. . .who hacked into celebrity email accounts and phones. These cultural icons indiscreetly stored and transmitted naughty photos of themselves online for gawd's sake, and now run to the FBI, who gallantly charge to the rescue to preserve the honor of these high profile dimwits. How stupid is it to store or transmit anything you want kept private in a location that can be hacked, especially if you know people are constantly trying to get their hands on proof of your naughty antics?
But if you try to get the FBI to investigate copyright infringement, and you aren't a big record company or a movie studio, lotsa luck. They will literally tell you they can't help you, it's not big enough.
One could think they are narcissistic glory hogs. If it doesn't garner a headline, it isn't worth investigating.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
I'm not the only one
who suffers from online infringement of digital content. Finally, Congress is looking into the issue.
Meanwhile, I litigate in a hostile court, i.e. United States District Court, District of Colorado, to protect my copyright again. I knew I was facing an uphill battle. The defendants even bragged about how this court hates me. If it's that obvious, why even try? Because this intellectual property is all I have, it represents nearly twenty years of hard work, monetary investment. . .I put everything into it. I'm not letting it go without a fight.
It's not the entire court. Magistrate Judge Schaffer was eminently fair, as was chief judge (at the time) Babcock in the Internet Archive case. Even though he ruled against me in part, I understood why. But explain why the exact same verbiage in the Internet Archive case which survived a motion to dismiss, does not survive in this case? It can only be personal bias. After all, a judge can deliberately misapprehend anything I write to say what she wants so she can obtain the outcome she desires and there is nothing anyone can do about it. She knows that.
If the courts don't work right, what's my option?
What happens when a law abiding citizen cannot get the justice he's entitled to from the court? What happens when the courts become the tools of oppression, or deprivation of property, or occupation?
Oh, silly me. . .
Meanwhile, I litigate in a hostile court, i.e. United States District Court, District of Colorado, to protect my copyright again. I knew I was facing an uphill battle. The defendants even bragged about how this court hates me. If it's that obvious, why even try? Because this intellectual property is all I have, it represents nearly twenty years of hard work, monetary investment. . .I put everything into it. I'm not letting it go without a fight.
It's not the entire court. Magistrate Judge Schaffer was eminently fair, as was chief judge (at the time) Babcock in the Internet Archive case. Even though he ruled against me in part, I understood why. But explain why the exact same verbiage in the Internet Archive case which survived a motion to dismiss, does not survive in this case? It can only be personal bias. After all, a judge can deliberately misapprehend anything I write to say what she wants so she can obtain the outcome she desires and there is nothing anyone can do about it. She knows that.
If the courts don't work right, what's my option?
What happens when a law abiding citizen cannot get the justice he's entitled to from the court? What happens when the courts become the tools of oppression, or deprivation of property, or occupation?
Oh, silly me. . .
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Case Settles
Final update on this case, I survived Internet Archive's motion to dismiss. The case settled. The terms of the settlement are confidential, however, we did issue a joint press release which you, the reader, can interpret for yourself.
Internet Archive and Suzanne Shell Settle Lawsuit
Denver, CO, April 25, 2007.
Internet Archive, a library of historical Web site content, and Suzanne Shell, the author and owner of the Web site www.profane-justice.org, jointly announced today the settlement of their lawsuit, which stemmed from the archiving of Ms. Shell’s Web site in Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.
The parties’ lawsuit, which began in January of 2006, involved Internet Archive seeking a judicial declaration that it did not infringe Ms. Shell’s copyright when it preserved and made publicly available the www.profane-justice.org Web site in its Wayback Machine and Ms. Shell seeking to hold Internet Archive liable for copyright infringement, breach of contract, civil theft, conversion and racketeering. Internet Archive and Ms. Shell are both pleased that they have been able to reach an amicable resolution that is in both parties’ best interests.
The Internet Archive said, “Internet Archive has no interest in including materials in the Wayback Machine of persons who do not wish to have their Web content archived. We recognize that Ms. Shell has a valid and enforceable copyright in her Web site and we regret that the inclusion of her Web site in the Wayback Machine resulted in this litigation. We are happy to have this case behind us.”
“I respect the historical value of Internet Archive’s goal. I never intended to interfere with that goal nor cause it any harm,” said Ms. Shell.
Both parties sincerely regret any turmoil that the lawsuit may have caused for the other.
Neither Internet Archive nor Ms. Shell condones any conduct which may have caused harm to either party arising out of the public attention to this lawsuit. The parties have not engaged in such conduct and request that the public response to the amicable resolution of this litigation be consistent with their wishes that no further harm or turmoil be caused to either party.
About Internet Archive
Internet Archive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit that was founded to build an “Internet library,” with the purpose of offering permanent access for researchers, historians, and scholars to historical collections that exist in digital format. Founded in 1996 and located in the Presidio of San Francisco, the Archive has been receiving data donations from Alexa Internet and others. Internet Archive now includes texts, audio, moving images, and software as well as archived Web pages in its collections.
