Curt,
Under the DMCA, links to copyrighted materials are also considered
unauthorized use. So, you still have to take it down. Your only other option,
if you can't work things out with Mary, is to file the counter claim as
described in my notice to you earlier. That will result in the link being
removed for 10 days, but will force the complaining party to file a suit to
pursue this matter further. The danger there being of course, that if they do
file suit and win, you will be responsible for their court fees.
So, I must advise you to work this issue out, or remove the link from your
site. We do not cherish shutting down access for our customers, but we must
follow the law.
Chris Carter pair Networks
—
pair Networks' Abuse Dept.
Statement of Policy: http://www.pair.com/pair/policies/abuse.html
>Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:30:02 -0400
>To:
>From: Curt Cloninger <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: [T7U9S2W] Unauthorized Use
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>Chris,
>
>Mary and I have been in dialogue about this issue over the last
>several days. The image in quesiton is not hosted on my site, nor
>is it stored on pair's server. I'm merely linking to the image from
>a page on my site.
>
>The image itself resides here:
>http://www.permkids.org/quilt.gif
>
>The page on my site that links it is here:
>http://www.playdamage.org/nature/
>
>Mary was not able to track down the creator of the image to even
>discover whether he has a license or not. He may yet have a licence.
>
>Even if he doesn't have a licence, my site is a non-profit
>collaborative art project. No money is being made off of this
>image, and its use is probably fair in this context.
>
>Below, Mary requests "that you remove… the photographic files from
>your server." The photographic files do not reside on your server.
>
>I have enjoyed fair and reasonable hosting service from pair
>networks over the last four years. I am a web designer who has used
>pair networks to host my client's sites, and I hope to be able to
>continue to recommend your services to future clients. If you
>remove my site due to this one instance of corporate saber rattling,
>that will be truly unfortulate.
>
>Please get back to me before the three days is up.
>
>Sincerely,
>Curt Cloninger
>http://www.lab404.com
>
>
>
>>Hello, this is Chris Carter from pair Networks, Inc. Abuse dept.
>>
>>Recently, we have received the notice below regarding illegal use of
>>registered trademarks or copyrighted materials on your web site hosted
>>with our services. Use of copyrighted materials or trademarks without
>>permission is illegal, and as such is grounds for immediate termination of
>>your services with pair Networks as per our posted policies in our service
>>contract at http://support.pair.com/pair/policies/contract.html. If these
>>materials are not removed within the next 3 business days, we will have no
>>choice but to forcibly remove service to the pages in question.
>>
>>Once removed, these pages can only be reactivated if the offending
>>material has been removed, or if a counter claim is filed in your defense.
>>Such a claim must include all of the following:
>>
>>* Your physical or electronic signature.
>>
>>* Identification of the material removed or to which access has been
>>disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was
>>removed or access to it was disabled.
>>
>>* A statement under penalty of perjury of a good faith belief that the
>>material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or
>>misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
>>
>>* Your name, address, and telephone number at which you can be reached, or
>>legal office at which notice can be served.
>>
>>* A statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District
>>Court for the judicial district in which the address above is located, or
>>if your address is outside of the United States, that of the judicial
>>district in which pair Networks, Inc. may by found, and that you will
>>accept service of process from the person who provided notification or an
>>agent of such person.
>>
>>
>>Once this is received, your services will be re-enabled after 10 business
>>days. During this time, the person who provided notice of infringement or
>>their agents may file an action seeking a court order to restrain further
>>use of the infringing materials. If they do such, access to these
>>materials will remain disabled until such time as a court order is issued
>>releasing these materials.
>>
>>Please be aware that by sending this counter claim, you accept that this
>>matter may be settled in a court of law, and that if you are found guilty
>>of the claims given, will be responsible for any legal fees and damages
>>caused the complaining party by your use of these materials, and decision
>>to escalate this matter to be settled by the courts if desired by the
>>complaining party.
