fully liable for any damages that may arise out of this behavior. "


What protections are built in to the Partners Agreement to protect the conditionally donated items from being compromised? And if? Then what.

With all the testimony being given about how to pay after-the-fact fees, the suggestion to be made is require money to be put up front. Money is a great way to test the temperature of the water. As for the Tech companies? Ummm no, they don’t put money up front, they get to be fined in a massive way with that money being their pre-payment for their crimes, not post. Money up front is standard in licensing. An advance against royalties with guaranteed payments.

Partial of the funds should be used to create mediation labs that are co-operatives between law schools and 2D ARTS schools, the community most terrorized by Technology’s IP Crime spree. ARTS Mediation could be used to address local and simpler cases. ARTS students and ARTs-ists have the eye for details needed to spot fakes, forgeries and fraud. And everyone knows all lawyers want to be something other than their job. Bring the two together. This could provide independence and income to ARTS creators devastated by Tech’s Crime spree. This program would provide autonomy in a forum that would be the pre-step to litigation. The upside is it will bring esteem to ARTS creators along with the opportunity to face the IP That said, stealing is stealing. Stealing IP is a crime. And criminals of certain benchmarks go to jail.


The elephant in the room remains defining due diligence taken to find an ARTS work owner in the conversations of Orphan Works and Mass Digitization.

I speak from experience of my ARTS Content and book being infringed and mass digitized. My book THE HANDBOOK OF HEBREW CALLIGRAPHY was published in 1990. Years later, my books remains the authoritative book on the Scribal Art. It is sold globally. Not so cool. It is being sold globally without my permission. Technology has with book, like my photographs, facilitated my ARTS being accessed, scanned, sold everywhere from America to England to Japan, without my permission, without my even being contacted.  My book is sold for upwards of $23 a copy to over $500 (Japan). I am easy to find. No one can honestly testify they made best effort to find me and didn’t. Courtesy of Technology programs aggregate data on me ie Spokeo or 123people.com, stating I am unlocatable is a lie. YUMPU, the German online aggregating of  PDF Content, didn’t ask my permission to reprint, sell and make Advertising bucks from my IP. They did not seek my permission to license my, name, my Right To Publicity. Yes. In my case, I am a brand for decades. I am, more importantly, the IP owner.

A USPTO enforcement agent stated his office is limited to enforcement actions against bad patent lawyers. The Register of Copyrights, the FCC, FTC are limited too. I put it bluntly. These agencies are neutered without criminal enforcement capability. They agree. Besides, security breaches within Federal Agencies is doubling (http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/security-breaches-personal-information-federal-agencies-more-doubles-2009_786450.html) Push them, they will also admit their stories of online fraud of Identity, ownership, currency. One has to be an Ostrich to believe otherwise the frauds aren’t in their systems already. Their presumption is, until they learn differently, that the filed papers are correct. After all, one agent said to me, what does someone have to gain if they lie? Why not just tell the truth. Truth is not the nature of all humans.

The ARTS Owner conversation has been hijacked. The conversation has become about how to get access to someone else’s ARTS content property without paying for it.

If the need is that great to use the IP without finding its owner, the only honest option is to have the potential user put their money where their mouth is,, do the business thing.
(i) put money up front
(ii) pay half down before using the arts content with the written guarantee the balance will be paid within ie 30 days. After all, if the "need" is that great to use the ARTs content, then, as the expression goes,, put their money where their mouth is.
(iii) hire actors, singers to recreate that moment, an approach to story making that is age old. If they use the exact text then a royalty is due.

The culpability for this mess being stepped deeper in to, is Congress’. Legislators created this problem, ordering information to be put online without thinking these laws all the way through. The real conversation is how to stop the Bad Actors doing the stealing. The question of what can be done to empower the Agencies is answered simply. The money isn’t there. Don’t add to the burden. 

Get a far more credible sampling than 6 people at the Hearing table. LINKEDIN to the global ARTS community. Ask thousands of people at once ideas on how to stop their IP from being stolen without compensation- Writers, Bloggers, Dancers, Singers, Artists, Photographers and ask your questions in one posting. Ask questions like “Do you know what an Orphan Works is.” “Do you know what Collective Licensing fee and Black Box are” “Do you want your content in there meaning where before you got 100% that now you will be sharing your 100% with a million strangers.”

The people aren’t stupid. Ask them.

There is no room for nice-nice here. Any witness who represents to Legislators their system is 100% secure is selling Congress a bridge in Brooklyn. Nothing online is secure or will ever be secure unless the cancer can be cut out it off its root. The cancer? The Tech companies. What is it that Congress is not getting?

Is the ARTS owner going to sue the fake person in Japan? Or Germany? Britain, South Africa and elsewhere? How about Congress addressing the private companies who set into play the One World of IP, at the get go. There is a way forward for Congress to mitigate global theft of Intellectual property. First is admitting there are no more borders anymore. The Internet took care of that. Second is, going back to Square One. I call it "Berne Notice." Take on the IP abusers, from 126+ countries that are signers on the Berne Convention, take them to Court in the Hague. There are multiple laws that are being broken. Mail fraud, wire fraud, theft of ISBN numbers are a starting point. Toss in abuse of Fair Use and Safe Harbor as dodges to mitigate effort to locate a property owner to seek permission of use. Technology is using bots to strip metadata from photographic images rendering them "orphans" untraceable back to their owners. That shows Intent as I am told. I ran this idea past the Unitary Patent lawyer from Germany. He said, “hmmm, good idea.”

I know.

