June 2022 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Meta Platforms, Inc. Board of Directors - USPTO, Digital Assets and Moscow Exchange
by Gunnar Larson 24 Jul '24

24 Jul '24

Ms. Chollett: Thank you, kindly, for continued correspondence related to Meta Board questions specific to xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC's concern to protecting cross-border digital asset innovation. xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC first became alarmed through Meta's obvious digital asset market problems related to Libra, Diem, Novi and USDP. Through Meta's continued digital identity transitions, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC has pioneered cross-border digital asset logic(s). Moreover, the Moscow Exchange and Meta introduced market events over March that jeopardize digital asset market purty. Ms, Chollett, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC will not pay for market effects related to Meta's cross-border disruption of digital asset innovation, related to Meta's obvious mark exactness (by definition) to the Moscow Exchange. *Ms. Chollett, we cannot concern ourselves with Meta's intentions, good or otherwise, given clear problems that exacerbate market risk: * - March 11, 2022 <https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/russia-moves-to-declare-meta-an-ex…>: Russia's leader, who is in charge of the Moscow Exchange cites Meta as an 'extremist organization' ... - March 14, 2022 <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ff9f1af5-cc8a-473a-822b-8890…>: Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC Benjamin G. Murray published SDNY insights to a Russian State-Sponsored TV Network's Attempt to Dismiss Copyright Lawsuit On Fair Use Grounds Denied. - March 17, 2022 <https://www.sberbank.com/news-and-media/press-releases/article?newsID=cd44d…>: Moscow Exchange is the backend to Russia's largest bank, Sber. The announcement on 03/17/22 confirmed Sber (via the Moscow Exchange technology, at various levels) would issue digital assets. - March 18, 2022 <https://cointelegraph.com/news/meta-files-8-digital-asset-and-web-3-0-trade…>: Meta Platforms Inc. filed USPTO mark applications for a mark EXACTLY DEFINED to that of the Moscow Exchange. - Ms. Chollette, below my signature you will find Meta's filing numbers and descriptions related to a mark defined as Moscow Exchange, with plans to engage the mark in commerce related to digital assets and virtual reality. - March 24, 2022 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f_fq1GaKNaAUGEyztdm-oMtIuEW2yXj4C5aoN0G…>: xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC contacted meta, with a memo introducing our direct plan to protect cross-border digital asset innovation. Ms. Chollette, please note that Russia has labeled Meta as an 'extremist organization' ... So who really knows what the Moscow Exchange will thi xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC is a very reasonable digital asset pioneer, and sitting in Manhattan the jury is in on market contributions from Libra, Diem, Novi and USDP. Ms, Chollette, Meta and the Moscow Exchange matter really suggest only losing marketplace contributions, obviously potentially devastating digital asset marketplace innovation(s). We aim to solve this problem immediately: 1. Ms. Collette, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC recently shared Citigroup's Metaverse and Money <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1REoa87GCmt2uhDp7ZYswbTRw4ygQgjsL/view?usp=…> whitepaper, with 33 highlights to our grave concern to Meta's potential marketplace delinquency related to Meta's mark exactness to Moscow Exchange. 2. Furthermore, Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Putin are both highlight quotes to Citigroup's Metaverse and Money research. 3. With the date order, footnotes, and highlights xNY.io -Bank.org, PBC kindly petitions Meta's board to understand the opportunity ... The Moscow Exchange is not our problem, and for whatever reason Meta will have no opportunity to make mark exactness our problem. The United State of America's cross-border approach to digital asset innovation will be cultivated, fostered and protected by xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC. We aim not to be adversarial with Meta, but we will stop at no cost to invest in claim rewards if necessary. Perhaps, we can organize a time to discuss potential resolutions in the immediate term. xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC must reserve all rights specific to harm from March 14, 2022 <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ff9f1af5-cc8a-473a-822b-8890…> and March 18, 2022 <https://cointelegraph.com/news/meta-files-8-digital-asset-and-web-3-0-trade…> market events. Please feel free to call or email anytime. Sending you the very best from New York City, Gunnar Larson -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001 97320155: Online social networking and dating services, including a specific branch tailored for networking between cryptocurrency investors. 97320153: Design and development of computer hardware and software relating to Web3, including gaming, e-commerce, blockchain transactions, etc. 97320149: Entertainment and electronic publishing services, partly within virtual reality. 97320147: Telecommunication services for electronic assets held on its platform. 97320146: Financial transaction processing services relating to tokens, blockchain assets, cryptocurrencies and other virtual assets. 97320144: Advertising services via virtual or augmented reality networks and the metaverse. 97320140: Wearable peripherals for video games connected to virtual reality. 97320136: Downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application, such as for user authentication, online charitable fundraising and most notably, for hardware or e-wallets.