>>
>>Pair Networks, Inc. abides by the procedures given in the Digital
>>Millennium Copyright Act for the handling of claims of copyright
>>infringement against our customers. As such, pair Networks, Inc. cannot
>>be held liable for any damages, losses, or legal fees resulting in the
>>removal of these materials. If the original claim was mistaken or
>>invalid, then the party issuing this claim in the notice below can be held
>>liable for any damages, loss, or legal fees resulting from this notice to
>>yourself, and to pair Networks, Inc. Contact information for this party
>>is included in the notice below.
>>
>>If you have any questions regarding this procedure, please let us know.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > <<PairNet.doc>>
>> >
>> > Mary Walsh
>> > License Compliance Specialist
>> > Getty Images
>> >
>> > 122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 900
>> > Chicago IL, 60603
>> > 312-344-4223
>> > 312-341-9636 fax
>> >
>> > www.gettyimages.com
>> > [email protected]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > =======================================================
>> > This email and its contents are confidential. If you
>> > are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose
>> > or use the information within this email or its
>> > attachments. If you have received this email in error,
>> > please delete it immediately. Thank you.
>> > =======================================================
>>
>>Pair Networks, Inc.
>>2403 Sidney St., Suite 510
>>Pittsburgh, PA 15203
>>
>>Dear Domain Administrator,
>>
>>Your company hosts a website at PLAYDAMAGE - DOM which contains a copyrighted
>>photograph belonging to Getty Images as represented by the Stone collection.
>>The web site is www.playdamage.com and the image in use is BE9994-001. I am
>>attaching a screen grab of the use in question and our original image. While
>>the copyright to this image belongs to the respective photographer, Getty
>>Images is the photographer's representative and as such, is the
>>entity that is
>>permitted to issue licenses for use of this image. Any use of the image
>>without such a license from Getty Images is unauthorized. A license is needed
>>in order to receive permission to reproduce or manipulate this image.
>>
>>We have searched our records and have found that no such license has been
>>issued by us for this use. If they have not arranged for a license
>>from Getty
>>Images or Stone prior to commencing use of the image, they are considered in
>>violation of Title 17 U.S.C.S., the Copyright Act of 1976. The use of this
>>image on the web page hosted at your site is illegal under copyright law.
>>Under Section 512© of the Copyright Act, known as the Digital Millennium
>>Copyright Act, upon notice of infringement, in order to take advantage of
>>limitation of liability, qualified Internet Service Providers must
>>expeditiously remove the infringing material.
>>I have contacted Curt Cloninger on three separate occasions beginning on July
>>15, 2002 and as recent as yesterday requesting compliance with our terms and
>>conditions of use and have stipulated that he should cease and desist the use
>>of this image. Mr Cloninger has not yet cooperated nor has he expressed any
>>inclination to do so.
>>
>>At this point I am seeking your immediate intercession with this matter.
>>Please remedy this offense with either:
>>
>>(1) Your immediate contact with the site owner demanding the prompt
>>removal of
>>the graphics owned by and copyrighted to Getty Images (2) that you remove the
>>site itself and/or the photographic files from your server.
>>
>>Your expeditious attention to this matter is greatly appreciated, as we find
>>no other recourse for remedy without undertaking legal action. Please
>>understand that this letter is not a warning or threat. It is being sent to
>>you as part of a legal process that must be followed in an effort to maintain
>>our legal rights. Getty Images is committed to investigating licensing
>>infractions not only to protect our own interests, but to protect
>>those of the
>>photographers who submit their photos to us as well. We feel that your
>>cooperation regarding this matter is fully warranted, and expect it will be
>>promptly forthcoming.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Mary Walsh
>>Licensing Compliance
>>Getty Images, Inc.