About Suzanne Shell
Suzanne Shell is an author, activist and legal consultant. She is the Director of American Family Advocacy Center, dedicated to promoting and protecting the Fundamental Human Right to Family Association. She is also the founder of Family Rights Advocacy Institute, the educational division of Families First Partnership, a 501(c)(3) non profit, which provides Continuing Legal Education training to legal professionals who practice in the arena of child welfare, as well as
developing and providing public education and information about family rights. She owns and maintains the Web site www.profane-justice.org that houses her copyrighted content, including 16 years’ worth of her research, experience, expertise and testing. Ms. Shell resides in Elbert, Colorado.
----------------------
Internet Archive and Suzanne Shell Settle Lawsuit
Denver, CO, April 25, 2007.
Internet Archive, a library of historical Web site content, and Suzanne Shell, the author and owner of the Web site www.profane-justice.org, jointly announced today the settlement of their lawsuit, which stemmed from the archiving of Ms. Shell’s Web site in Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.
The parties’ lawsuit, which began in January of 2006, involved Internet Archive seeking a judicial declaration that it did not infringe Ms. Shell’s copyright when it preserved and made publicly available the www.profane-justice.org Web site in its Wayback Machine and Ms. Shell seeking to hold Internet Archive liable for copyright infringement, breach of contract, civil theft, conversion and racketeering. Internet Archive and Ms. Shell are both pleased that they have been able to reach an amicable resolution that is in both parties’ best interests.
The Internet Archive said, “Internet Archive has no interest in including materials in the Wayback Machine of persons who do not wish to have their Web content archived. We recognize that Ms. Shell has a valid and enforceable copyright in her Web site and we regret that the inclusion of her Web site in the Wayback Machine resulted in this litigation. We are happy to have this case behind us.”
“I respect the historical value of Internet Archive’s goal. I never intended to interfere with that goal nor cause it any harm,” said Ms. Shell.
Both parties sincerely regret any turmoil that the lawsuit may have caused for the other.
Neither Internet Archive nor Ms. Shell condones any conduct which may have caused harm to either party arising out of the public attention to this lawsuit. The parties have not engaged in such conduct and request that the public response to the amicable resolution of this litigation be consistent with their wishes that no further harm or turmoil be caused to either party.
About Internet Archive
Internet Archive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit that was founded to build an “Internet library,” with the purpose of offering permanent access for researchers, historians, and scholars to historical collections that exist in digital format. Founded in 1996 and located in the Presidio of San Francisco, the Archive has been receiving data donations from Alexa Internet and others. Internet Archive now includes texts, audio, moving images, and software as well as archived Web pages in its collections.
About Suzanne Shell
Suzanne Shell is an author, activist and legal consultant. She is the Director of American Family Advocacy Center, dedicated to promoting and protecting the Fundamental Human Right to Family Association. She is also the founder of Family Rights Advocacy Institute, the educational division of Families First Partnership, a 501(c)(3) non profit, which provides Continuing Legal Education training to legal professionals who practice in the arena of child welfare, as well as
developing and providing public education and information about family rights. She owns and maintains the Web site www.profane-justice.org that houses her copyrighted content, including 16 years’ worth of her research, experience, expertise and testing. Ms. Shell resides in Elbert, Colorado.
----------------------
Thursday, November 02, 2006
After I sent the cease and desist letter to Internet Archive, Molly Astrid-Bragg called me. She wanted to know if I was going to withdraw my demand for payment. She made no counteroffer to me. I refused to withdraw my demand. I never knew IA had taken copies of my web site. I never gave permission. My web site is registered with the U.S. Copyright office. I am a person of extremely moderate means. My sole asset in life is my intellectual property.
In January, I was sued by IA (Represented by Perkins Coie law firm) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in San Francisco (Case No. C 06-00397 EDL). Perkins Coie assigned 4 attorneys to this case. I am pro se.
I challenged personal jurisdiction, because I live in Colorado and I don't do business in California. The court permitted jurisdictional discovery and we reached a stipulation that the case would be transferred to Colorado (Case No. 06-CV-01726-LTB-CBS).
I also countersued for Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract, Civil Theft and Racketeering. I named Brewster Kahle, Kathleen Burch, and Rick Prelinger (as the Board of Directors for IA) as 3rd party defendents for the Racketeering (RICO). I cite Wire Fraud and Criminal Copyright Infringement as some of the predicate acts under RICO.
We were in Court together for the first time yesterday on my motion to amend (Second Amended Answer, Counterclaim and Third Party Claim). My motion to amend was granted by the court. Kahle, Prelinger and Burch are now added as parties to this suit.
The Court advised us that this would get really ugly and take a long time, years to resolve. He forsaw massive motions practice before ever getting to trial. He strongly urged us to settle, repeatedly.
