Slashdot Mirror
USCG Sues Copyright Defense Lawyer
ESRB writes "The US Copyright Group has sued Graham Syfert, an attorney who created a packet of self-representation paperwork for individuals sued for P2P sharing of certain movies and moved to have sanctions placed against the defense attorney. Syfert sells these packets for $20, and the USCG claims the 19 individuals who have used it have cost them over $5000."
So... they think defending yourself is against the law now, or something? Or informing other people on how to defend themselves?
They're either thick as a plank or they actually want more defendants to self-represent.
Under English law, a lawyer merely provides advice which the client is free to make use of or to ignore, and there are plenty of legal self-help books. There is an excellent one for company secretaries which, back in the 90s, saved me thousands in legal bills. Is this not so in the US?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Any reasonable judge would throw this out. Lets hope he/she does.
So, according to these USCG clowns, providing a working defence to the opposition is illegal?
The pack sold is not illegal in any way. it does not teach the owner how to break the law? it simply educates them about it.
The pack simply helps teach them how to best represent themselves, legally stand up for themselves?
But because it helps them (legally) prove they aren't liable, the USCG is suing the pack producer because it's causing them to lose their cases?
Hasn't this got to be the clearest case of racketeering, or proof it's all about extortion that the copyright-over-enforcement types have given yet?
From the article:
(..) users who had downloaded films like The Hurt Locker, Far Cry and Call of the Wild
I liked the game Far Cry, so how about that movie? Is it any good? Is it worth the download?
The lawyers who brought this suit should be disbarred, and they should be fined to fully compensate the court and the defendant for their time, AND for his emotional distress. This is a fucking outrage.
USCG Sues Copyright Defense Lawyer
Am I the only one who read that headline and wondered why the United States Coast Guard was getting involved in copyright lawsuits?
~Idarubicin
Filing a suit against an attorney who is informing citizens of their Constitutional rights? Absolutely ridiculous. The attorney who filed this suit should be disbarred.
he should be sued. Instead of this thorn-in-my-side bloke being known to a handful of people, he now has the publicity to level up to a bloody damn nuisance. 14000 more xp and he'll level up to a rebel.
But seriously, you'd think that as much as the Streisand effect has come up recently (like once a month), certain organizations would take heed and just roll with the punches. But that would involve, you know, using common sense.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Any copyright/trademark/patent zealot, please explain us, whether we have hit the rock bottom yet, or not.
If not being sued for legally defending yourself against a private interest is not rock bottom, then explain us 'rock bottom'.
Read radical news here
...please explain. There is absolutely no way that this is actually what it looks like on the surface, its just way to ridiculous.
Anyone know where one could download the self-representation paperwork packs?
Im kidding.....
Are you being sued for file sharing? Can't afford a lawyer to defend you?
Represent yourself and save.
Not that I think file sharing copyrighted content is right but I'm willing to bet many of those being sued really are innocent but this day and age they're guilty until they prove otherwise.
but, he wont be. he will even earn more money. and be hired for doing more of this shit.
just like how a footman violating feudal laws for the benefit of his lord gets promoted.
Read radical news here
The first thing I think about when I see this if free advertising for the accused lawyer. I mean if only 19 people have used the documents and 10x the number have paid for said documents at 20 bucks a pop. That's only around 4k of revenue. The article published on slashdot will likely generate far more income now. So the question is, are these documents real and effective or is this just an advertising campaign?
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
Normally you can at least see SOME sort of legal justification but I don't really see anything beyond "we're really mad he's making our jobs harder" and I'm not sure HOW they have legal grounds to sue him or have sanctions placed...he hasn't done anything illegal or even...WRONG in this case. WTF?
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? I don't think you can shut down a attorney like this. Prisons have tried to limit inmate access to court / filing lawsuits and the courts have said they can't do that.
I would think that an attorney suing another attorney is fairly common. Remember one party can sue anyone for any reason, especially in a civil matter. The chances of winning is another. The courts don't normally intervene unless one party is notorious for filing frivolous lawsuits. The USCG can be barred for certain actions like suborning perjury but not for act of suing.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Their legal team and/or cases sucked so much that they got their asses handed to them by untrained defendants using boilerplate this guy wrote.
So now they want to sue him directly, after he already owned them by proxy, with a case that seems even more hilariously unjustified. What are they going to pin on him? Selling standard legal advice?
Yeah, good luck.
This strikes me as an outrageous abuse of power by the federal government. Let me read this article. Ohh wait, it is not the US Coast Guard. It is the US Copyright Group. In case can we get the Coast Guard to sue the Copyright group for trademark infringement.
