July 2022 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

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

SpaceX Interlocking Directors’ Intent to Manipulate Markets
by Gunnar Larson 09 Mar '24

09 Mar '24

Dear Attorney General Letitia James: xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC seeks to earn your esteemed approval to engage the New York False Claims Act under urgent pretences. Today's correspondence marks the first time in history, a self-titled "mafia" (aka, the "PayPal Mafia '') is compelled to answer publicly the decision to manipulate both the New York False Claims Act and the Martin Act against one another. - Madam Attorney General, your leadership approach has historical context <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/climate/exxon-climate-lawsuit-new-york.h…> to logic and ultimate Exxon Mobil vs. New York State <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nLp9RIYw8mAh1SRG8E9PMEK94SV-viUN/view?usp=…> case precedent. - xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC research and development notes our hawkish approach to ESG, D&O and LBO innovation. - xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC sees this not a democrat vs. republican concern as Mr. Elon Musk (CEO, SpaceX and Tesla) claims. False pretense to protect free speech are now being debated as party to a $200B pryamid scheme. Ms. James, on May 21, 2022 xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lv9Wt6y1ld4bNap0z3epIxttEGiP_oVpfxH0GTS…> contacted the SpaceX Corporation with reasonable concern of CEO Musk's intent behind the $44B Twitter LBO. The Orlando Police Pension Fund shared similar concerns to the intent behind Twitter's LBO as illegal. Since, market forces suggest that SpaceX and Tesla directors are part of interlocking directorate, self proclaimed the PayPal Mafia. The racket could waterfall to problem(s) at the New York State Department of Financial Services with Superintendent association to D&O insurance regulation. Ms. James, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC seeks your office's urgent assessment of this matter. We aim to earn approval to explore the New York False Claims Act to confront SpaceX as a racket. *Like a house of cards, the PayPal Mafia racket could risk a waterfall of D&O interlocking directorate insolvencies. In summary: * 1. xNY.io - Bank.org's May 21, 2022 memo to SpaceX questioned intent behind baseless claims pioneered by SpaceX's CEO, branding ESG a scam via Exxon Mobil. Obviously, Exxon Mobil vs. New York State <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nLp9RIYw8mAh1SRG8E9PMEK94SV-viUN/view?usp=…> alludes Mr. Musk party to a false claim. 2. SpaceX has failed to establish a preponderance of evidence and burden of proof not a racket. 3. SpaceX has failed to prove that Twitter's LBO is not false claim to free speech protection. 4. True social innovation cannot sponsor a fake news racket that could jeopardize space exploration and war. 5. Twitter's LBO dealmakers (Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase) company balance sheets, financial statements and other corporate records do not impact xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC holding a racket accountable to false claims. The CEO of SpaceX and Tesla leveraging Exxon Mobil as an ESG securities scam does not preclude the PayPal Mafia's intent to engage false claims at the sacrifice of New York State's financial future. Madam Attorney General James, we hope to hear from your esteemed office and learn assessment of best next steps. Thank you, Gunnar -- *Gunnar Larson * *xNY.io <http://www.xny.io/> - Bank.org <http://bank.org/>, PBC* 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 On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 9:34 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > May 21, 2022 > > BY ELECTRONIC MAIL > > SpaceX Corporation > Board of Directors > One Rocket Road > Hawthorne, California > 90250 > Sales(a)SpaceX.com > > Re: Potential SpaceX Interlocking Directors’ Intent to Manipulate > Markets > > Dear SpaceX Board of Directors: > > From our New York headquarters, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC embodies the notion > that rather than a merry-go-round, the process of change and innovation is > like a slide. > > Today’s memo aims to notify the SpaceX Corporation of concern of potential > market manipulation that could impact cross-border digital asset > innovation, free speech in the United States of America, the global ESG > economy and Moon exploration. > > Please find the attached memo > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lv9Wt6y1ld4bNap0z3epIxttEGiP_oVpfxH0GTS…> > addressed to SpaceX's board of directors. > > Respectfully, > > Gunnar Larson >

2 229

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: Regulations on the Administration of Network Data Security (Draft for Comment)
by Gunnar Larson 01 Mar '24

