How I was murdered in my own home and lived to pay for it.

Why Digital Millennium Copyright Act DMCA Does Not Work.

I did this for the DMCA complaints I was able to generate:

I think you will find that you will be forced to invest in many such ventures which are doomed to fail and this is just one more of them. With this DMCA the State is installing ISPs as Cyber Vigilantes who will be tasked with making punitive attacks against subscribers and threaten them with account closures, make efforts to smear their good names and character using mail bombs and other approaches, all based on the say so of disinterested third parties who have no witness or proof of anything. By having to fight all these useless complaints, all users of any business using this model are going to pay for and invest in this foolishness. For many people, having internet is not a luxury, they need it to bank and eat and run their lives.

Here is my assessment on how none of this works as contained in my form letter to providers who cite DMCA complaints.

Dear Madam or Sir,

Regarding Digital Millennium Copyright Issues:

It is not up to you to enforce the law in that regard or any other. Doing so would be considered vigilantism and a crime in all 50 states in this country. You and those who'd claim violations would need a court order to proceed and I am under no obligation to prove anything to you or any other parties. Neither you nor they could proceed to prove anything for the reasons outlined below. And accepting the word of disinterested third parties over mine would not be possible in any of this since only I know what content I am using and what content I am owning and what I am doing with your network.

You have no knowledge of what copyrighted or other material I do or do not own. You also would not know what arrangements I would have with the State, or anyone who'd like to challenge such ownership.

You could could not prove what content I do or do not transfer via your networks or even who would be using your network and when or how.

Anyone claiming copyright infringement bears the burden of proving that which would not be possible.

Not one single content provider or entity that licenses such material can prove or disprove what I do or do not own. Their records could not be used towards proving I owned material or for proving that I did not own material since they would either be incomplete, inaccurate, falsified, or otherwise useless in that regard. This is the nature of selling products to 10,000,000 of your closest friends and expecting them to pay for the same content over and over and over again. I own various copyrighted materials often with duplicates that have been purchased recently and during the last 50 years or more of my life. Much of this content is purchased by one or more layers of "Middle Men" who also would not keep accurate records on behalf of the original owners and with that the impossibility of what you'd want to claim here grows non-linearly.

Not one single entity that licenses such material would know who I am on your network, they have no idea how I use such networks or what material I transport there and with who I communicate with. That is my business alone and none of that could be proven either.

It is not up to you to disclose to them who I am nor would you be able to provide proof of such claims. Doing so would be considered an invasion of my privacy, as well as libel and slander at a minimum. Any offers of proof you would provide to others would be considered hearsay or less and neither you nor those who'd want to profit from this could identify who owns what and who had what rights to any data moved on these networks. And you'd have no witness to any violations you'd claim might have happened even assuming you could generate accurate ownership lists which you can not do.

Those who'd claim copyright violations also would have no witness and neither would the State or law enforcement.

Those who'd claim such violations could not even be heard in court since they'd never know who to attempt to blame since you can't be used towards that end and they have no witness.

In other words you waste your time with idle threats and any business model that hopes to support such methods is doomed to fail.

Terry Jones

Fair use limitations and exceptions Copyright Act of 1976 - Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Did you guess water dungeon?

Ask Dr Demjanenko......

here are your responses to the notion of torturing me in the USA.

Torturing Your Kids In The USA