Mr. Kenneth Wilson, appearing as counsel for IA by telephone, stated we had attempted to settle before the suit was filed with no success. I didn't say anything, because the transcript of that sham attempt is already part of the court file and proves IA only attempted to BULLY me into waiving my legitmate copyright infringement claims.
But, unlike Mr. Wilson, I was in the courtroom. I saw the judge face to face. He wasn't talking to me about this need to settle. It's not going to get all that ugly for me, after all, I'm the victim. That's why I didn't dispute Mr. Wilson's bogus assertions.
As I said, I am pro se. Sure, there are lawyers willing to take this, but they demand $10, 000 retainers. They say I have an excellent claim and should prevail but discovery will be expensive, and I don't have $10, 000. As I said, I am a person of very modest means. But I am quite literate and smart enough to win my motions to get this case transferred to Colorado and to get Kahle, Prelinger, and Burch added to the suit. I'll just keep doing what I've been doing. Motions practice does not scare me.
The way I see it. . . with 4 attorneys, Perkins Coie is going to be racking up a massive amount of hours on this case. If they are pro bono. . .it's gonna eat them alive. If they are getting paid by IA, it's gonna cost IA bundles to fight this.
I am the example IA is going to make. I'm an easy target. I don't have the support of any guilds or lobbying groups. I am the little guy author of a web site who can't afford a lawyer. I look like easy fodder for the IA Wayback Machine to gobble up and spit out. I'm hoping it bit off more than it can chew. I'll stand up to that machine for as long as I'm able. . .it's all I can do.
Kahle believes he's entitled to everyone's intellectual property. He believes that copyright protections are too strict. I disagree. I think he has committed crimes in the way he acquires intellectual property, and he's hiding his illegal conduct behind the non-profit smoke and mirrors altruism of Internet Archive.
It boils down to this. . .Whose property is it? If Brewster Kahle is trying to prove that what I write and publish is not mine to exploit as I see fit, including my right to EXCLUDE anyone from access to it. . .yeah. . .it's going to get real ugly. Suzanne
In January, I was sued by IA (Represented by Perkins Coie law firm) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in San Francisco (Case No. C 06-00397 EDL). Perkins Coie assigned 4 attorneys to this case. I am pro se.
I challenged personal jurisdiction, because I live in Colorado and I don't do business in California. The court permitted jurisdictional discovery and we reached a stipulation that the case would be transferred to Colorado (Case No. 06-CV-01726-LTB-CBS).
I also countersued for Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract, Civil Theft and
We were in Court together for the first time yesterday on my motion to amend (Second Amended Answer, Counterclaim and Third Party Claim). My motion to amend was granted by the court. Kahle, Prelinger and Burch are now added as parties to this suit.
The Court advised us that this would get really ugly and take a long time, years to resolve. He forsaw massive motions practice before ever getting to trial. He strongly urged us to settle, repeatedly.
Mr. Kenneth Wilson, appearing as counsel for IA by telephone, stated we had attempted to settle before the suit was filed with no success. I didn't say anything, because the transcript of that sham attempt is already part of the court file and proves IA only attempted to BULLY me into waiving my legitmate copyright infringement claims.
But, unlike Mr. Wilson, I was in the courtroom. I saw the judge face to face. He wasn't talking to me about this need to settle. It's not going to get all that ugly for me, after all, I'm the victim. That's why I didn't dispute Mr. Wilson's bogus assertions.
As I said, I am pro se. Sure, there are lawyers willing to take this, but they demand $10, 000 retainers. They say I have an excellent claim and should prevail but discovery will be expensive, and I don't have $10, 000. As I said, I am a person of very modest means. But I am quite literate and smart enough to win my motions to get this case transferred to Colorado and to get Kahle, Prelinger, and Burch added to the suit. I'll just keep doing what I've been doing. Motions practice does not scare me.
The way I see it. . . with 4 attorneys, Perkins Coie is going to be racking up a massive amount of hours on this case. If they are pro bono. . .it's gonna eat them alive. If they are getting paid by IA, it's gonna cost IA bundles to fight this.
I am the example IA is going to make. I'm an easy target. I don't have the support of any guilds or lobbying groups. I am the little guy author of a web site who can't afford a lawyer. I look like easy fodder for the IA Wayback Machine to gobble up and spit out. I'm hoping it bit off more than it can chew. I'll stand up to that machine for as long as I'm able. . .it's all I can do.
Kahle believes he's entitled to everyone's intellectual property. He believes that copyright protections are too strict. I disagree. I think he has committed crimes in the way he acquires intellectual property, and he's hiding his illegal conduct behind the non-profit smoke and mirrors altruism of Internet Archive.
It boils down to this. . .Whose property is it? If Brewster Kahle is trying to prove that what I write and publish is not mine to exploit as I see fit, including my right to EXCLUDE anyone from access to it. . .yeah. . .it's going to get real ugly. Suzanne
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)