1 23

[ot][spam][crazy][draft] Mind Controlled Utopia #4.327e9
by Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many 04 Jun '24

04 Jun '24

Greeter: "Hello! We're a happy utopic community and we want to make sure everything --" Visitor: [Murders Greeter in a violent, bloody manner.] Visitor: "Oh my god." Visitor stands looking at corpse. Visitor: "Why the fuck did I do that?" Visitor watches as everybody flees for fear of their life. Visitor: "I guess I'd better start a new utopia. I seemed to have scared this one out of existence." Welcome to MCUtopia #4.327e9 ! We know in our hearts that aggression can be completely removed from the human condition if you just hug it enough. Since the world is full of war, this gives us a ton of opportunity to build utopias! You have 3 grass and 2 planks. What do you do?

5 195

Directorates Who Discredit Truthful Witnesses (W/80 Highlights)
by Gunnar Larson 19 May '24

19 May '24

“And the persons who ultimately are harmed by all of this, of course, is the average consumer, the average citizen, who has no knowledge, unless it paid attention to this hearing, of the extent of the manipulations that have been carried out by the largest financial institutions in America and, indeed, probably the world.” - Senator John McCain *Highlights and working notes on the ethical limits of discrediting the truthful witness, observing modern directorates and ethics rules that fail to prevent truth distortion by unethical means (Source research by Marquette Law Review).* History provides the epic example of Enron and a cunning Board of Directors of misleaders, a team of flimflam artists who used sly rhetorical skills to bamboozle the public, turning night into day. In this conception, directorates tell stories only in order to seduce and beguile regulators who fall prey to the advocate’s star-crossed tricks. Why do company Directors employ unethical, false story techniques to advance a false defense when ethical means are available? The exponential effects of this troublesome behavior requires that the firm’s every word, action and attitude be consistent with the conclusion that is dishonest. Board directors are the ultimate self policing body of an organization, responsible for setting the tone for ethical rules and standards. Not only are modern ethical rules unable to prevent directorates who use of false-story techniques, but little can be done in the way of reforming the rules themselves so that they can more effectively regulate the unethical means by which honesty is systematically discredited and made to look untruthful. - As witnessed in New York State recently, top leaders sometimes ignore ethical rules by rationalizing away conduct known to be unethical standards of professional behavior. - More abstract-oriented discussions concerning whether society’s best interests are advanced with attempts to distort outcomes by discrediting the truth has even impacted virtual currency innovation out of New York. These points simply seem invented as an outrageous scenario presented to the public by way of question, yet they are indeed true. - There is a pattern of routinely using an arsenal of tricks to subvert the truth. The culprit may argue that the version of events is untruthful, because of a motive to fabricate the truth. In actuality, incompetence is the only true motive to fabricate directorate supported dishonesty. Now more than ever, honest and ethical leaders know that each time a directorate uses talents and skills to pollute the marketplace with lies (either explicit or implicit) to manipulate profits is an act that initially diminishes the chances of a prosperous society. Such practice of engaging in conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation is impermissible and should not be tolerated. Without swift action, the public may lose confidence in both system wide innovation and maximizing the whole human potential of our species. - Alternatively, employing truthful answers to string together a series of inferences that collectively weaken the case of interlocking directorates. - Vigorously defending potentially problematic interlocking directorates can be systematically re-purposed with the goal of protecting the innocent. We share 80 highlights to Todd A. Berger’s (published by Marquette Law Review) “The Ethical Limits of Discrediting the Truthful Witness: How Modern Ethics Rules Fail to Prevent Truthful Witnesses from Being Discredited Through Unethical Means.” https://thecapital.io/article/directorates-who-discredit-truthful-witnesses… -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001

