. . .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. . .
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)