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

KEEPING Your (C) EYE ON CONGRESS  [ You Are On This CLICKs Page ]

INDEX :

_______________________________________________________________
Waters Praises SEC’s Progress,  Underscores Need for Sufficient Funding ( Fair Use Of Information On Committee Of Financial Services Website)
________________________________________________________

WASHINGTON, D.C. – At today’s full Committee hearing on “Oversight of the SEC's Agenda, Operations, and FY 2015 Budget Request” Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee, praised Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Mary Jo White for the Commission’s  progress implementing the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform Act. She also underscored the need to accomplish a number of outstanding measures, such as the adoption of final versions of a number of swap rules under Dodd-Frank. Waters also emphasized the importance of SEC’s request for significant additional resources, necessary to accomplish the important task of increasing the SEC’s  examination coverage of registered investment advisers.

Her full remarks are below.  

As prepared for delivery:

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing this morning.  And thank you to Chair White for appearing before the Committee and offering your overview of the agenda and operations of the SEC.

It has been nearly four years since the passage of the historic Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and we’ve come a long way.  The Commission has completed critical work, and we now have in place the registration of hedge fund and other private fund advisers, the appointment of an Investor Advocate, and the finalization of the Volcker Rule, among other accomplishments.  Even in the face of near-constant attempts by my friends on the other side of the aisle to roll-back the Dodd-Frank reforms - not to mention the SEC’s inadequate funding - the Commission is moving forward on this essential work.

But much more remains to be completed.  Most notably, the SEC still has to adopt final versions of most of the substantive swap rules under Dodd-Frank.  Given the number of these rules still awaiting completion, as well as the legal challenges facing the CFTC, I remain very concerned that our swaps markets still remain a source of shadowy, unregulated risk.

As it relates to the JOBS Act, I would also urge the Commission to move expeditiously to finalize the amendments to Rule 506 offerings that they proposed in July of last year.  Given that private offerings with general solicitation and advertising are currently taking place, we must also move to put in place reasonable investor protections that will guard against fraud.

I’m also eager to hear from the Chair on her view of the SEC’s fiscal year 2015 budget, and how the Commission would use the additional resources they have requested.  In particular, I agree with the Chair, who notes that there is ‘an immediate and pressing need for significant additional resources to permit the SEC to increase its examination coverage of registered investment advisers.’  I hope that the Chair can further elaborate on this need, and also weigh-in on the Investor Advisory Committee’s recommendation that Congress authorize the Commission to impose ‘user fees’ on SEC-registered investment advisers in order to fund an enhanced examination program. This recommendation is consistent with my bill, H.R. 1627.

Finally, I remain very interested in how the Enforcement Division at the Commission selects which cases to pursue, and how the Commission is responding to criticisms that it relies too heavily on deferred prosecution agreements and ‘neither admit nor deny settlements.’  The Chair came into this position at the SEC with a reputation as a tough litigator, and I’d like to hear more about the Commission’s enforcement program during her tenure.

Obviously, the Commission has a lot on its plate, and I commend the Chair for taking on this important work and for being with us today.  I yield back the balance of my time.”

_______________________________________________________
THE RAPING OF AMERICAs IP & COPYRIGHTS FROM AMERICAs EXCEPTIONALISTs THE ARTS COMMUNITIES (c) Carrie Devorah :
_______________________________________________________

The irony of the Copyright Office Green Paper is that it took 122 pages to detail a conversation that should have started and finished with one allegiance that allegiance being to the Integrity and history of Title XVII in loyalty to the Founding Fathers. The continuing effort of the Register of Copyrights to change America to facilitate the push of Technology Titans is mind boggling. That the Register of Copyrights is participating in the Crush of Creative Entrepreneurism is mind boggling and short sighted of Legislators not getting out into the Hackathons, musician conference, arts and photographic get togethers to hear first hand the pain artists trying to make a living are suffering through. That the Register of Copyrights isnt paying attention to the push of Technological activists and entities on the AM-CHAMS around the world as part of the push to rape Creative Sources and Owners to their rights to profits in mind boggling moreso in light of the staff heavy entities of the Copyright Office and the USPTO in that the theft is replicated in the Triple Crown of American Entrepreneurism.

That the Register of Copyrights allows witnesses before the Judiciary to stack in favor of Technology rather than the ARTS and Photographic Community makes one shake their head. To allow the panelist from the SIX year Orphan Works collection state unashamedly she could not find artists when Congresswoman Judy Chu asked ‘where are the artists?’ is enough to ask for the Register To Resign in that the answer to the Judiciary’s question is in the Archives of the Library of Congress that, in good faith, every day citizens pay in to ‘for copyright registration, when the Berne Convention of which America is a signators states an ARTS work is Copyrighted from moment of inception. What is the Register of Copyrights then selling? Well, nothing less than a piece of paper to a Star or a piece of paper to a plot of land on the moon- being ‘that valuable’, not.