1 16

Fwd: CityCoins Tweeted: CityCoins are another tool in a city's toolbox. ...
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

Wow, MIA and NYCCoin are claiming to be 100x better than municipal bonds... With some sort of tax scheme of opportunity? ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Twitter <info(a)twitter.com> Date: Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:22 AM Subject: CityCoins Tweeted: CityCoins are another tool in a city's toolbox. ... To: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FGunnarLarson…> <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2F&t=1+1646976…> Your Highlights [image: CityCoins's avatar] CityCoins @mineCityCoins <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> CityCoins are another tool in a city's toolbox. CityCoins are a 100x improvement on municipal bonds. These bonds aren't held by citizens. They're issuing debt that falls on taxpayers to repay. That's tax from compulsion, not tax from opportunity. [image: reply] <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> 2 <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> [image: retweet] <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> 7 <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> [image: like] <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> 30 <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FBigImpactHum…> -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001

1 6

Breaking News: Robinhood Rebrands as 'Libra'
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

*SILICON VALLEY - Embroiled in the naturally malevolent evolutionary controversy of brand fakery <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…> in the name of manipulating humanity, Robinhood Markets (a financial services company) rocked the brand marketing world by finally coming to its senses while vindicating Mr. Hood’s legacy. The company has distanced itself from the old Robinhood firm image of “we take advantage of our customers” with a fresh rebrand as ‘Libra.’* *Celebrated humanitarian Richard Simmons applauded the name change. “Mr. Hood’s story of altruism is loved by young and old alike world-wide. Today Mr. Hood is vindicated from association to the former Robinhood’s tricky company shenanigans. The new ‘Libra’ image is a super smart act of serving our country well... I hope the all-stars at Bear Stearns will join me in congratulating the new ‘Libra’ brand,” Simmons said.* *The nature and timing of the brand change raised eyebrows in New York, a recent familiar reaction to news from our pal <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…>s from the Valley.Gleefully contemplating the long term impact on society, this reporter touts the courage of the real Mr. Hood for opposing forces similar to that of the former Robinhood.History will celebrate the newly minted Libra, which will be hailed for its valor in rebranding, even though it did so to escape the regulatory cloud that has hung over the Robinhood project since it first came into the public domain.(A Satirical Monograph on the News) *

1 2

Hong Kong and Singapore Litigation Investment Forecast
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

Hong Kong and Singapore Litigation Investment Forecast <https://litigationfinancejournal.com/hong-kong-and-singapore-litigation-inv…> International arbitration has experienced an uptick in activity over the past decade, with litigation finance driving increased accessibility to quality arbitration outcomes. Hong Kong and Singapore have both passed regulations to authorize third party funding in each jurisdiction. New research sponsored <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eqM4r9MPm7JDSBEo8QlHcG8uKDTrW13t/view?usp=…> by the Chinese University of Hong Kong, led by faculty of law professor Can Eken profiles Hong Kong and Singapore’s regulatory environment in granular detail. Eken compares and contrasts nuances between both markets, while asking what innovations Hong Kong and Singapore may embrace to further expand third party funding engagement across the international arbitration spectrum. Governments in Hong Kong and Singapore overwhelmingly embrace a ‘soft touch’ approach to litigation finance regulation. Forecasting the region’s growth prospects signal both Hong Kong and Singapore are in competition to be Asia’s arbitration capital, supported by friendly third party funding regulation. Eken suggests that with the high cost associated with international arbitration, viability is often framed by financial capacity. With such need, Hong Kong and Singapore are recognized as having pioneered international arbitration regulation, legalizing the use of third party funding agreements. As an added bonus, we have included 36 highlights <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eqM4r9MPm7JDSBEo8QlHcG8uKDTrW13t/view?usp=…> to Eken’s 23 page essay for your general reference. -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001