USCG vs USCG. The epic battle.
they should sue the united states coast guard for taking their acronym before they came into existence. or maybe the coasties should shut them down.
Dunlap, et al. (legal counsel for USCG) need to have their collective head examined.
Any court of competent jurisdiction can see this is a farce (did this so-called lawsuit survive the initial motion to dismiss?), especially since one of the defenses Mr. Syfert propounds (that of the "motion to dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction") is actually working. I would also look harshly upon Dunlap's threats to potential defendants (doubling of settlement requests for those using Mr. Syfert's prepared forms), perhaps to the point of allowing such conduct to weigh in favor of Mr. Syfert in his sanctions claim.
In short, USCG is abusing the legal process. You want to go after someone for copyright infringement, fine. More power to you. But this sort of chicanery makes judges very upset. The fact that Mr. Syfert is clever enough to include documentation in his prepared forms that is (surprise, surprise) raising an effective defense is cause for kudos to him, and Dunlap's whining is unbecoming a law firm. If you can't stand the heat (that is, someone effectively using the law against you), get out of the kitchen.
From TFA, you can still buy his defense package from here
If a lawyer sells paperwork to 19 people for 20$ that amounts to losses of 5000$, how come other individuals are sued for million dollars amounts? How exactly did it go from 1~250 million to 263.16$ per person sued?
The guy should let the lawsuit go through and set a precedent of 263.16$ as the amount the RIAA/MPAA/USCG/etc can sue a person for. No more, no less.
So, according to these USCG clowns, providing a working defence to the opposition is illegal?
I wouldn't know. The article doesn't specify if any actual legal proceeding has actually been initiated or if this is just a bluff in an email exchange. Nor does it say what specific body this would be filed with, or what the legal basis for the filing would be. Is it really to much to ask for an article with some actual information in it?
I am being harassed for a download. Where can i get this kit that i have never heard of before this post?
I agree that the lock the bar has on legal representation aught to be illegal, but I think this is wishful thinking. I think your arguments are interesting, but your prediction will come to naught.
As one example: there are specific sects permitted "conscientious objector" status. They are excused from military service for religious reasons. If your point held, then the draft would be entirely invalid. Any judge would be loath to make a ruling with such far-reaching and unpredictable consequences.
Reverse discrimination suits rarely hold water, and never* on the scale that you propose.
(IANAL, thus I do not hear about all legally interesting cases.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
so not only is the BSA is now the Business Software Alliance rather than Boy Scouts of America, but the USCG is now the US Copyright Group rather than the United States Coast Guard.
can't wait to find what they change USA to.
I'm sure it will all be for our own good.
Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? I don't think you can shut down a attorney like this. Prisons have tried to limit inmate access to court / filing lawsuits and the courts have said they can't do that.
It depends upon if the attorney is providing valid advice. People have already been fined, sanctioned, and even jailed for providing false legal advice to the public, (who then go on to file frivolous lawsuits/defenses).
The prison thing is a bit different, it's kind of hard to sue someone for fines and sanctions for providing legal advice to other inmates...
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
The lawyer trolls are going to lose. That's for sure. The only question is whether Mr. Syfert will get sanctions against them, and if so, how much those sanctions will be. Assuming that there is nothing defamatory in Mr. Syfert's materials, all Syfert did is sell information to third parties. There's no law against that (and the First Amendment supports it).
The whole thing is now a free targeted promotional event on Mr. Syfert's behalf.
Just a little bit of careful thought would have dissuaded the lawyer trolls from filing an action against Mr. Syfert. It will be fun to watch this circus as it unfolds its tents.
Anyone known on what grounds is USCG suing? As far as I know you need to break a law before anyone can put you before a judge.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
An individual can usually file a suit for just about anything. Attorneys, on the other hand, are usually held to a higher standard. Look up "malicious prosecution"
WTF !!!
I wonder if, by their actions so clearly telling us that this works, USCG is practicing law outside of the jurisdiction where they're licensed?
Bookmarked, justin case.
BTW, is there a torrent of the forms?
Just in case it really works and he gets shut down...
So much for the 1st Amendment
What seems to be driving the copyright enforcers nuts is simply that Syfert's package of boilerplate letters contains one raising a "personal jurisdiction" issue. The copyright enforcers have been filing all their suits in one Federal court, in the District of Columbia, regardless of where the defendant is. In such cases, where the defendant has no connection to the district where the court is, it's routine to object, and force the plaintiff to refile in the defendant's district court. The lawyers for the US Copyright Group then have to sue in dozens of different district courts. They hate that.
Here's an example of such a motion. Such motions are usually granted. The EFF has a long filing on this.