Copyright is simple. You create it, you own it unless you assign it but for whatever reason the Register of Copyright is turning her back to that being the law on the books pushing forward with Technology Activists to rob Citizens of their Intellectual Property hence their abilities to make their livings.

Regardless of how Technology changes it is NOT the role of the Register of Copyrights to change laws to accommodate the changes,  it is the role of Technology innovators to make sure their inventions comply with Copyright Law which states in Section 107 that (4) IF the Creator/Owner is harmed from making their living by another’s use of their IP then IT IS NOT Fair use and (3) IF the Creator /Owner is harmed because more than a portion of their ARTS is used then IT IS NOT Fair Use and if an ARTS is used by an entity under non-profit or education that it isnt enough just to take that image that the prospective USER must make that request FIRST not after the fact as was done with GOOGLE in their effort to Scan Books, as is being done by Search Engines and ISPS for their walls of photos and/or other continuing emerging product.  Nor is Safe Harbor to continue as the artful dodge by the Search Engines and ISPs to avoid giving their Users product to steal and allege no liability in that being done.

Slowly but surely the Courts are seeing the Scam being perpetrated and are acknowledging that fraud through the wires is Rocking The RICO.

In that the Copyright Office runs at a profit while individual citizens, small businesses and entrepreneurs are struggling to keep their lights on, the role of the Register of Copyrights is NOT reflected in that 122 Green White Paper.

RED LIGHT! HAZARD! GO SLOW and enforce TITLE XVII. Don’t change it

[ Filed In The Office Of Policy and International Affairs- Copyrights- Comment on "Green Paper On Copyright Policy, Creativity and Innovation In The Digital Economy" ]

_______________________________________________________
MORE UPDATE ON TAKING CONGRESS BACK TO COPYRIGHT 101 (c) Carrie Devorah :
_______________________________________________________

Not talking about something doesnt mean nothing is being done. I have been asked to follow up with the Senator I met during DC Tech Week. We will follow up post Thanksgiving. It isn’t rocket science. It is all about going back to Copyright 101 something staffers lose sight of it seems in the interest of pleasing each constituent community that walks through their days. The law does not need to be changed. It needs to be upheld. Operation KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY COPYRIGHT continues

_______________________________________________________
PLAYING HIS POKER FACE (c) Carrie Devorah :                                         
_______________________________________________________

Cosponsor of HR 2366 Internet Gambling Prohibition Poker Consumer Protection & Strengthening UIGEA Act of 2011 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) & his wife Carol worked their way 2 breakfast @ Windmill Family Restaurant Concord NH. Shaking hands Answering voters questions & Dodging media circus that has ramped up since Pauls multiple years of being a CPAC strawpoll favorite appear 2 be paying off w his WIN PLACE SHOW in Iowa. Journalists Photographers Bloggers Internet news junkie entrepreneurs & Political Junkies who find life in the dust of Glitterata outcrowding credentialed media a rarer breed in the fallout of CNNs creation of i-media. People w cameras rudely ignored diners in nearby booth in their crush 2 get @ Congressman Paul riding a wave of popularity @ this time. When it was clear the swarm wasn’t going away Ron Pauls security team forced a path through which Mr Paul & his wife were able 2 exit. Congressman Paul is co-sponsor on the Bipartisan Bill introduced w Congressman Joe Barton (R-Tx) & retiring Financial Service Ranking Member Congressman Barney Frank

_______________________________________________________
OHHHHH THE IP OF IT ALL (c) Carrie Devorah :
_______________________________________________________

The data brokers Congressional Briefing came and went. My request to participate representing the 2D IP owners ravaged daily by data brokers was received. Confirmed. So goes the wheels of Congress grinding slower & slower. THEY the Congressmen dont get IT because too often talking IP to their perview is like talking Salmon Fishing in Bahrain or talking Higher Education with an apple instead of a giraffe [ able to reach heights ]. I would think the woman who took legal steps against a politico to protect her IP who was THE ONLY non lawyer on the VOLUNTEER LAWYER FOR THE ARTS who was one of the first member brokers of 2D IP would have been a door opener. PROBLEM? The staff who book rooms & witnesses are growing educated in a world where Cyber Stalking & taking someones IP is… LIKE… groovy man groovy…. FER SURE…. NOT!!!!! One cannot legislate IP when staff fails to meet a benchmark of understanding what it is the DATA BROKERS are doing… like taking memorial photos of heroes then bundling them to sell to dating websites… Cmon Joe & Ed. Coffee. With the economy the way it is and legislators having to set the example… I will cop for the cuppa…

_______________________________________________________                                     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….
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 .
_______________________________________________________________________________________________