January 2024 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

New York » Penal Law Sec. 250.45 Unlawful surveillance in the second degree
by Gunnar Larson 02 Mar '24

02 Mar '24

https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/ny/statutes/sec-25045-unlawful-surveillance-… Sec. 250.45 Unlawful surveillance in the second degree A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second degree when: 1. For his or her own, or another person’s amusement, entertainment, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person … [View More]dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person’s knowledge or consent; or 2. For his or her own, or another person’s sexual arousal or sexual gratification, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person’s knowledge or consent; or 3. (a) For no legitimate purpose, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a motel, hotel or inn, without such person’s knowledge or consent. (b) For the purposes of this subdivision, when a person uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a hotel, motel or inn, there is a rebuttable presumption that such person did so for no legitimate purpose; or 4. Without the knowledge or consent of a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record, under the clothing being worn by such person, the sexual or other intimate parts of such person; or 5. For his or her own, or another individual’s amusement, entertainment, profit, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person, the actor intentionally uses or installs or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast, or record such person in an identifiable manner: (a) engaging in sexual conduct, as defined in subdivision ten of section 130.00 of this part; (b) in the same image with the sexual or intimate part of any other person; and (c) at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person’s knowledge or consent. Unlawful surveillance in the second degree is a class E felony. [View Less]

1 3

Re: Morning Spam
by Undiscussed Groomed for Male Slavery, One Victim of Many 02 Mar '24

02 Mar '24

On 1/31/23, Bruce Gustafson, Jr. <bridgecrosser379(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Anal works well too. > > Bruce Gustafson > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 11:38 AM Undiscussed Groomed for Male Slavery, One > Victim of Many <gmkarl+brainwashingandfuckingupthehackerslaves(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> maybe boss says it's easy to take over a country: infiltrate their >> secret military, works every time >> >

2 631

New York State Has Turned Over a Vast Amount of Its Financial Affairs to 5-Count Felon JPMorgan Chase
by Gunnar Larson 28 Feb '24

28 Feb '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2024/01/new-york-state-has-turned-over-a-vas… New York State Has Turned Over a Vast Amount of Its Financial Affairs to 5-Count Felon JPMorgan Chase By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: January 10, 2024 ~ New York State Comptroller, Thomas DiNapoli New York State Comptroller, Thomas DiNapoli There’s only one thing more dangerous than the largest bank in the United States, JPMorgan Chase, being charged with (and admitting to) five criminal felony counts by the U.S.… [View More] Department of Justice since 2014 and a host of other fraud charges by federal regulators. What is more dangerous is having government officials look the other way at this recidivist history of crime at the nation’s largest bank. In May, federal banking regulators allowed JPMorgan Chase to get even bigger, despite its unprecedented crime wave, by handing it the failed First Republic Bank in a sweetheart deal. Yesterday, we learned from online documents that the Comptroller of New York State has turned over a vast amount of the financial affairs of the fourth largest state in the country to this banking house of crime. (See related articles below.) According to a New York State Comptroller website, JPMorgan Chase has 59 contracts with the state with a total current contract amount of $5.2 billion. The contracts include everything from banking services to the purchasing cards for state employees. The New York State Comptroller is Thomas DiNapoli, who has held this no-term-limit position since February 7, 2007 – a span of 17 years. DiNapoli’s job description reads as follows: “The comptroller is the chief financial officer of the state government and the head of the Department of Audit and Control. The comptroller’s responsibilities include managing the state’s pension fund, auditing the spending practices of all state agencies and local governments, reporting on state finances, and serving as the custodian of unclaimed funds.” As it turns out, JPMorgan Chase has a 7-year contract with the Comptroller’s office to serve as the custodian for the securities held in the New York State Common Retirement Fund for state workers. As of September 30, 2023, the Common Retirement Fund had a value of almost a quarter of a trillion dollars, or $246.3 billion to be exact. But the Comptroller does not want the public to know all of the granular details in its contract between JPMorgan Chase and itself. Numerous paragraphs are blacked out in the document. According to the Common Retirement Fund’s Annual Report, JPMorgan Chase – not the Comptroller or the Fund’s auditor – calculates the rate of return for the fund. That return was indicated as “negative 4.14 percent, gross of certain investment fees” for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023. How large is this custodial business at JPMorgan Chase, which holds so many securities for other parties? On November 24, 2020, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the federal regulator of national banks, fined JPMorgan Chase $250 million for “failure to maintain adequate internal controls and internal audit over its fiduciary business.” That business includes its custodial business. The OCC Consent Order related to that fine revealed the following: “The Bank maintains one of the world’s largest and most complex fiduciary businesses with total fiduciary and related assets of $29.1 trillion, including $1.3 trillion in fiduciary assets and $27.8 trillion of non-fiduciary custody assets.” To put that $29.1 trillion into the proper perspective, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) reports that as of September 30, 2023 there were 4,049 commercial banks in the U.S. The total assets of those 4,049 banks was $22.2 trillion. But, somehow, just one of those banks has attracted $27.8 trillion of assets for which it serves as custodian. Is there some secret sauce that JPMorgan Chase has going for it to attract all of that money? In September 2020, when the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) released a bombshell investigative report about money laundering for criminals at some of the largest Wall Street banks, it had quite a bit to say about JPMorgan Chase. (The ICIJ investigation was based on secret documents leaked from FinCEN, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a unit of the U.S. Treasury.) According to the ICIJ report, JPMorgan Chase was involved in moving illicit funds for the fugitive, Jho Low, involving the notorious looting of public funds in Malaysia. Jho Low has been accused by multiple jurisdictions of playing a key role in the embezzlement of more than $4.5 billion from a Malaysian economic development fund, 1MDB. JPMorgan Chase moved $1.2 billion in money for Jho Low from 2013 to 2016, according to the report. The ICIJ report also found that JPMorgan “processed more than $50 million in payments over a decade…for Paul Manafort, the former campaign manager for President Donald Trump. The bank shuttled at least $6.9 million in Manafort transactions in the 14 months after he resigned from the campaign amid a swirl of money laundering and corruption allegations spawning from his work with a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine.” Equally troubling activity at JPMorgan Chase includes the following, according to ICIJ investigators: “JPMorgan also moved money for companies and people tied to corruption scandals in Venezuela that have helped create one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. One in three Venezuelans is not getting enough to eat, the UN reported this year, and millions have fled the country. “One of the Venezuelans who got help from JPMorgan was Alejandro ‘Piojo’ Isturiz, a former government official who has been charged by U.S. authorities as a player in an international money laundering scheme. Prosecutors allege that between 2011 and 2013 Isturiz and others solicited bribes to rig government energy contracts. The bank moved more than $63 million for companies linked to Isturiz and the money laundering scheme between 2012 and 2016, the FinCEN Files show…” Wall Street banks like JPMorgan Chase are legally required to follow the “KYC” rule (Know Your Customer) in order to avoid moving money around for criminals. But the ICIJ investigators reveal that JPMorgan Chase paid little attention to that rule. Less than six months ago, JPMorgan Chase settled two separate federal lawsuits against it for actively participating in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of minors enterprise by turning a blind eye to glaring red flags and failing to file the legally mandated Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) as Epstein took upwards of $40,000 to $80,000 in hard cash monthly from his accounts at the bank over a decade. In return, Epstein referred ultra wealthy clients to the bank according to court documents. JPMorgan Chase previously admitted in 2014 to two criminal charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice for banking Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme for decades (that devastated the finances of thousands of retirees) and ignoring its legal obligation to file SARs with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The settlement with the Justice Department included a penalty of $1.7 billion in restitution to Madoff victims and a promise to reform its anti-money laundering compliance programs. The text of JPMorgan’s contract with the New York State Comptroller to custody assets for the Common Retirement Fund indicates that the New York State Comptroller found the bank to be a “responsible” entity. Yesterday, we emailed the press office for the Comptroller and listed the nature of the five felony counts the bank has admitted to since 2014. We inquired if the Comptroller was aware of these charges. The response was that there would be no comment from the Comptroller’s office to our questions. Related Articles: JPMorgan Chase Paid $1.085 Billion in Legal Expenses in Last Six Months; It’s Still Battling Hundreds of Charges and Legal Proceedings on Three Continents JPMorgan/Jeffrey Epstein Cases Are a Cross Between the Bank’s Chinese Princeling Scandal and Madoff Fraud, Using Sex with Minors as a Bribe JPMorgan Chase Quietly Settles Whistleblower Case Involving Charges of Keeping Two Sets of Books and Improper Payments to Tony Blair Watchdog to Fed: JPMorgan Is Controlling Fossil Fuels Empire, Which Just Spilled a Million Gallons of Oil in Gulf of Mexico Janet Yellen’s Treasury Department Hires 5-Count Felon JPMorgan Chase to Look for Fraud Professors Point to JPMorgan Chase as Poster Boy of a Financial System Dependent on Corruption to Sustain Itself [View Less]