Just make sure the laws are compliant with the President's Plain Writing Communication Act (https://www.opm.gov/information-management/plain-language/) written for Jeff Foxworthy's proverbial 5th grader or for the New York Times reader, an 8th grader. Every agency has their Information Officer... except the Library of Congress... oh... they house the Bill (http://www.loc.gov/search/?q=plain+writing+communications+act)

That and one more thing that went under the Government radar. A stack of slick, glossly covered 1/2" thick book on the Hearing handout table. The soft covered magazine was put there by the Librarians from the Library of Congress. Its title is "The Library of Congress National Recording Preservation Plan," December 2012, National Recording Preservation Board of the Library of Congress, Council On Library And Information Resources and The Library Of Congress. Remember when Jim Neal of Columbia University testified, earlier, about a library being self sustaining through its budget and finding its own benefactors rather than take money from the Government and the people? Well, the 78 page book jogged a few ideas loose, like wondering what the LOC's Mission Statement says. [
http://www.loc.gov/about/ ]

Dr Billington's letter says it best. Billington wrote, "
... The Library of Congress is the nation's oldest federal cultural institution and serves as the research arm of Congress. It is also the largest library in the world, with millions of books, recordings, photographs, maps and manuscripts in its collections. The Library's mission is to support the Congress in fulfilling its constitutional duties and to further the progress of knowledge and creativity for the benefit of the American people. As Librarian of Congress, I oversee the many thousands of dedicated staff who acquire, catalog, preserve, and make available library collections within our three buildings on Capitol Hill and over the Internet " [ http://www.loc.gov/about/ ]

The Mission Statement of the Library of Congress bears reading. It states: "
The collections of the Library are vast and various, numbering in excess of 121 million, much of it the iconography of more than two hundred years of our nations' struggles and triumphs. In no other library can one find the contents of President Abraham Lincoln's pockets the night he was assassinated; President Thomas Jefferson's drawing of a macaroni machine; the corporate records of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); photographs of migrant workers during the Depression; television episodes of "I Love Lucy"; Pierre L'Enfant's plan for Washington, D.C.; the Washington Haggadah and the Gutenberg Bible. Our collections too come in a variety of formats including leather, vellum, palm leaves, papyrus, paper, nitrate film, CD-ROM, vinyl discs, and magnetic tape." On Reality TV, it would be said, the LOC has a hoarding problem. In todays world of being told to put everything online to reduce greenhouse emissions, encourage sustainability, then the conversation to have is yet another Goose & Gander one, what is good for the people is good for the LOC and what is good for the LOC is good for the people unless one is talking "Animal Farm" which the LOC most likely has an original copy of, "Four legs good, two legs better." In a world going online, that means the LOC storage barns term out to the tune of a savings for government. At what price History.

In these days and times of the Government focused on cutting costs, questions arise over the expense of printing this booklet that only one was taken from the pile on the handout page where it sat when there is an Internet to distribute information through for the price of a Click. A ten year project the booklet says...... hmmmm.... and begging at a hearing for more Tax Payer dollars..... and the Columbia University librarian testified his departments of oversight are self sustaining through private funds they raise.... hmmmmm





_________________________________________________________________
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 :
______________________________________________________________

If the populist Left accomplish their agenda of removing Property Rights in these days of battle to remove Guns n’ Bibles, the Founding Fathers’ American Constitution, making a Creator, the center of their creative copyright universe, will be eroded. Persons on the Left, salaried wonks and lobbyists, believe there should be no ownership of Copyright, further arguing the current term, of Life plus 70, is not only too long but should not exist at all because they believe nothing on the Internet should be owned at all or have been owned long enough.

Cool beans. I argue that all is fair in Love and Property Ownership, stating that highly paid proponents of a Free Internet should neither keep their paychecks nor their family heirlooms which I contend they have owned long enough, further stating that I will give up my copyright to others for free use when über paid athletes, actors and Warren Buffets successors and accessors to his Wealth give up their rights and claims, until then?

GAME ON!

Two hundred years plus after the Founding Fathers established a precedence for Copyright Protection, a Property Right, the 113th Congress chastised from the bench that involved parties are talking at each other, not with each other nor with consensus. Chairman Coble of the Subcommittee of 'Courts, Intellectual property and the Internet' pointed out in his opening statement, disrespect is being shown to Intellectual Property Creators by Opponents who believe in a Free Internet.

The hearing, Subject, "A Case Study for Consensus Building: The Copyright Principles Project." 

Committee minority leader Mel Watts applauded the We Right The Song event he attended earlier in the week, reminding those who exploit Artists there has been a shift in attitudes to Copyright Protections. Watts reinforced that Free Speech does not mean Free Stuff. Watts addressed those present in the Hearing Room, stating consumers deserve clarity over use of Intellectual Property, IP. Business models must accommodate the digital revolution keeping the focus on creators and not those who exploit them. Mel spoke out for the Committee’s position to enure the rights of the creators, stating the world will be better if the creative community's rights are protected.

The Hearing witnesses are participants in a multi year program, The Copyright Principles Project,' coordinated by Professor Pamela Samuelson. The project, A Case Study for Consensus Building: The Copyright Principles Project." CPP participants have met a few times a year, a few days at a time, towards an end goal of consensus on revamping the United States Copyright regs to facilitate the shift of Intelligent thought in a technologically driven world. The Committee was stacked- lawyers, librarians, law professors and, as duly noted and chastised by Legislators- not one representative from the creative arts community. Professor Samuelson indicated her panel participants are all authors. An author on a salary as a professor, staff of the Registry of Copyrights, college does not equate an artist with a song in their heart or a chalk stick in their hands, hoping their passion will pay rent or put food on their table. True artists were not invited to the table. Samuelson said she would have had to invite 50 people. So she invited none.

Witnesses included Jon Baumgarten, former General Counsel of the  US Copyright Office, from 1976-1979 (witness 1); of North Carolina School of Law, a librarian (witness 2);  Dr. Daniel Gervais, Vanderbilt School of Law (witness 3);  Professor Pamela Samuelson,  University of Berkley School of Law (witness 4); and Jules Sigall, assistant general counsel of Copyright for Microsoft Corporation (witness 5).

The Copyright Principle Project report, released in advance of the Thursday late afternoon meeting, was impossible to read without pen in hand. By Page End,the right and left page columns were peppered with WTF and OMG's. This report was not conceived of by creative sorts who rely on payments and royalties for survival. Thus was a report written by retired self interested self-described intellects with weekly paychecks, annuities and a need to publish, to stay relevant.