>>122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 900
>>Chicago IL, 60603
>>312-344-4223
>>312-341-9636 fax
Fwd: Re: [T7U9S2W] Unauthorized Use
-
Type: discussion
Comments
In a message dated 7/17/2002 9:52:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> skint
snooze=lose
should be soon
In a message dated 7/17/2002 4:05:53 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> Under the DMCA, links to copyrighted materials are also considered
> unauthorized use.
Um, I'm slow, what does this mean? I can't link to lab404 because it's
copyright? I can't link to McSweeney's because it's copyright? This seems
like a blank check for people with lawyer money to fuck those without, at
their fully personal discretion. It's evil. Collusion kills. Trusts must
be busted.
Otherwise the invisible hand cannot raise all boats and allocate wealth
productively or efficiently. Markets will malfunction, and that must not be
permitted.
Perhaps Proculus is correct in a way.
Max Herman
++
your linking rights:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/linkright.html
>In a message dated 7/17/2002 4:05:53 PM Central Daylight Time,
>[email protected] writes:
>
>
>>Under the DMCA, links to copyrighted materials are also considered
>>unauthorized use.
>>
>
>
>Um, I'm slow, what does this mean? I can't link to lab404 because
>it's copyright? I can't link to McSweeney's because it's copyright?
>This seems like a blank check for people with lawyer money to fuck
>those without, at their fully personal discretion. It's evil.
>Collusion kills. Trusts must be busted.
>
>Otherwise the invisible hand cannot raise all boats and allocate
>wealth productively or efficiently. Markets will malfunction, and
>that must not be permitted.
>
>Perhaps Proculus is correct in a way.
>
>Max Herman
>
>++
Hi Curt,
I this incident is not a hoax - and all suddenly collapses around you. I
would gladly setup a protest site/petition to instigate some kind of debate,
which objective in its reasoning yet compassionate in its spirit. It does
seem as though (like Jess said earlier) that there is some kind of jobs
worth using the Getty administration to hurt you, picking on you for some
reason. Personally, I'd get rid of the image itself and replace it with some
text linking why you are not aloud to show the image - even though they do
not know who's it is. A very uptight/backward form of thinking. In a sense
you should be able to take them to court for hassling you really…
marc
> Curt,
>
> Under the DMCA, links to copyrighted materials are also considered
> unauthorized use. So, you still have to take it down. Your only other
option,
> if you can't work things out with Mary, is to file the counter claim as
> described in my notice to you earlier. That will result in the link being
> removed for 10 days, but will force the complaining party to file a suit
to
> pursue this matter further. The danger there being of course, that if they
do
> file suit and win, you will be responsible for their court fees.
>
> So, I must advise you to work this issue out, or remove the link from your
> site. We do not cherish shutting down access for our customers, but we
must
> follow the law.
>
> Chris Carter pair Networks
> —
> pair Networks' Abuse Dept.
> Statement of Policy: http://www.pair.com/pair/policies/abuse.html
>
>
>
> >Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:30:02 -0400
> >To:
> >From: Curt Cloninger <[email protected]>
> >Subject: Re: [T7U9S2W] Unauthorized Use
> >Cc:
> >Bcc:
> >X-Attachments:
> >
> >Chris,
> >
> >Mary and I have been in dialogue about this issue over the last
> >several days. The image in quesiton is not hosted on my site, nor
> >is it stored on pair's server. I'm merely linking to the image from
> >a page on my site.
> >
> >The image itself resides here:
> >http://www.permkids.org/quilt.gif
> >
> >The page on my site that links it is here:
> >http://www.playdamage.org/nature/
> >
> >Mary was not able to track down the creator of the image to even
> >discover whether he has a license or not. He may yet have a licence.
> >
> >Even if he doesn't have a licence, my site is a non-profit
> >collaborative art project. No money is being made off of this
> >image, and its use is probably fair in this context.
> >
> >Below, Mary requests "that you remove… the photographic files from
> >your server." The photographic files do not reside on your server.