1 1

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 … [View More]

6 64

Fwd: FOIL Request Confirmation from Open FOIL NY (Stacks (STX) Virtual Currency Custody Approval by New York State Department of Financial Services)
by Gunnar Larson 24 Feb '24

24 Feb '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <noreply(a)its.ny.gov> Date: Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 2:48 PM Subject: FOIL Request Confirmation from Open FOIL NY To: <G(a)xny.io> Thank you for submitting your FOIL request through Open FOIL NY. Here is your Open FOIL NY confirmation information for future reference: LARSON_DFS_20230711144828136 *INFORMATION SUBMITTED:* *Records Requested From* Department of Financial Services *Short Title* Stacks (STX) Virtual Currency Custody Approval … [View More]

1 4

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 … [View More]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 " [View Less]

8 162

Re: Memo #3 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement
by Gunnar Larson 21 Feb '24

21 Feb '24

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QFZ2sFXx1cSYRcZTOGdPelZbVtuhpHuCKk011Uz… February 21, 2022 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. John Marzulli United States Department of Justice Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn New York, 11201 John.Marzulli(a)usdoj.gov Re: Memo #3 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement <https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/1329926/download> Dear Mr. Marzulli: The Department of Justice has yet to respond to Memo #1 <https://docs.… [View More]

1 51

Potential Uptick in IP Finance and Investment on the Way - Litigation Finance Journal
by Gunnar Larson 15 Feb '24

15 Feb '24

Check out a recent article and the mention of "metaverse and money": https://litigationfinancejournal.com/potential-uptick-in-ip-finance-and-inv… Law Business Research’s IAM-Media.com has published new guidance that the United States and European patent and intellectual property marketplace will soon experience increased activity. West U Capital is making headlines in the United States as a powerhouse with a patent and trademark pedigree hard to match. In other news, Europe will soon open its … [View More]

1 2

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 … [View More]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 [View Less]

1 15

SpaceX Interlocking Directors’ Intent to Manipulate Markets
by Gunnar Larson 12 Feb '24

12 Feb '24

As the sun rises today across the United States of America, there are people waking up wanting to make something of themselves. Anyhow, no word from the Attorney General of New York State. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2023, 12:12 PM Subject: SpaceX Interlocking Directors’ Intent to Manipulate Markets To: <letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov> Cc: <ir(a)twitter.com>, Harris, Adrienne A (DFS) <Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov&… [View More]

1 1