01 Mar '24

Dear Cyberspace Administration of China: It has been over one month since our inquiry, and I am kindly following up on the message below. Please note, the question concerning Proof of Transfer is critical to determining any degradation to the Bitcoin blockchain's software purity. As such, it would be ideal to determine Hong Kong's approach to Network Data Security <http://www.cac.gov.cn/2021-11/14/c_1638501991577898.htm> (Draft for Comment) issued by your office. Furthermore, this correspondence is to also reference autonomy between xNY and e-CNY (given several obvious factors). Sincerely yours, 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 On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 2:08 PM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > Dear Sir or Madam: > We seek clarification to the recent notice of the Cyberspace > Administration of China on Public Comments on the Regulations on the > Administration of Network Data Security > <http://www.cac.gov.cn/2021-11/14/c_1638501991577898.htm> (Draft for > Comment). > > The Cyberspace Administration of China > <http://www.cac.gov.cn/2021-11/14/c_1638501991577898.htm> (and Hong Kong) > issued new guidance on third-party products and services that cause damage > to users. According to the Cyberspace Administration’s guidance, users can > request Internet platform operators to pay compensation in advance for data > violations. > > Hong Kong is the data hub for Stacks (STX), where internet platform > operators shall assume data security management responsibilities for > third-party products and services connected to their platforms. Hong Kong > mandates clarity of data security responsibilities for third parties > through contracts and other forms, and urges third parties to strengthen > data security management, and adopt the necessary data security protection > measures. > > - Stacks’ strong third-party presence in Hong Kong extends to China. > One of Stacks’ board members has served as a leader of a Shanghai based > incubator. > - The looming question is if Proof of Transfer (PoX) Stacks’ extension > to Proof of Burn (PoB), where miners compete by ‘burning’ (destroying) a > Proof of Work (PoW) from an established blockchain, is allegedly illegal in > Hong Kong, under the Cyberspace Administration’s new guidance. > > PoX, when used for participation rewards (Such as with MIA Coin, NYCCoin > and STX), could lead to miner consolidation. Because miners that also > participate as holders could gain an advantage over miners who do not > participate as holders, miners would be strongly incentivized to buy the > new cryptocurrency and use it to crowd out other miners. In an extreme > case, this consolidation could lead to a centralization of mining, which > would undermine the decentralization goals of the public blockchain. > > China, along with Hong Kong, has outlawed various forms of threats to > international peace and security. > > We seek the Cyberspace Administration of China's guidance if the Proof of > Transfer > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wL2kN6aMfsyT-T7g01YJSBB8meMn2SWg/view?usp=…> > is a legal or legal consensus software algorithm in China and Hong Kong? > Sending you the very best regards. > > Thank you, > > Gunnar Laron > -- > *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

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

An Open Letter to Bloomberg on Modern BitLicense Logic
by Gunnar Larson 07 Feb '24