The article on TorrentFreak (liked in TFA) has the court filings from both USCG and Syfert's reply.
They need to take a page from the US traffic law extortion system. If the USCG would only extort $150-200 per pop, like a speeding ticket - most people will just pay up. They find it's not worth the hassle and time off work to defend a $200 case, so ~97% just pay the ticket with out going to court. Of those who do go to court, 97% loose, so the overall payout rate is very high. Yet about 85% of the people continue to drive faster than the speed limit and almost no one bothers to change the laws.
Wouldn't "False legal advice" be more of pretending to be an attorney when you are not?
How can it be illegal to tell someone "Hey, to defend yourself against that lawsuit, I think you should try this..." if you are honest about being or not being an attorney. If that's illegal, then in effect people can not discuss the law. How can democracy work then? That's just nuts!
Here is how I see it:
- He's an attorney.
- His advice works (if not, then people who bought his advice are those who should sue)
- He's only educating people about the law and trials.
"Malicious prosecution" like "vexatious litigation" normally require more than one act. Your neighbor could sue you if your car is parked one inch too close for comfort. The courts will not like it but unless your neighbor repeatedly files frivolous lawsuits, they are not likely to do anything.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
... pirated copies of these documents?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I read that as U.S. Coast Guard Sues... and I'm like ????
Keep Doing Good.
say in Washington state, you get the J.D. and you pass the bar, then you can practice as a lawyer. You have to join the bar association. The bar association, by law, defines the rules for you. If you need to be slapped up by the side of the head, the bar does it. If you do not like it, hey, you can get the state supreme court to review things. So if you are not in the bar association, you cannot practice. law. In places like texas, I believe lots of the usual legal self-help stuff is simply in some meaniful sense illegal because making it available is seen as practicing.
Another way to look at it: a lawyer is an officer of the court. So he is always under the court's jurisdiction in a certain way. And judges can do about whatever they want to you, at first cut, and not particularly because you are some sort of criminal. So what they do is reviewable by higher courts, but it is not impossible to sit in jail for, what, 20 years, as happened to one lawyer in the US who got hit with a contempt of court thing and would not deal on it. I know someone who got his ticket pulled for a bit because he dropped the dime on a judge who was taking bribes. Hey, I was before the the judge once too (IANAL). Now realize the my friend did not get nailed exactly for outing the judge. It was just that the way he got the information, it was, by the lawyer rules in Washington, improper to reveal the information, even to the judge discipline apparatus.
Oh, judges are not lawyers. Sure, they were lawyers, and they might be lawyers again in the future, but in Washington State, they do not have to stay in the bar association. Their rule set is again different than a lawyer's rule set.
Anyway, I do not assume this lawyer's situation is simple and of course no one walking into a court room can figure he will surely prevail, no matter the merits of the case.
Mr. Syfert may make a motion to change the venue of this action to a federal court that is nearer to his home base. If successful, this would mean that the lawyer trolls would have to fly to Mr. Syfert's state to litigate their action against him.
The trolls appear to be low-budget operators. A change of venue (along with a counterclaim) would take a real bite out of the trolls' glutes!
This sounds like bad reporting. Nothing actually quoted from the lawyer there (or in the article it cites) says he is being sued. It says they are requesting sanctions. That sounds to me like they are alleging violation of some court procedural rule, or perhaps some rule of professional conduct of the relevant bar.
This is a motion for sanctions under FCRP 11. This is meant for an attorney on the case, or the client, as punishment for filing a frivolous motion.
Plaintiff's counsel is claiming that it is frivolous and it cost $5,000 to defend against these frivolous motions in that one case.
This is not a lawsuit or counterclaim.
Acknowledging that his advice has worked in court is a good point towards discrediting my point in application to only this case.
However to address this question: How can it be illegal to tell someone "Hey, to defend yourself against that lawsuit, I think you should try this..."?
It can be illegal because you're purposing a frivolous argument. For instance, you're being threatened with a libel lawsuit and you attempt to argue that you're immune to the lawsuit because you've revoked your US citizenship, and thus are immune to its jurisdiction.
If you made such an argument in court, the judge would dismiss you outright, and rebuke your claim. There is no argument to even be HEARD about the claim, as it is patently false.
Thus, the court may even sanction you for making a frivolous claim (a claim that can be dismissed without argument, because it is based upon a direct contradiction of law.)
So it is possible that this lawyer didn't do something right... however because his motions to dismiss due to lack of personal standing did work, it's a pretty sure fire answer that he wasn't advising frivolous arguments.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? I don't think you can shut down a attorney like this. Prisons have tried to limit inmate access to court / filing lawsuits and the courts have said they can't do that.