Witness 1: Jon Baumgarten adressed the Copyright Principle Project, the CPP, as a collegial session on stewardship facing the country. Baumgarten presented the result of paid for weekends away as real dialogue emanating from participants listening to each other. The process, developing the Copyright Principle Project, did not generate a great deal of agreement, Baumgarten said, rather, recording a lack of consensus requiring more study, as the exercise demonstrated how a committee can agree to disagree. Otherwise known as a stalemate though not being irrelevant. Baumgarten said the Copyright Principle Project recorded the nature of the disagreements, between proponents if the Free  Internet and their opposers, presenting the focus of the Copyright Principle Project more on the users of IP, Intellectual Property, rather than on the creators. Baumgarten said it is going to take patience to address this problem citing that people look for quick solutions for complex problems. Baumgarten, general counsel of  the Copyright Office in 1976 - 1979, a survivor of the earlier debates, made his point to state the tone of the debate rhetoric is important. Baumgarten said the pace for change is driven by people confused by the pace of technology  looking to push the past aside. Baumgarten, hesitated at being asked to speak for individual creators, does not feel the concern is or should be that copyright law is broken and dysfunctional. Baumgarten's concern, he advised, is that each side listen to each other for solution as Copyright, countered as an impediment, things, rhetoric and debate, get loud.

Witness 2: Professor Laura Gasaway's ‘walkaway’ of the trip to 'Copyright' consensus, she presented to the legislators  is that friendship and law dominated the panel she convened and that friendships evolved over the panels intermittent weekends away debating the Copyright Principle Project. Gasaway explained the community of her focus, on the importance of copyright, was institutions, educational users, archives and museums relying on Copyrighted materials ie books, mags, videos, internet, etc. Gasaway said the 1976 Copyright Act, effected during Baumgarten's tenure as General Counsel for the Copyright Office, does not work well for library users. Gasaway speaks as a librarian, in a culture of cutbacks and free Ebola, etc on the 'Net.' Gasaway said she wants removal of regulations from statutes taken into consideration for the unique role of museums, archives and education. Gasaway wants expanded rights for  museums to utilize digital technology for preservation. Gasaway said, deferring to the European proposed model, she wants a repeal of  Statute 108 of the Copyright Regs, asking that the Register of Copyrights rely completely on 107, Fair Use. Gasaway failed to clarify to the legislators that Fair Use is heavily within Copyright defense, in that Fair Use means a shtickel, a little bit, not the whole enchilada of a photograph, artwork or story. Gasaway acknowledged that maybe addressing libraries and museums needs is thorny, followed by the issue of “the Orphan Works problem.”

There is no Orphan Works problem if one adheres to the Berne Convention. There is only an Orphan Works problem if someone wants to use IP that is not theirs, refusing to take no for an answer. Gasaway said Orphan Works is important to adress, stating that mass digitization is important for libraries. Gasaway said there is a group in the UK simplifying copyright law. Gasaway did not state that simplifying something is codifying it with an index, a summary, a short sheet. To allow people to understand Copyright Law, write a book for NOLO, the publisher who simplifies Tenant and other laws for consumers but leave the law alone- just bullet point it.

Gasaway said photocopying in law school is almost dead suggesting that most of the photocopied items are licensed, between what Westlaw and the Courts put on line. Gasaway said that law schools do pay for IP but their law students don't, relying on free access to the Internet. Law school of today, Gasaway said, is multimedia, used both by students, teachers and librarians. As an academic, Gasaway admitted she is concerned with the abuse of her work. She is seeing a trend in her colleagues using more off the Internet as a licensed and real solution. Gasaway left out of her conversation consideration for Copyright Creators, excluding Copyright Creators even though she didn't think she did. Congresswoman Judy Chu said Internet Copyright Infringement is a whack-a-mole process individual Creators feel they can't win within effecting a take down that is then back up on the Internet within hours. Gasaway, feeling if the take down notice is not effective then it should be adressed by the committee, said the CPP project didn't not water down Copyright Law but strengthened it. Then again, Gasaway is a librarian not a Creative who she feels there is a problem with. Rights have to be pursued through courts in a system that favors the big guys. Gasawat said compromise which is not a dirty word. Stop being polarized, Gasaway admonished the Creative IP community and focus on how to make work available. No truer words said from someone best described in my biggest lesson about Artists and Agents- a pimp/whore relationship between those who have nothing to sell and need something to sell hence the Artist is courted. Or here, where the artists community is pillaged by those who cannot generate the IP they so desire…..

Witness 3: 1790 <> 1903 <> 1976 . Three dates important to history in the issue of Copyright, pointed out Dr. Daniel Gervais, Vanderbilt School of Law, who sees Copyright creators as small businesses who should flourish. Gervais wants access to IP by Users, seeing a win-win on maximizing Authorized Use rather than focusing on Unauthorized Use. Copyright was once a set of rules negotiated between Users. The world has changed, said Gervais. The use of streamed movies requires a license. Technology makes it easier to use what belong to others. The international vista is beginning to look like a patchwork of rules. Licensing has become an important vehicle for artists, said Gervais. The future of e-industry as commerce depends on the ability to profit. Gervais wants power left in the hands of the Copyright Office, comparing use of IP to buying a car. A User must be registered to confirm details but a car sale requires that the person selling the car has the right to the car to make the sale. Gervais sees monetization as number one issue, recommending reviewing the licensing structure along with a review of formalities as to how royalties are linked to revenues, acknowledging that professional creators need a way to monetize their works. Gervais, challenging people who say they work on behalf of public interest, said he left Mobile out of his conversation. This was mind boggling, since Mobile is the way of the world, and marketing, at this time. The problem is when regulations are on the books people take advantage of it turning it into a model that fuels the antagonization.

Witness 4: Professor Pamel Samuelson convened the CPP, Copyright Principles Project, she said, after having spoke. with Copyright lawyers and the prior Register of Copyright. Samuelson describes the CPP as an effort to reach out to people of differing perspectives to maybe come to consensus. Samuelson describes the Statute as getting longer and complicated to read, stating the law was drafted in the 1960 s before the Internet. Samuelson’s focus is on public performance rights and not on 2d. Samuelson hoped the filed ideas in the CPP might lead to conversation. Samuelson says a better regime is needed to facilitate licensing, alleging there is not enough information out there. Samuelson says, in the high tech world that IP awards are excessive. Samuelson did not state excessive fees is not the world of the 2D creator. Samuelson did not adress the 2D world. Pamela sees the role of the individual as being an empirical issue needing research. Pamela said a conversation started with mutual respect, can move forward. Samuelson adressed Communication Rights applied to broadcasters. Samuelson did not adress the world of 2D. Samuelson simplified setting category by category at to this is what a performance right does, etc. Samuelson said there is a lot of good citing in the Copyright Law, in that it protects works for a period of time although she wrote the time should  be reduced. Samuelson said the consensus of Fair Ase of IP has allowed Copyright law to adapt during a time of change, feeling the antagonization is due to how people would be able to control their IP better but cannot not being effective as she hoped, fearing a toxic environment. That said no one knows what the net new technological advancement is, said Samuelson reminding that the Founding Fathers were themselves authors. Samuelson said the States had competitive Copyright laws, so a uniform law was valuable to transition to a national way of being as a country. Samuelson summed up there should be a focus on maximizing authorized  use citing the “simple laws” it took her 68 pages to write, acknowledging different types of users and how to retain users to fit in multiple categories.