07 Feb '24

Dear Bloomberg: Thank you for pioneering innovation spanning all facets of global finance. For the last 15 years, Bloomberg has served as a wise friend offering daily, quality inspiration. Interviewing Mayor Mike Bloomberg on occasion as a young journalist and advancing to become a global executive and regular Bloomberg Breakaway attendee has fostered a dream of learning from top global business idols. Forever inspired by Bloomberg’s pioneering contributions to the culture of New York and global financial innovation, today’s memo highlights our now eventful journey to fundamentally modernize New York's BitLicense and global regulatory logic. - Our global team <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S3hI4G7QYR7PmlKlc7oQHhl4RnroLYF-/view?usp=…> is comprised of seasoned professionals who cumulatively represent decades of industry experience across various fields and disciplines. - Our strategic partnerships <https://news.bitcoin.com/ternio-joins-visas-fast-track-program-as-new-enabl…> with the world’s leading financial, healthcare services <http://mydr.co/> and mobile payments providers support the key aim of our endeavor: to attain the legitimate financial inclusion and economic prosperity of all the excluded, under-privileged and under-served, offering financial inclusion and global citizenry. Pioneering global virtual currency innovation is in part due to pedigree responsibility as a “Bill and Melinda Gates Scholar,” (UG) a “Blockchain Scholar” (GR) and a principle creator of “United Nations AudioVisual Library on International Law <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BweeaClFZ8c0dDNDWGFveVFTXzlOTjhXY2tKS2FZN2…>.” Humble scholars and UN esteem are indeed supportive. However, our working example of success is modeled on Bloomberg's business of international excellence, pioneering many of the world's greatest financial systems and technology frameworks out of New York. *The New York BitLicense vs. Global Regulatory Arbitrage* The 2015 BitLicense mandate was envisioned as synonymous with New York’s leadership of next-generation global innovation. New York’s contemporary virtual currency innovation rests with a modern BitLicense with cross-border logic (similar to New York human rights law <https://dhr.ny.gov/law#HRL298a>). 1. Today many New York firms have various legacy regulatory arbitrage frameworks. 2. The utility concept behind virtual currency is in its cross-border appeal. 3. Modern European regulation shares this logic. New York’s BitLicense does not, therefore creating a virtual currency “Crypto Bank” regulatory arbitrage loophole between Europe and New York. New York banks’ traditional engagement of regulatory arbitrage has overflowed the BitLicense and correspondingly is responsible for global virtual currency marketplace manipulation. Circumnavigating this problem is key to modern BitLicense logic. Given the inherent universal cross-border nature of virtual currencies, there is no real good reason for New York firms under the BitLicense mandate to manipulate other global markets via regulatory arbitrage. Engaging the New York Department of Financial services’ new “Conditional BitLicense” framework as a vehicle, we have signed our clear intent to win the Superintendent's Conditional Approval and other necessary regulatory approvals of modern virtual currency logic. - BitLicense members today should not be surprised by New York wasting no time issuing modern logic and that virtual currency regulatory arbitrage is a lawless New York rights concern affecting <https://dhr.ny.gov/law#HRL298a> over 1 billion people. - European regulation has allowed our team to build these concepts which are theoretically illegal in New York, thus creating global loopholes. - Africa is the most concerning “virtual currency regulatory arbitrage market” directed outside of New York and Europe jurisdictions. African consumers are being manipulated most. United States consumers also are affected at various levels. European consumers have a favorable environment, but do not have the “dynamism” New York affords. Working in New York, European and African jurisdictions as “Blockchain Scholars,” we tested the concept of our Modern BitLicense Logic at our “sister” University in Africa <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S3hI4G7QYR7PmlKlc7oQHhl4RnroLYF-/view?usp=…>, and interestingly Goldman Sachs out of New York was a lead investor. The key observation is that New York banks “own,” or lead investment in, the European and African marketplace leaders. At every level, New York’s BitLicense is the most significant hurdle to the global virtual currency industry. Given our own experience in these markets, we have found that Goldman Sachs has fine tuned global virtual currency regulatory arbitrage. To be fair, we have reported on various other Silicon Valley firms leveraging the BitLicense, given that Valley firms like Robinhood <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…> use New York banks, like Goldman Sachs, as a key actor. Note, as some of the industries top “real global scholars” we understand it would be a mistake to be adversarial to the current New York environment. Like Boomberg, we aim to be very impressive in terms of successfully shepherding/persuading meaningful New York innovation. *The Art of Diplomacy* Rather than a merry-go-round, the process of change is like a slide, and Modern BitLicense Logic is necessary. As a matter of New York law, there is no other option. The process of filing complaints or legal mediation is sub-par. Furthermore, if virtual currency firms want to game regulatory markets they honestly should forfeit the prestige of New York’s BitLicense. 2020 will go down in history as New York banks continued to profit heavily under regulatory arbitrage frameworks while virtual currency reached global proportions. New York’s newly announced “Conditional BitLicense” framework offered our group the perfect opportunity to earn a “Conditional License” and suggests advancing the BitLicense mandate with “modern logic.” - The interests ensured through interpretations of specific provisions in the existing national and supra-national legal framework (civil law, securities law, bankruptcy law, international human rights law) call for New York to clarify the rights of the public and obligations of BitLicense members engaged in the global virtual currency economy. - BitLicense regulation must preserve a technology-neutral, principle-based, non-discriminatory framework for the next generation of modern New York virtual currency public policy, naturally to support innovation within the limits imposed by overriding international public interests. As a proud New Yorker, the only option is to be a “real scholar,” and the job would not be complete without New York regulator approval and campaign for cross-border