> >
> >I have enjoyed fair and reasonable hosting service from pair
> >networks over the last four years. I am a web designer who has used
> >pair networks to host my client's sites, and I hope to be able to
> >continue to recommend your services to future clients. If you
> >remove my site due to this one instance of corporate saber rattling,
> >that will be truly unfortulate.
> >
> >Please get back to me before the three days is up.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >Curt Cloninger
> >http://www.lab404.com
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hello, this is Chris Carter from pair Networks, Inc. Abuse dept.
> >>
> >>Recently, we have received the notice below regarding illegal use of
> >>registered trademarks or copyrighted materials on your web site hosted
> >>with our services. Use of copyrighted materials or trademarks without
> >>permission is illegal, and as such is grounds for immediate termination
of
> >>your services with pair Networks as per our posted policies in our
service
> >>contract at http://support.pair.com/pair/policies/contract.html. If
these
> >>materials are not removed within the next 3 business days, we will have
no
> >>choice but to forcibly remove service to the pages in question.
> >>
> >>Once removed, these pages can only be reactivated if the offending
> >>material has been removed, or if a counter claim is filed in your
defense.
> >>Such a claim must include all of the following:
> >>
> >>* Your physical or electronic signature.
> >>
> >>* Identification of the material removed or to which access has been
> >>disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was
> >>removed or access to it was disabled.
> >>
> >>* A statement under penalty of perjury of a good faith belief that the
> >>material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or
> >>misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
> >>
> >>* Your name, address, and telephone number at which you can be reached,
or
> >>legal office at which notice can be served.
> >>
> >>* A statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District
> >>Court for the judicial district in which the address above is located,
or
> >>if your address is outside of the United States, that of the judicial
> >>district in which pair Networks, Inc. may by found, and that you will
> >>accept service of process from the person who provided notification or
an
> >>agent of such person.
> >>
> >>
> >>Once this is received, your services will be re-enabled after 10
business
> >>days. During this time, the person who provided notice of infringement
or
> >>their agents may file an action seeking a court order to restrain
further
> >>use of the infringing materials. If they do such, access to these
> >>materials will remain disabled until such time as a court order is
issued
> >>releasing these materials.
> >>
> >>Please be aware that by sending this counter claim, you accept that this
> >>matter may be settled in a court of law, and that if you are found
guilty
> >>of the claims given, will be responsible for any legal fees and damages
> >>caused the complaining party by your use of these materials, and
decision
> >>to escalate this matter to be settled by the courts if desired by the
> >>complaining party.
> >>
> >>Pair Networks, Inc. abides by the procedures given in the Digital
> >>Millennium Copyright Act for the handling of claims of copyright
> >>infringement against our customers. As such, pair Networks, Inc. cannot
> >>be held liable for any damages, losses, or legal fees resulting in the
> >>removal of these materials. If the original claim was mistaken or
> >>invalid, then the party issuing this claim in the notice below can be
held
> >>liable for any damages, loss, or legal fees resulting from this notice
to
> >>yourself, and to pair Networks, Inc. Contact information for this party
> >>is included in the notice below.
> >>
> >>If you have any questions regarding this procedure, please let us know.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > <<PairNet.doc>>
> >> >
> >> > Mary Walsh
> >> > License Compliance Specialist
> >> > Getty Images
> >> >
> >> > 122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 900
> >> > Chicago IL, 60603
> >> > 312-344-4223
> >> > 312-341-9636 fax
> >> >
> >> > www.gettyimages.com
> >> > [email protected]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > =======================================================
> >> > This email and its contents are confidential. If you
> >> > are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose
> >> > or use the information within this email or its
> >> > attachments. If you have received this email in error,
> >> > please delete it immediately. Thank you.
> >> > =======================================================
> >>
> >>Pair Networks, Inc.