Witness 5: Jules Sigall, assistant general counsel of Copyright for Microsoft Corporation describes a stress in the world of IP challenged by instant sharing in a smart world. Sigall sees Copyright as a way of enriching knowledge but not enriching people. Sigall said he speaks for Microsoft and their protection of Copyright but Sigall did not address Microsoft’s infringement on the rights of others ie with BING GALLERY using images without permission or license. Sigall sees sharing information as a tool in an information world. Sigall says the rules must adress the issue of information sharing but failed to acknowledge a culture of social entrepreneurs themselves fearing infringement creating a safe harbor to protect the technology companies, the technological version of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Sigall feels a need for safe harbors for creators, at the speed and scale of the digital world. Sigall wants works unlocked from owners who don't care for them, a technological version of Children Protective Services, it seems, able to remove a child from a perceived, or real, environment of danger. Would that not be like role playing the man who kidnapped three women, convincing himself they were safer with him, all the while abusing them for ten years or their lifetime which ever came first- mercifully, ten years came first.


The legislators Q & A showed there is spine in the Committee. The Committee adressed piracy a Microsoft concern, using a takedown system, relying in cooperation of Internet providers around the world. The Good v Evil story was avoided with a focus on trying to unerve each other w Copyright being a functional matter. The legislators reminded the panel that Section 1201 is in place for protection of technology right holders. 

While Cloud Computing is delivering legitimate services, making them valuable, it was acknowledged that things, IP violation, are not going to change but going to continue so there must  be a better way of letting people know how to get hold of,artists, ie databases for copyright authors. Such databases exists. They can be tapped into. But databases come with fees and costs. Artists won't want to absorb or cannot afford those costs. There was curiosity whether  strengthening penalties might overreach and burden legitimate use of Copyrighted materials.

Congressman Hank Johnson noted the absence of writers from the CPP, also noted the Copyright change should be in consideration of international partners.

Congresswoman Chu on the Creative Rights Caucus expressed concern there were no creators on the CPP panel and none at the hearing today. Chu, noting  Copyright law has contributed to the economy,  is concerned for what will be if the existing law is continued to be watered down. Copyright must allow transformative technology respecting the creators that are needed. Modifying the act so it can be understood easier and simplified for people was put on the table.

Poe said the Copyright law is twice as long as war and peace and not as funny. Poe said America is better because we have the concept of copyright. Then Poe asked what is good about the law now? What is the worst part of the law. The panel took long to respond and review.

Congresswoman Bass asked the meaning of commercial exploitation and if every download isn't just that- commercial exploitation. Bass said once people needed someone to download for them but, now, people can download themselves having the notion that personal use is an exempted activity. Bass noted that WIPO is meeting next month to tweak copyright law for the visually impaired. . There are countries, super region meetings where some countries are invited and other countries are not invited, putting counter treaties forth to the proposed treaties. Bass did not acknowledge that blind or not, permission should be sought for use of IP. The heart of a creative person is empathetic. The average designer won't say no

Congressman Collins reminded the Founding Fathers knew every thing has an owner and incentivisation is important. Atlanta is one of ghetto five start up locations in the country. Digress with the report.



Congressman Holding asked why the current Copyright and discussions have become polarized. Witness 3 said because it is important to people who invest time and effort into their engine of creation.

Congressman Jeffries asked about the founding fathers, wanting to know how to strike balance in the competitive environment that exists now. Asked thoughts on strengthening penalties for piracy, he had no answer.

Congressman Descant queried on the use of academics as experts. Academics are IP creators with a paycheck. Noted report focused on utilitarian principles rather than property ,rights the founding fathers  believed were important, citing CPP report said copyright is not a property's right that it is a utilitarian right.

Congressman Mel Watts summed up the query for 20 pages as proposed by the CPP repudiant Pamela Samuelson. Samuelson said Copyright law can be be done in 20pages. It would have to be enforced and by whom. Not the copyright office, since they have no enforcement. Property theft is perceived as property by the Founding Fathers who envisioned culture of property and people never imagining those principles would be stomped on by a group who want things free….

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

Pass the Popcorn Please, Congressman Mel Watts said. The Judiciary had just donned MEN IN BLACK shades for the Committees tutorial on what it takes to make a 3D movie, behind the scenes expenses lost as 2D IP, Intellectual Property, is stolen. Congressman Goodlatte notated this was a photo op destined to grab headlines. It didn’t. Nor did the hearing, sadly. IP is not getting the looksie it should be in a world where Kim Kardashian is popping out babies and Princess Kate trumped her by popping out a King.

People just aren’t cluing in that without Intellectual Property bills aren’t going to get paid- for tuition, for loans, for pensions, for insurances, for houses, for food, by anyone for anything. There is just too gosh darn much out there to district a Twitter brain world for using a Thesaurus for words like- piracy, theft, steal, take what isnt yours. Thesaurus is one of those vernaculars falling by the wayside in a warpspeed world of Technology, reality TV and billions being tossed around for ideas many of which go nowhere (other than into the privacy of our lives) but make big bucks for Titans tossing aside Century old traditions of Please and Thank You and Respecting that Commandment, of the Ten, that says “Thou Shalt not Covet.”