1 2

1984: Thread
by grarpamp 08 Mar '24

08 Mar '24

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-york-state-assembly-introduces-bill-manda… https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/A11179

8 384

Re: Assange's Case #FREEASSANGE
by zeynepaydogan 27 Feb '24

27 Feb '24

Julian Assange's Brother speaks to @democracynow "Its 11 years since Julian was arrested in England...The charges need to be dropped...He should be at home with his family" @GabrielShipton #FreeAssangeNOW https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1469321995292758016?s=21 Açık Cum, Ara 10, 2021 17:47, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydogan(a)protonmail.com> yazdı: > Julian Assange Fiancee @stellamoris1: "Julian has been detained in one form or another for 11 years... every time we have a hearing we hear more about the criminal nature of this case" #HumanRightsDay > > https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1469317128977326093?s=21 > > Açık Cum, Ara 10, 2021 17:40, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydogan(a)protonmail.com> yazdı: > >> Today is international human rights day. How cynical to have this decision on this day.' >> >> Stella Moris has urged people to 'fight for' her partner Julian Assange after describing the High Court's ruling as a 'grave miscarriage of justice.' >> >> https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1469268552448421895?s=21 >> >> Açık Cum, Ara 10, 2021 14:49, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydogan(a)protonmail.com> yazdı: >> >>> Reminder: >>> https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1469254580374577155?s=21 >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail for iOS >>> >>> Açık Cum, Ara 10, 2021 14:16, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydogan(a)protonmail.com> yazdı: >>> >>>> I can't believe Assange's case is up to these people's opinions >>>> >>>> https://twitter.com/pritipatel/status/1468577874630303751?s=21