> >>2403 Sidney St., Suite 510
> >>Pittsburgh, PA 15203
> >>
> >>Dear Domain Administrator,
> >>
> >>Your company hosts a website at PLAYDAMAGE - DOM which contains a
copyrighted
> >>photograph belonging to Getty Images as represented by the Stone
collection.
> >>The web site is www.playdamage.com and the image in use is BE9994-001. I
am
> >>attaching a screen grab of the use in question and our original image.
While
> >>the copyright to this image belongs to the respective photographer,
Getty
> >>Images is the photographer's representative and as such, is the
> >>entity that is
> >>permitted to issue licenses for use of this image. Any use of the image
> >>without such a license from Getty Images is unauthorized. A license is
needed
> >>in order to receive permission to reproduce or manipulate this image.
> >>
> >>We have searched our records and have found that no such license has
been
> >>issued by us for this use. If they have not arranged for a license
> >>from Getty
> >>Images or Stone prior to commencing use of the image, they are
considered in
> >>violation of Title 17 U.S.C.S., the Copyright Act of 1976. The use of
this
> >>image on the web page hosted at your site is illegal under copyright
law.
> >>Under Section 512© of the Copyright Act, known as the Digital
Millennium
> >>Copyright Act, upon notice of infringement, in order to take advantage
of
> >>limitation of liability, qualified Internet Service Providers must
> >>expeditiously remove the infringing material.
> >>I have contacted Curt Cloninger on three separate occasions beginning on
July
> >>15, 2002 and as recent as yesterday requesting compliance with our terms
and
> >>conditions of use and have stipulated that he should cease and desist
the use
> >>of this image. Mr Cloninger has not yet cooperated nor has he expressed
any
> >>inclination to do so.
> >>
> >>At this point I am seeking your immediate intercession with this matter.
> >>Please remedy this offense with either:
> >>
> >>(1) Your immediate contact with the site owner demanding the prompt
> >>removal of
> >>the graphics owned by and copyrighted to Getty Images (2) that you
remove the
> >>site itself and/or the photographic files from your server.
> >>
> >>Your expeditious attention to this matter is greatly appreciated, as we
find
> >>no other recourse for remedy without undertaking legal action. Please
> >>understand that this letter is not a warning or threat. It is being sent
to
> >>you as part of a legal process that must be followed in an effort to
maintain
> >>our legal rights. Getty Images is committed to investigating licensing
> >>infractions not only to protect our own interests, but to protect
> >>those of the
> >>photographers who submit their photos to us as well. We feel that your
> >>cooperation regarding this matter is fully warranted, and expect it will
be
> >>promptly forthcoming.
> >>
> >>Best Regards,
> >>
> >>Mary Walsh
> >>Licensing Compliance
> >>Getty Images, Inc.
> >>122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 900
> >>Chicago IL, 60603
> >>312-344-4223
> >>312-341-9636 fax
>
> + i am not my favorite person
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
>
In a message dated 7/17/2002 7:00:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> Personally, I'd get rid of the image itself and replace it with some
> text linking why you are not aloud to show the image - even though they do
> not know who's it is. A very uptight/backward form of thinking. In a sense
> you should be able to take them to court for hassling you really…
Link to this http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/getty.JPG
And taketh them to the public courts of law.
Hard, class-action, anti-trust, pro-consumer, the Herman Act. Mock for $20
milionis.
Max Herman
artforum.com
++
In a message dated 7/17/2002 7:00:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> A very uptight/backward form of thinking. In a sense
> you should be able to take them to court for hassling you really…
>
>
I run through the world thinkin bout tomorrow.
And I fuck people up.
On purpose.
++
I think that Curt has done the right thing - Getty Images should be ashamed=
of themselves…
marc
In a message dated 7/17/2002 7:00:05 PM Central Daylight Time, info@furth=
erfield.org writes:
Personally, I'd get rid of the image itself and replace it with some
text linking why you are not aloud to show the image - even though they=
do
not know who's it is. A very uptight/backward form of thinking. In a s=
ense
you should be able to take them to court for hassling you really…
Link to this http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/getty.JPG
And taketh them to the public courts of law.