Congressman Goodlatte’s The Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet held back-to-back hearings the Thursdays before Summer Camp For Congress. Thursday July 25’s hearing was themed “INNOVATION in AMERICA: The Role of Copyrights.” August 1’s hearing was themed “INNOVATION in AMERICA: The Role of Technology.” The hearing of the 25th,  Sandra Aistars  Executive Director Copyright Alliance; Eugene Mopsik  Executive Director American Society of Media Photographers; Tor Hansen   co-founder Yep Roc and RedEYE distribution; John Lapham Sr VP and GC  Getty Images and William Sherak President  of Stereo D LLC testified. August 1st, Danae Ringelmann, Founder & Chief Customer Officer of Indiegogo testified along Nathan Seidle CEO of  SparkFun Electronics, Inc; Rakesh Agrawal, Founder & CEO, SnapStream Media; Van Linderg, VP, Intellectual Property, Rackspace; and the ringer, Jim Fruchterman, President and CEO of Benetech. Indiegogo is an open funding platoform where anyone can fund what they want, where people give money in exchange for perks. Indiegogo takes 4% of funds raised

A few weeks earlier, HR 2655 passed in a vote of 6-2. HR 2655 is the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013. Copyright Abuse was part of the Judiciary conversations on the 25th and the 1st. The  Register of Copyrights Office is convinced Small Claims Court is the forum in which Creatives should pursue claims for Unauthorized Use of an Creative’s 2D Intellectual Property Rights. Berne Convention signators have successfully move to Dedicated IPR courts with IPR Judges and specialty lawyers educated in IPR, Intellectual Property Rights. The countries America chooses to perceive as Third World countries “got it” that taking someone’s IP Intellectual Property without their permission is Criminal- call it Piracy or theft or stealing- the action is the same- taking what isnt yours with the outcome being consistent- Criminal Behaviour.

General Counsel’s advising Legislators are still using college professors as experts on Intellectual Policy. Something to be said about college professors worldwide… they are like two tier tourist buses around the world- DC, UK, France, everywhere…. Seen one, seen ‘em all. To create policy, speak to the everyday artist trying to pay bills… like the Arlington Alliance in Jim Moran’s backyard over at the Crystal City Underground Mall, Torpedo Factory in Alexandria and elsewhere…. ask artists in China, in India or better. Wait until the Smithsonians annual Folk Life festival and junket it to the Mall for the annual event showcasing cultures from around the world. Ask those artisans from foreign lands their experiences. Amazing. Legislators will learn that artists like professors around the world are the same. Professors craft policy from mountain tops in the Himilayas and artists lose their hearts to producing beauty in financially stressed worlds of communities that needs smiles.

Until then? Reporting for duty. Have Wit Will Travel.

John Lapham Sr VP and General Counsel for Getty Images explained to legislators that Getty Images, laying claim to being the first company to license images on the Internet processes over 200,000 images a day plus music tracks through Getty offices in over 18 countries. Copyright, testified Lapham, is the foundation of Getty’s business provided to their over one million customers. Lapham explained there is no total solution to protecting Arts Intellectual Property which Getty Images has up on line within minutes of images being taken by Artists who rely on their 2D IP from which to make their livings, a visual Lapham described with which to make the speed with which imagery travels these days. Lapham described Inauguration Day over the Capitol. The sun rose. Photographers were in place before the day’s sun rose. The Sun image was on the Washington Posts home page even before the sun crested. That is how fast, an Arts image is stolen, these days. Lapham testified Fair Use is abused most, balance and sources for resolution must be found.

Stereo D LLC started in 2009 post the popularity of Avatar, important to note, with that being a form of ‘flattery’ to some, imitation. To others? Poaching a good idea because it succeeds as a business model- different from Patent Trolling or Unauthorized Use of Copyright, the point of the hearings? Maybe. Excepting, Stereo D LLC didn’t try to pass Avatar off as their own idea, communicated William Sherak, president of Stereo D LLC, in his testimony. Quoting a famous New Jerseyian, Stereo D LLC did it their way, Men IN Black’d a bunch of legislators for a cool moment while the legislators watched Sherak’s Movie Moment in shades- a Rogue’s Gallery photo op moment that was destined to happen before Sherak explained to Congress how Studio D converts films through 3D’s highly technical labor intensive process drawing detailed line which is then hand painted in. 

Sherak testified movie making is not perceived as innovative, that the greatest films are the most pirated. 3D film making is new way to enhance the movie experience. Movie industry investment decisions are made on the basis of projected earnings hence  copyright holders need strong copyright. Sherak’s opinion was that legislators must keep in mind all kinds of people are impacted by his product. 3D gives artists new careers along with employing tertiary and secondary industries through their biz, such as screen makers, projection systems, even food concessionaires.  Sherak said, protecting copyright IS attacking piracy.

 
Congressman John Conyers acknowledged that Copyright promotes the National economy. Conyers asked if Congress should take a measured approach when reviewing Copyright Law. Conyers noted Arts Creators need more money since they are getting less. Conyers asked for more recommendations before departing the hearing. Committee chairpeople and GC’s, general counsels, are most likely to stay the whole of a hearing. The others come and go as need be.

Aistairs from the Copyright Alliance testified the Founding Fathers, perceiving the situation Copyright finds itself in today, would approve, would be pleased, further explaining, must look at why artists put work out publicly. Aistairs, argued Copyright Law needs updating to meet current needs. Real artists argue current  needs must be rolled back to meet Copyright Integrity.  Aistars spoke up best practices is for artists to be versed in technology ‘loving’ to see artists in areas outside of music. Aistairs did agree a quick efficient way is need to respond to violators of copyright online, using the DMCA as an example. The DMCS is regarded differently by working artists- better to prevent than to spend hours, possibly futilely against a violator knowing working artists must evaluate Time v Return. 

Congressman Chafetz focused questions on Hansen. Hansen started his business in his garage. Chafetz wanted specifics of the value of being on radio. Hansen explained music is sent to programmers who program. Chafetz argued the value of Internet radio must include paying artists. He wants artists getting paid. Hansen said the ease with which music can be shared. He wants artists being compensated.  Hansen said non legitimate sources of music are issues to not allow easily done, taking time to point out the US does not pay out royalty over the air. The money is held offshore.