modernization of the BitLicense logic in any way possible. *Vast Undue Economic Hardship* Bloomberg has championed actions to promote an inclusive economy -- one in which people have the chance to move themselves and their families out of poverty, one in which systemic racism does not limit opportunities and one in which all people can fully participate. Without this inclusivity, the global economy will not be able to live up to its full potential and people will suffer. As we have reported <https://thecapital.io/article/new-yorks-raging-regulatory-arbitrage-racket-…>, virtual currency fraud is a serious problem for such a developed country as the United States, whose bank regulators have drawn attention to the increase of these crimes. Having discovered that an unregulated virtual currency sphere (such as in Africa, or other developing markets) is very popular among virtual currency fraudsters <https://www.americanbanker.com/news/jpmorgan-chase-warns-of-upcoming-fine-o…>, the New York State Department of Financial Services concluded that this kind of regulatory fraud was threatening US national security. Research on the social importance and credibility <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…> of good institutional design from an organizational perspective seeks to prevent undue hardship requiring significant expense or difficulty (including a significant interference with the safe or efficient operation of international operations due to the seniority system of New York banks who are playing global markets). - Factors to be considered in determining whether an undue economic hardship exists shall include, but not be limited to, special requirements or conditions that are imposed upon an applicant or class of applicants in circumstances where similar requirements or conditions are not imposed upon other applicants. - Consumer protection is an umbrella term covering a group of laws and organizations that protect the rights of consumers and foster the free flow of accurate information in the marketplace. Consumer protection laws are designed to prevent businesses from engaging in fraud or unfair practices, to protect individuals from scam artists, and to identity thieves and crooks. - A New York State resident or corporation is in violation if found to have contributed to an act committed outside New York State against a resident of this state or against a corporation organized under the laws of this state (or authorized to do business in this state) that would constitute an unlawful discriminatory practice if committed within New York State. - If the New York State has reason to believe that a non-resident person or foreign corporation has committed or is about to commit outside of this state an act which if committed within this state would constitute an unlawful practice, such act is in violation. Speaking generally, at least during its 2015-2020 implementation phase, the BitLicense has likely contributed to increased cross-border virtual currency market manipulation. Specifically, we reference our individual hardship example in New York, Europe and Africa with concern to Goldman Sachs’ cross-border manipulation as a violation of New York Human Rights law. *New York Human Rights Law* Our analysis of the factors that drive cross-border differences in the implementation of BitLicense reform link the resulting heterogeneity to cross-jurisdictional arbitrage. In this manner we identify New York in a “virtual currency regulatory crisis” – to the extent that the BitLicense is unevenly implemented – as a source of new and unchecked global financial risk. Given the nature of traditional regulatory arbitrage, it is key to differentiate the BitLicense and understand New York’s universal nature <https://dhr.ny.gov/law#HRL298a> of Human Rights Law. - The science of pure virtual currency design and human rights are universal movements to end ins <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutionalisation>titutionalized <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutionalisation> discrimination and disenfranchisement <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States>, and to offer quality consumer financial product access without cross-border regulatory segregation. - We trust that virtual currency regulatory arbitrage can be addressed via BitLicense modernization and that New York regulators share our logical provisional interpretation of cross-borders with respect to human rights. Our experience in Europe and Africa points to the necessity to work with New York regulators directly without BitLicense member interference. This approach is not to purposely irritate the esteemed Superintendent or rock the boat that is New York State and risk disrupting the system that guarantees our future. *Conditional BitLicense Approval* Modern BitLicense Logic’s opportunity is to meet a new global standard for virtual currency regulatory innovation while protecting market integrity by stringent standards applicable to all law-abiding business enterprises. In our case, a few approvals are necessary and are proposed via a hybrid model under the supervision of the Superintendent. Following this desire, we have navigated the five step process for Conditional review. 1. *Inform*: Applicants inform NYDFS of the intent to collaborate with a specific BitLicensee and provide a copy of the draft agreement between the applicant and the BitLicensee. 2. *Submit: *Applicants submit information on the expected type of business and the perceived risks, among other things. 3. *Review: *NYDFS begins its substantive review after all of the requested documentation has been submitted. 4. *Contract: *NYDFS and the applicant enter into a supervisory agreement defining the scope of the applicant’s business, shared responsibilities with its sponsor BitLicensee and NYDFS’ level of oversight. 5. *Approve:* If NYDFS approves the application, a Conditional BitLicense is issued. Every day of delay in ambiguity of Modern BitLicense Logic poses a problem for those who want to offer additional products and services at international scale while staying within the letter of the law. Currently, we believe that our Conditional application is ready to enter stage four and seek to begin negotiation of the supervisory agreement. Bloomberg as the prime example of global prestige and success fuels our desire to be best in class in providing global virtual currency financial services out of New York. Warm regards, *Gunnar Larson* Bill and Melinda Gates Scholar | Blockchain Scholar Conditional BitLicense Applicant (Global Team Lead) New York, New York 10001 -- *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

2 7

Freedom of Speech: Islam Goes Apeshit over Charlie Hebdo Muhammad Cartoons Repub, Quran Eating, and Successful Critical Analysis
by grarpamp 05 Feb '24

05 Feb '24

7 166