6 64

FreeSpeech and Censorship: Thread
by grarpamp 22 Feb '24

22 Feb '24

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/12/09/krebs-files-lawsuit-against-digenova-… https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AFtCgSn%2Dq5lrL8c&cid=477107F019583E7… http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/390640 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/case.html https://newsmax.com/ https://www.twitter.com/newsmax Fired Pussy Christopher Krebs whines to the State to shutter FreeSpeech... " Fired CyberSec Head Krebs Files Lawsuit Against diGenova, The Trump Campaign, And Newsmax Authored by Jonathan Turley, Christopher Krebs, has filed a lawsuit against Trump attorney Joe diGenova over this controversial joke that Krebs should be “drawn and quartered” and then “shot” for his failures as the former head of U.S. cybersecurity. The lawsuit strikes me as meritless under governing tort doctrines. While Mark Zaid declared that “no rational person” who heard diGenova calling for a person to be drawn and quartered and then shot “would have taken it as ‘jest,’” many of us took the comment as an obvious use of exaggerated rhetoric. While I immediately condemned the language, I did not view it as a serious call for violence. Torts cases of defamation often turn common understanding of such expression as jokes or opinion. The lawsuit not only contradicts governing case law but threatens constitutional protections for free speech and the free press in seeking such tort relief. Joe diGenova gave an interview to Newsmax’s The Howie Carr Show and said that Krebs should be “drawn and quartered” and then “taken out at dawn and shot.” It was a typical over-heated statement of “that guy should be shot” variety. diGenova made it even more absurd by combining it with a medieval method of execution. It was both literally and figuratively an example of overkill. In an interview with the Washington Examiner, diGenova quickly stated that his comment was a joke and not intended as a threat. He stated “For anyone listening to the Howie Carr Show, it was obvious that my remarks were sarcastic and made in jest. I, of course, wish Mr. Krebs no harm. This was hyperbole during political discourse.” The lawsuit names diGenova as well as the Trump campaign and Newsmax. The lawsuit is filed by Charles Fax and Liesel Schopler of Rifkin Weiner Livingston Inc and Jim Walden, Jefferey Udell, Jacob Gardener, Rachel Brook, and Derek Borchardt of Walden Macht & Haran. It is not clear who the opposing defense counsel will be in the case. The lawsuit reads at points more like a political screed in defending the “patriot” Krebs against the “angry mob” fueled by Trump and diGenova who is described as a conspiracy theorist. Count I is a straight defamation claim (against all three defendants). Count II is an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (against diGenova and the campaign). Count III is an aiding and abetting claim (against Newsmax). Count IV is a civil conspiracy claim. >From the outset, the complaint collides with controlling case law. Take Count II. The argument of Krebs would gut the first amendment and run counter to the clear precedent laid down in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011). I previously wrote that such lawsuits are a direct threat to free speech, though I had serious problems with the awarding of costs to the church in a prior column. I was therefore gladdened by the Supreme Court ruling 8-1 in favor of the free speech in the case, even if it meant a victory for odious Westboro Church. Roberts held that the distasteful message cannot influence the message: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Roberts further noted that “Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” The Court in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan have long limited tort law where it would undermine the first amendment. In this case, the Court continues that line of cases — rejecting the highly subjective approach espoused by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent: Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underly- ing the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995). The jury here was instructed that it could hold Westboro liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a finding that Westboro’s picketing was “outrageous.” “Outrageousness,” however, is a highly malleable standard with “an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression.” Hustler, 485 U. S., at 55 (internal quotation marks omitted). In a case such as this, a jury is “unlikely to be neutral with respect to the content of [the] speech,” posing “a real danger of becoming an instrument for the suppression of . . . ‘vehement, caustic, and some- times unpleasan[t]’ ” expression. Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270). Such a risk is unacceptable; “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted). What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous. Ironically, these lawyers are espousing the position of the lone dissenter: Justice Alito. The dissent gave little credence to concerns over the constitutional rights raised in the case. He insisted that “[i]n order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.” It is hard to see how any court could accept Count II and not do precisely what the Supreme Court barred in the use of this tort to limit political and religious speech. Count III and Count IV is equally troubling. It makes sweeping and vague claims of aiding and abetting and conspiracies without support. The comment was clearly part of over-heated rhetoric now common on both ends of the political spectrum. Such claims, if successful, would gut the first amendment. That leaves us with Count I on defamation. That claim is equally dubious from both constitutional and tort perspectives. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, West must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Again, the Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. Krebs is a former public official and a current public figure under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” He would have to carry the burden of proving that the defendant knew the statement was false or showed reckless disregard for its truth. The problem is the the statement is clearly opinion given in the heat of a contested election. The Supreme Court dealt with such an overheated council meeting in Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), in which a newspaper was sued for using the word “blackmail” in connection to a real estate developer who was negotiating with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain zoning variances. The Court applied the actual malice standard and noted: It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word “blackmail” in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: It was Bresler’s public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable. The comment here is clearly “rhetorical hyperbole” that is part of public debate over the 2020 election. Ironically, I have previously criticized President Trump for his calls (here and here and here and here) to change defamation laws to erode protections for the media and free speech. These lawyers and Krebs are doing precisely what Trump has called for. Notably, while I consider this lawsuit to be meritless, I do not believe that any of these lawyers should be charged with bar complaints. That has been the call of Democratic members and many liberal lawyers who want to see bar complaints filed against lawyers challenging the election. I also would not support a campaign like the one at the Lincoln Project (funded by many lawyers) to harass these lawyers or put pressure on their clients. The lawsuit in my view will fail and the legal system will protect free speech from such ill-considered and unsupportable legal claims. Here is the complaint: Krebs v. diGenova "

8 162

United States: Russian State-Sponsored TV Network's Attempt To Dismiss Copyright Lawsuit On Fair Use Grounds Denied
by Gunnar Larson 15 Feb '24