Eugene Mopsick expressed his concern over Fair Use, stating that everyone’s figured out how to make money from photography. The number one filer for Copyright protection? Photographers, more than other areas of the Arts. Mopsick felt more positive than registering on line is to create a copyright office link form so that a photographer within a work flow will be able to file as shooting eliminating the need to have to go outside to register keeping in mind statutory damages will be locked out if an image owner’s copyright is not registered prior to filing a claim. Sounds all well and dandy excepting a working photographer would explain the reality of the edit steps in the process of dumping images from a card then batching to load with the data of Name, Date, location and involved parties- a step down before photos are filed with the editors themselves let alone with any registering entity. Sounds good… would sound better if testimony matched reality.  Mopsick wanted Orphan Works addressed. Mopsick neglected to explain to Legislators how Technology is creating Orphan works of images that are sent out containing Ownership Metadata. (Hang in there, an online idiot proof tutorial is planned)

Congresswoman Judy Chu pointed out Fair Compensation for everyone.

Congressman Deutsch is a champion of the Underdogs of Art, statement bombed the hearing with maybe a question here or there and a statement read along the lines of ‘Not to forget about lesser known creators whose work wont appear in magazines etc… the names we don’t … that copyright has to be rooted in Tech Control and how not to pick favorites or to open copyright to new avenues of theft…’ Deutsch reminded hearing attendees many of the Founding Fathers were inventors themselves, that while America exports a lot, one of America’s strongest exports is its Intellectual Property, providing goodwill overseas. Deutsch acknowledged the content and technology are not lock with the goal of a nation is to grow the pie fairly and not fight over the piece they got. Globally, communicated Deutsch, Artists and Photographers are goodwill for America, promoting her overseas.

Congressman Goodlatte’s questions solicited opinions for how the Founders would perceive the situation today, asking opinions are arching issues for the Committee. Goodlatte took credit for crafting the law allowing people to share movies on Facebook, he said, a step that enhanced the social experience without clarifying if or what safeguards he installed for Owners’ Copyright protection.  It was agreed there are iconic impacts for both sides. A Copyright “central” needs to be found. Once, that Copyright Central was the Berne Convention. And then along came Technology with interested parties wanting to push the envelope in their direction.

August 1st, Danae Ringelmann, Founder & Chief Customer Officer of Indiegogo testified along Nathan Seidle CEO of  SparkFun Electronics, Inc; Rakesh Agrawal, Founder & CEO, SnapStream Media; Van Linderg, VP, Intellectual Property, Rackspace; and the ringer, Jim Fruchterman, President and CEO of Benetech.

Bookshare is a non profit that scans books into files, Braille, that can be read aloud. Fruchterman impressed himself with his rhetoric on Title 17 Sections 121 and 107. Section 121, Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Reproduction for Blind or other people with Disabilities; Section 107,   Limitations on Exclusive Rights, Fair Use. Fruchterman talked how he revolutionized books for disabled people, able to provide books for ½ price of what it cost government. Fruchterman testified the Silicon Valley Model is to give Intellectual Property away for free, making money through advertising. Most of America does not live in Silicon Valley. In the world of Small Business, giving a hint or a tip or a free cupcake is called a Loss Leader. Something comes back, hopefully. Except when it is taken by Silicon Valley expensive suits testifying on Capitol Hill before Congress. The only comeback it seems is to the Suits- Salary? Almost $300K and a boast that the Department of Education gave him $6.5 million grant this year, failing to mention that amount has been coming in for several now, while individuals IP is being taken without compensation.  Fruchterman’s emphasis on helping disabled people is disingenuous. Stealing from one disabled person to help another is not justified nor Fair Use moreso with all the latititudes and Tax benefits open to a disable person. Yes, disabled people are artists and innovators and inventors too. They are entitle to own their IP and profit from it. Disabled entrepreneurs want to be self supporting and as much like someone else as they can be. No one has appointed Congress God for them to facilitate abuse of Fair Use under claims of helping disadvantaged by Silicon Valley Slick Willies unless Congress decides to judiciously see through the Silicon Valley capers like Silicon Valley testifying he is NOT trying to make a profit.

Fruchterman boasted how his library is growing, how the community he serves I mostly dyslexic and brain damaged. Fruchterman testified his dream is to move away form being a primary source hoping he will convince publishers to move away from Copyright, claiming that Fair Use is a lab for disability, boasting he has a great track record of making money for his stake holders, as well as himself, judging by the cost of his suit and tie and salary, for Bookshare alone. Fruchterman overlooked telling legislators Bookshare is the dba that Benetech is doing business as and that Benetech is actually part of ….. which is part of …. And that he had achieved a $30 million grant payable over …. Years…. And say what? If the author Fruchterman, claiming Sections 107 and 121, because he felt no need to pay royalties to was disabled? The stakeholders were making money…. That’s all he cared to share… Legislators didn’t think or know to ask….

Nathan Seidel put his faith in do-it-yourself makers and crafters for opensourcing solutions from. Seidel recommended putting money in to development. Seidel’s experience with anti-piracy steps is a waste of time to sue infringers and for defense of patents encouraging, rather, to focus on innovators, stating innovation is the key, putting down the Trademark process as being irrelevant. The worst thing he felt Congress could do was create monopolies even wanting the number of years granted shortened believing, at least with technology, it will shorten the timeline to innovate. Released design files, he felt would encourage people to reverse IP, intellectual property, theft.  People should not be forced to share. The example was given by a witness that  NASA released a ‘problem’ it into OPEN TANK. People shared. Problem solved, an example of success from VOLUNTARY sharing.

Rakesh Agrawal, Founder & CEO, SnapStream Media described how his model records TV shows by facilitating searches within shows, best described, he said as a cross between a DVR and a search engine. Customers can search ten shows at a time, find a link, then copy the text just like searching on line, he said, before copying and pasting. KEYWORD…. Copying. Without the Content Creator’s approval would that not be a violation of Copyright Law…. Score ONE for the Artists. Technology? FAILING grade. Agrawal screened an example of Snapstream at work or tried to, teaching Congress an even better lesson about Technology- it can fail and will even in a hearing upon Capitol Hill. Agrawal screened a clip of Joel McHale and a montage of the words Tweet and Twitter being used . Agrawal used this technique for creating a clip focused on RNC, DNC, admitting competitors use his technology to “track competitors” for breaking news as not to be too far behind the 8 ball as news broke, somewhat similar, one could say to NSA algorithm charting of Citizen’s phone calls or stalking, as a judge might determine a man charting a woman’s life 24/7, when in reality what is being done is robbing people of traditional search methods.