Hard, class-action, anti-trust, pro-consumer, the Herman Act. Mock for $=
20 milionis.
Max Herman
artforum.com
++
is that really your own poo?
marc
In a message dated 7/17/2002 7:00:05 PM Central Daylight Time, info@furth=
erfield.org writes:
Personally, I'd get rid of the image itself and replace it with some
text linking why you are not aloud to show the image - even though they=
do
not know who's it is. A very uptight/backward form of thinking. In a s=
ense
you should be able to take them to court for hassling you really…
Link to this http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/getty.JPG
And taketh them to the public courts of law.
Hard, class-action, anti-trust, pro-consumer, the Herman Act. Mock for $=
20 milionis.
Max Herman
artforum.com
++
In a message dated 7/17/2002 9:40:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> is that really your own poo?
Buy it and test it motherfuckfacequeeflickerburrito.
http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/getty.JPG
What's a fair price for such a motherfucking piece of shit?
Make Bunting buy it.
Jim
++
Heath's skint - perhaps you could vacuum pack it…
marc
In a message dated 7/17/2002 9:40:30 PM Central Daylight Time, info@furth=
erfield.org writes:
is that really your own poo?
Buy it and test it motherfuckfacequeeflickerburrito.
http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/getty.JPG
What's a fair price for such a motherfucking piece of shit?
Make Bunting buy it.
Jim
++
In a message dated 7/17/2002 9:52:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> Heath's skint - perhaps you could vacuum pack it…
> marc
>
Always in search of the elusive buyer, Max Herman relentlessly stalks his
prey, bright day or hideous night, always downwind, senses keen, nostrils
flared….
++
no no no no
we should ALL link to quilt where is that link to pic
In a message dated 7/17/2002 7:00:05 PM Central Daylight Time, info@further=
field.org writes:
Personally, I'd get rid of the image itself and replace it with some
text linking why you are not aloud to show the image - even though they=
do
not know who's it is. A very uptight/backward form of thinking. In a s=
ense
you should be able to take them to court for hassling you really…
Link to this http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/getty.JPG
And taketh them to the public courts of law.
Hard, class-action, anti-trust, pro-consumer, the Herman Act. Mock for $=
20 milionis.
Max Herman
artforum.com
++
> I think that Curt has done the right thing - Getty Images should be
> ashamed of themselves…
…maybe we all need to read or re-read our lawrence lessig on
the evolution of cyberlaw & regulation:
"The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World" (2001)
and:
"Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" (2000)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-5065083-0811011
"[…] Lessig holds that those who shriek the loudest at the thought of
interference in cyberdoings, especially at the hands of the government,
are blind to the ever-increasing regulation of the Net (admittedly, without
badges or guns) by businesses that find little opposition to their
schemes from consumers, competitors, or cops. The Internet will be
regulated, he says, and our window of opportunity to influence the design
of those regulations narrows each day.[…]"
i was curious about how much the image would cost.
it's USD685 for up to 5 years of use. that is, for use in the USA
(though it's on the net, so it would seem to be worldwide) as
'Internet - Editorial Use', i chose education and religious/politics
as the industry (both came out at 685, didn't have a general
not-for-profit category).
you could get it for 2 years for *ONLY* 345USD…
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Would you like permission to reproduce copyrighted works
great post Joy … i thought you may appreciate this from yesterday's
digital media wire
o AOL Time Warner's RoadRunner Blocking File-Sharing for Some Users
New York – AOL Time Warner's RoadRunner high-speed Internet service has
begun to block some of its users from using file-sharing services
including Kazaa, Grokster and IMesh, according to a story in Silicon Alley
Reporter. First noted on technology discussion board Slashdot, the
blocking seems to be limited to users who have designated themselves as
"super nodes," or a kind of central server where lists of files available
on many other users' computers are located. A Time Warner spokesperson
confirmed the blocking to SAR, saying the move was intended to "slow down
the upstream speed and prevent general bandwidth degradation," but added
that, "this is not broad program, or something that is going to go on a
continuous basis."