15 Feb '24

In other news, related to Meta's (FB) logo being very similar to the Moscow Stock Exchange logo, something similar has been discussed in New York. I found this quote very interesting: - "Lastly, regarding the fourth factor, concerning the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, the Court noted that this factor "ask[s] not whether the second work would *damage* the market for the first (by, for example, devaluing it through parody or criticism), but whether it *usurps* the market for the first by offering a competing substitute." ---------- https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/copyright/1174834/russian-state-sponsor… TV-Novosti, a non-profit operating the Russian state-controlled RT(formerly Russia Today) television networks and 38 associated RT YouTube channels, has been sued for copyright infringement by Business Casual, an American media company that creates documentary content, based on its use of translated clips of Business Casual's documentaries in its own videos posted to YouTube. Business Casual creates short original historical documentaries which it posts to its YouTube channel. Its documentaries frequently feature photographs of historical figures, using a process called "parallax" which "transforms century-old low-resolution photographs into dramatically restored high-resolution photographs" and "turn[s] two-dimensional images into three-dimensional models . . . simulating a depth-of-field. This optical illusion provides Business Casual's videos with an immersive three-dimensional look and feel." The lawsuit relates to two of Business Casual's documentaries—"How Rockefeller Built His Trillion Dollar Oil Empire" and "J.P. Morgan Documentary: How One Man Financed America"—clips of which Business Casual alleges TV-Novosti incorporated into three separate videos on its "RT-Arabic" YouTube channel, including portions featuring parallax-enhanced images, altering the brightness and saturation of the copied content and replacing Business Casual's watermark with TV-Novosti's own in order to hide from YouTube's algorithms. TV-Novosti moved to dismiss the copyright claims, arguing that it's use of the clips is protected as fair use. However, after considering each of the four statutory factors, Judge Koeltl of the Southern District of New York denied TV-Novosti's motion, holding that while three of the four factors weighed against finding fair use, "[t]he fourth factor, which the Supreme Court has described as 'the single most important element of fair use,' cannot be determined without further factual development." Specifically, regarding the first factor, concerning the transformation of the use, Judge Koeltl found that while TV-Novosti's videos take portions of the plaintiff's videos, re-arrange them, and add new commentary to them, TV-Novosti had not made any meaningful changes to the visual clips themselves, and "[m]erely overlaying new audio does not effect a sufficient transformation . . . to find fair use as a matter of law." The Court further noted that TV-Novosti had "not changed the purpose of the parallax-enhanced images," i.e., to provide visual illustration for the overlain audio commentary, but had instead "simply lifted the copyrighted depictions . .. for the purpose of illustrating [TV-Novosti's] own video." In addition, the Court found that the fact that TV-Novosti could have sought to pay for the clips, but didn't, and tried to hide its use of the excerpts from YouTube's algorithms, also weighed against a finding a fair use under the first factor. Regarding the second factor, concerning the nature of the copyrighted work, the Court initially noted that factual material such as that at issue, "cuts less closely to the core of copyright." Nevertheless, the Court held that the fact that source material for Business Casual's videos was in the public domain weighed against finding fair use, because TV Novosti could have simply used public domain photos of the historical figures, rather than the modified clips, to create its videos. Regarding the third factor, concerning the amount of use in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, the Court noted that while only "small portions of the entire copyrighted works were used"—excerpts of 7 seconds, 1 minute and 28 seconds, and 8 minutes and 50 seconds in length—the portions were "not so trivial as to warrant dismissal under the de minimis doctrine." Lastly, regarding the fourth factor, concerning the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, the Court noted that this factor "ask[s] not whether the second work would *damage* the market for the first (by, for example, devaluing it through parody or criticism), but whether it *usurps* the market for the first by offering a competing substitute." With this framing, the Court thus found that while one the one hand, TV-Novosti's "videos are alternative ways of learning about the lives of J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller," on the other hand, they "have a broader focus and are in a different language, meaning that they cater to a different audience." These differences, the Court held, were significant enough to preclude the Court from "determining the effect of [TV-Novosti's] videos on the market for [Business Casual's] videos at this time." The Court's recognition of the weight of the fourth factor in determining fair use means that there may still be hope for TV-Novosti—time (and fact discovery) will tell. For now, the takeaway may very well be that parties seeking to raise a fair use defense should take care to emphasize any characteristics of their use that distinguish not just their work, but its target audience, including the scope of the work and the language (if any) which communicates it. -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001

1 15