Lindberg testified that tech and internet companies are content creators, reinforcing that Copyright includes software code to protect people, content creators. Some business models rely on widespread share. No acknowledgement was made these business models operate on an Opt In, Opt Out system. Taking of one’s IP is not an Opt In. It is something without boundaries nor business etiquette. Lindberg explained Rackspace was looking to build a platform. Everything was proprietary. Opensource controlled most of the Internet Rackspace was looking at. Openset was written, collectively and to go Open. Rackspace is Wary of computers making decisions for people stating quite clearly that Bots don’t understand human relations. Rackspace hires team they call their Front Line to prevent violations. The vignette was shared of how computer generated SpiderBots are accusing them of violating content they are using under license or ads they have the right to host point being a lesson that automated software cannot differentiate. The effort was made to express to Legislators to understand that algorithms, the hot spyware bandwagon advertising has piled on top of to study peoples habits for more Sell Sell Sell. Algorithms don’t replace people. Legislators were told clearly and directly that more changes, dissolutions to Title 17, Copyright Act, will make copyright more difficient, that content creators must be respected.

 Gripes and groans the Witnesses shared were access to Capitol (indiegogo), shortsighted that publishers should allow for Braille companies (Bookshare), open source technology to create open phone without gatekeeper, speed at which technology charging is astounding 13 year old student has his own website need every tool to stay competitive. Lindbergs testified he is looking out for the next generation having invited kids to a conference where tutorials were disseminated to teach the kids to program and innovate

Congresswoman Chu asked Lindbergs if anti-piracy law is a waste of time though thousands in music industry rely on their Intellectual Property fro which to innovate? Going further, Chu asked What has current Copyright system impeded or not impeded? Her eye was mindful of  technological growth and innovation. The answers to the Congresswoman were insightful.

Congresswoman Chu was told the reality of Technology and The Arts- free share is giving your Arts voluntary and Knowingly; piracy is someones Arts being taken  involuntarily. As with ALL business, there are many models people then decide to follow. Some people want to retain exclusive control. Other people don’t know, don’t care or cant be bothered in that their Arts is their low maintenance pleasure. People gravitate to the choice that feels best for them at that time. Pandora allows share. Point made eloquently was that Innovation cannot be controlled noting it comes from the intersection of  both and that Legislators must take care to make sure Copyright law fully appreciates Content Creators rights to decide.

Congresswoman Chu is a rockstar for the Arts. The Congresswoman asked for advice for photographers to fight abuse.  She was told that while companies must be responsive to their needs, it is impossible to police the whole internet. Trying to stop Google and other Search Engines and ISPs theft of 2D Intellectual Property, Identity and Commerce is like trying to stop water from rolling down a hill. Cant stop it. Examples are given of musicians turning to new models to make money ie. crowdfunding or youtube or such. The question to balance was not asked “HOW are they supporting themselves in the interim until they get ‘discovered’- who pays their bills, what debts do they have, are they living at home, do they have insurance, do they ‘crowd room’ (dorm), do they Goodwill their clothes…. That is where the Forward Looking statements of VCs testifying to Congress should have been asked… to hell with Algorithms, produce stats. Poll a room of hackers or Techies gathered to freehack ideas or write code. Its amazing to ask that ONE question of a speaker who has gushed about their Amazing New Idea if they are making money or paying bills. The room gets so quiet a pin can drop when they answer a deafening NO.

     Congressman Goodlatte is blessed with good  jeans- teenage ones- he said keep his computer running faster and better. Seidel was asked if the decision to share is made by an inventor or by a law making them share. Ahem, Congressman, THAT IS CALLED A LICENSE which is the Intellectual Property Owner’s right to bundle. Seidel testified not pursuing patents is a choice. Seidel testified Patent Trolls are hurting innovation. There is more to the patent conversation that hasn’t hit the legislators ears yet- the failure of handsomely paid lawyers to keep clients updated on their investments. Law firms come and go and patents get lost because the USPTO fails to connect to the owner of the Patent.

There is even more to the conversation of Patent Trolling Legislators should have been pointed to and were not- Domain Squatting encouraged by ICAAN continuing to dilute a business person investment in to their innovation and Goodwill. Remember all those .coms that some people invested deep into when Dot.Coms first came out? Remember how “good businessmen” were snapping up Trademark names like Coca Cola or Pepsi, for example, then waiting for the Corporate Entity to need that domain hoping for a re-sell kill? Legislators should have cried out along time ago on that one and on the explosion of  Dot Coms intentionally piggybacking on to existing Trademarks and Domains name by buying the XXX (porno) or Dot US or Dot Mobi, etc. Patent trolling is the least of  concern legislators must make decisions on for American Innovation to grow.

Lost in the conversation is the naivety of Patents. It was explained to me very well by an old Virginian I met at a USPTO event. He said to me that I got patent all wrong. His language was more colorful when it came to theft. He said publishing a patent ISNT about protecting your idea. S The old coot said publishing a patent is a BRING IT ON DO IT BETTER challenge. Darned if he isnt right. Would have saved me a lot of money sooner….

As for Patent Trolls, the coincidence of the Lawsuit Abuse Act rings well here. The problem with Patent Trolls is Lawyers. The problem with these lawyers is lawsuit abuse no different here than the New York lawyer harassing building owners with that one same handicapped client the lawyer sues on behalf of claiming violations of the ADA acts. Patent Trolling? Building access trolling. It comes down to what I say time and again. One model, many variations there of. Set up the model of addressing the problem so, like the White House or Congress, the institution moves forward no matter who the occupant of the chair, or in this case, the claim is. The reality is patent litigation and preparation is costly. Poll patents filed in a time frame to ask questions like how many made money, how much money was lost in the investment. Congressional eyes will open wide… they will get it why the ROC and USPTO are the only profit making entities of Government… its called the Dream. Trademarks, copyrights and patents are, too often, more expensive versions of Lottery tickets. What are those odd of winning… enough said…..