http://siliconalley.venturereporter.net/articles.asp?c=PN3IZ309
http://www.kazaa.com/en/help_supernd.htm
david goldschmidt
—– Original Message —–
From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
To: "furtherfield" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Fwd: Re: [T7U9S2W] Unauthorized Use
> > I think that Curt has done the right thing - Getty Images should be
> > ashamed of themselves…
>
>
> …maybe we all need to read or re-read our lawrence lessig on
> the evolution of cyberlaw & regulation:
>
>
> "The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World" (2001)
> and:
> "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" (2000)
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-5065083-0811011
>
> "[…] Lessig holds that those who shriek the loudest at the thought of
> interference in cyberdoings, especially at the hands of the government,
> are blind to the ever-increasing regulation of the Net (admittedly,
without
> badges or guns) by businesses that find little opposition to their
> schemes from consumers, competitors, or cops. The Internet will be
> regulated, he says, and our window of opportunity to influence the design
> of those regulations narrows each day.[…]"
>
>
> + i am not my favorite person
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
In a message dated 7/18/2002 4:25:39 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> AOL Time Warner's RoadRunner Blocking File-Sharing for Some Users
>
The AOL/TimeWarner merger is considered the worst investment of the digital
onset period.
AOL thought it had enough eyeballs, and TW enough content, to be a
juggernaut. Wall Street criminals love a juggernaut. They pumped and
primped it for Granny's 401k. Now it's–well a pretty bunk company.
The funny and serious thing is, the value-adjustment was forced by, and the
importance of this cannot be overemphasized here, a correction in market
capitalized value of TIME WARNER'S CONTENT.
All those dumb movies and magazines and celebrity crapola doesn't add up to
much after all–much less enough to install enough fiber optic to make
WorldCom rich. WorldCom is flat busted broke.
Zero overhead media content is the rub, and TWAOL is on the rocks. No wonder
they are plywooding the windows.
Um, maybe? Heck if je know pipki.
Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder what's *actually* going on. I guess Aol
+ Time + Warner = Axis of E-vil. heh heh.
My first go at broadband was the el-cheapo Hellatlantic-cum-Verizon DSL,
which I dumped once they enforced a bizarre policy: in order to send mail
your email preferences HAD to list your identity as [email protected],
regardless of your domain's forwarding address/es. They claimed it was to
"limit spam." Pretty stinky policy. Right around then, my ISP started to
offer non-corporate rates. Walrus is run out of Sun/Intellitech. They are
NYC home-grown and tiny. When I talk to them it's a little like
talking to folks on this list. "Small is Beautiful' – maybe that's the
answer (or part of it).
best,
J
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
> great post Joy … i thought you may appreciate this from yesterday's
> digital media wire
>
> o AOL Time Warner's RoadRunner Blocking File-Sharing for Some Users
>
> New York – AOL Time Warner's RoadRunner high-speed Internet service has
> begun to block some of its users from using file-sharing services
> including Kazaa, Grokster and IMesh, according to a story in Silicon Alley
> Reporter. First noted on technology discussion board Slashdot, the
> blocking seems to be limited to users who have designated themselves as
> "super nodes," or a kind of central server where lists of files available
> on many other users' computers are located. A Time Warner spokesperson
> confirmed the blocking to SAR, saying the move was intended to "slow down
> the upstream speed and prevent general bandwidth degradation," but added
> that, "this is not broad program, or something that is going to go on a
> continuous basis."
> http://siliconalley.venturereporter.net/articles.asp?c=PN3IZ309
> http://www.kazaa.com/en/help_supernd.htm
> >
> >
> > …maybe we all need to read or re-read our lawrence lessig