Congressman Smith elicited the reality of China stealing IP from America. Theft goes both ways. What does one do to a witness who admits he stole an idea from China who stole the idea from him, improving on his idea. Get guys together in a steam room, that would be a towel wacking moment followed with a Hi 5. But isnt theft, theft. Why would stealing from China be different than the accepted accusation from them? Why is the Friendship Arch in Chinatown not a theft of Chinese culture? Point being there is common ground. There is inspiration. Theft is when it is the EXACT item used, not upping the Chinese because they did what the Ol Virginian lawyer told me Patents are all about. Congressman Smith’s addressing Shell Corporations in Patent Trolling did not go far enough. Shell companies is a business problem in all industries- real estate, for example, all over DC and elsewhere, internet companies without a brick adress, pumpers and dumpers on Wall Street and Titans, again bringing the conversation back to one model and different occupants (like Congress and the White House). It isnt the Industry that needs changing, when it comes to IP, it is the lawyers abusing their craft. It is the lack of speedbumps or studies or statistics on the lawyers to see how they troll. There is the reality that some cases are legit- a patent is owned. A person hopes they wont get caught or that the courts will decide in their favor- does GOOGLE BOOKS come to mind- copying first, then asking questions second?

Congressmen Watts and Deutsch agree that people should be compensated for their workd. Deutsch said government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. The Congressman does not want to see situation where innovation is threatened acknowledging there are Copyright holders whose work is sustained by Copyright

Congresssman Desantis said it is not protectionism to uphold the founding fathers. Desantis was realistic in reminding Committee that not everything works. Mandating the DCMA didn’t make things better. Witnesses testified Time and money is lost enforcing Copyright when they have to hire people to stop Copyright theft. There should be stumbling blocks at the get go set up by the Register of Copyrights. It made things work moreso than what Congress is aware of  ( www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi?search=electronic+frontier ) An example of DMCA is Random Houses notices to Google, over 20 filed in one day alone. And that makes Random House litigious in the interpretation of their action which brings the conversation back to Small Claims Court or IPR Courts with Criminal Oversight which would make Google, Search Engines and ISPs exactly what they are Serial Criminals when it comes to IP. Here is what one DMCA notice from Random House to google looks like (
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/notice.cgi?NoticeID=987544)

Now really, does Congress now see why Small Claims Court wont work when someone and entities hide behind Fair Use and Safe Harbor. 

Most important Legislators- while you are looking at the Dedacted Takedown notice…. SENT TO GOOGLE… question is how did it get from GOOGLE to being posted publicly on the Internet on CHILLING EFFECTS? Isnt there an expectation of Privacy in the DMCA or addressing theft? (www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/notice.cgi?NoticeID=987544)

Sender Information:
Random House
Sent by: [Private]
Attributor
US Recipient Information:
[Private]
Google, Inc.
Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA

Sent via: online form
Re: Websearch Infringement Notification via Online Form Complaint

Google DMCA Form: Infringement Notification for Web Search

Contact Information
Name: [redacted]
Company Name: Attributor
Copyright holder: Random House
Country/Region: US

Congressman Hakeen Jeffries notated the balance between content creator and protection, kumbaying for a mutually beneficial coexistence. Jeffries pointed out the hearing’s witness businesses exist because of others Intellectual Property. Lindsberg referred to Adam Smith who said Everyone is better in a Mercantile System where you trade. Trade means Commerce, exchange, and that word again, voluntary. Jeffries wants Artists not just the industry to make money. The Congressman said he doesn’t want Congress to make models in to law. A witness said he owns two patents himself ONLY because his lawyer wanted him to be defensive. This was important for legislators to hear. The USPTO and Copyright Office thrive on the ‘just in case you get stolen from you want your copyright so you can get statutory damages.’ America’s innovation moved forward because people added to property, not just were defensive about what they had.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson got “IT.” There are different copyright concerns for 2D IP, ID and Commerce creators than there are for Technological IP creators. Lumping the two together is like putting the Fox in the Henhouse. Technology is raping the 2D Arts Creators for content. Technology is proliferating Identity theft when it bundles peoples data. Technology is Human Trafficking when it sells a person “online life” as sites like www.spokeo.com and www.123people.com do. The Congresswoman’s curiosity about filing on line resonates back to the Human trafficking. The faster data is accessible the easier it is to steal Identity and Intellectual Property. There is something to be said for making people walk in through front doors and go ‘hi y’all.’ The witnesses were forthright to the Congresswoman’s questions- Reynolds is the Wikipedia for patent solutions; Congress should crowd source ideas beyond closed doors; most small business don’t have voice and people can crowdsource at atpatents.com. An acknowledgement was made for Orphan Works registration a push being made to Congress by Technology Lobbyists. (http://carriedevorah.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/my-orphan-works-and-unauthorized-use-comment-that-i-filed-with-the-united-states-copyright-office/) There was no reinforcement of what the Good Gentleman Lawyer from Virginia said- Do It Better, Don’t Copy. A nod of the brow to Congresswoman Jackson for seeing Congress needs to go another route for technology.

There is NO arguing with the Witness reality that Business’ are built with a monetized return. Congressman Mel Watts said is best. There is no Free Lunch. Everyone makes a profit. The Congressman then went on to cite the Founding Father’s words. The goal is not to amend the Constitution. Discretion must be earned to know how to do it….. hint…. Just like Patent Trolling… it is in every industry. The ideal for the Judiciary would be to list industries, list abuses, and watch how, as we Crime Analysts describe it… watch how the piles grow. The pieces will fall into place. They already have. Just too many people talking to a very few ears who are wanting to make a difference and want some help how….. doing it… guiding, one blog post at a time….

Stay tuned…..  my list is growing…..  Mel, pass the popcorn, please

_________________________________________________________
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. T
he 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
.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

 (C) Carrie Devorah [ applies to Relevant Text by Carrie & Design ]
. THE CENTER FOR COPYRIGHT INTEGRITY .
562 688 2883  .  carriedev@gmail.com 
 www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com  
 
                                                                                                                                                                                  

EVERYTHING ON THIS SITE IS (C) CARRIE DEVORAH UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED even then its presentation & design is (c) Carrie Devorah
NOTHING MAY BE REPRODUCED . COPIED . WEBCRAWLER STOLEN . USED FOR ADVERTISING DOLLARS and so much more

WITHOUT WRITTEN LICENSE FROM CARRIE DEVORAH.