Technically, the USCG attorneys could be right, depending on what's in the actual complaint (which we haven't seen here). For example, maybe they're claiming Syfert is practicing law in a state he's not licensed in, or is aiding pro se defendants for commercial gain, or is aiding them in filing frivolous motions, etc. If so, it's possible that Syfert could be the one disbarred.
But that said, disbarment is relatively unusual. Sanctions and fines are a lot more likely, on either side.
anyone know where to get the torrent for this? I dont want to pay $20
www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
Someone will file these documents in a court and Mr. Syfert will notice that they weren't a customer - and will threaten to sue them for copyright infringement unless they settle for $2,500.
Would USCG then publish a set of form motions to defend against this?
Coincidentally they (Arizona) have no income tax.
Arizona has personal income tax. I used to to live there and filed every year. States with no income tax are:
Alaska
Florida
Nevada
South Dakota
Texas
Washington
Wyoming
New Hampshire and Tennessee tax only dividend and interest income
has not released something like this before?
Is there a torrent download of these documents somewhere?
Your honor, I move to imprison the witness on the grounds that her testimony has cost me my freedom.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
This shows that we are missing (not exercising) important controls on our judicial system. One of these controls are secured within the Legislative branch. The legislature has the power to establish and abolish every court with the exception of the supreme court. This means that if an activist Judge is getting out of hand the legislatures job and responsibility is to abolish that court. If a court decides to actually hear this case the Legislature should abolish the court. Any court willing to entertain a suit like this should be abolished with prejudice. The side effect of this will be that no court would be stupid enough to take on another case like this and would readily slap down any lawyer stupid enough to attempt another suit like this!
When was the last time a court was abolished for stupid stuff like this? Does anyone know?
TFA links to this article, which includes the filed petition and answer to it: http://torrentfreak.com/hurt-locker-sue-lawyer-who-helped-bittorrent-defendants-101124/ IANAL but reading the petition shows the UScg argues the following: - the forms are baseless for legal or procedural reasons - the petitions based on these forms failed in the courts - these petitions cased unnecessary (frivolous) burden on courts and UScg - the lawer selling the petitions and defendants using them are responsible for the above IANAL, but I hope there is nothing that can be considered a "legal services contract" between the seller of the forms and buyers, otherwise they may have some merit if their argument about procedural and legal bases of these forms are valid. BTW, the UScg are lawers, they may be full if sh*t but they are not idiots.
4wdloop
surprised nobody has posted a link yet. Here it is
Wouldn't it be nice if this got reposted several million times on the web.
It's interesting to note, as the site points out, that the USCG is "upset for a reason." While all motions to quash and motions for protective order have so far been denied regardless of how they were filed, the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction have not. In other words, Syfert's package is allowing people to mount an effective defense against the claim and the USCG is faced with the very expensive possibility of having to re-file thousands of individual cases in order to get around it.
In other words, 'effective defense' in this case basically means getting off on a technicality.
"Technically, the USCG attorneys could be right, depending on what's in the actual complaint (which we haven't seen here)."
No, you don't need to read the complaint.
"For example, maybe they're claiming Syfert is practicing law in a state he's not licensed in,"
No, Copyright is Federal and as such ALL jurisdictions are open.
"or is aiding pro se defendants for commercial gain"
That isn't uncommon and really isn't illegal. I can pay lawyers left and right for advice which I use myself in a courtroom without a lawyer present. Just because I have the right to an attorney doesn't necessarily mean I'll be hiring one to talk on my behalf in the courtroom.
'or is aiding them in filing frivolous motions"
Given the nature of the USCG, I find it hilarious you'd even suggest that nonsense.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Give me the names, and the address of the United States Copyright Group.
I've still got a bunch of cash to burn and I'll happily burn it destroying them.
Electronic Arts didn't fare too well against me (they settled to prevent precedent that would've killed the entire PC gaming industry) and I see EXACTLY how I'm going to destroy the US Copyright Group.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I think the U.S. Coast Guard should sue the U.S. Copyright Group.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
"Technically, the USCG attorneys could be right, depending on what's in the actual complaint (which we haven't seen here)."
No, you don't need to read the complaint.
Nice try, Obi Wan, but your Jedi mind tricks won't work here. I'd like to actually read the complaint rather than just navel-gazing.
"For example, maybe they're claiming Syfert is practicing law in a state he's not licensed in,"
No, Copyright is Federal and as such ALL jurisdictions are open.
Not exactly. There are state laws on copyright, too (17 USC does not fully preempt), and as such there may be state claims in the original complaint. Hence why we might want to see it, y'know?
"or is aiding pro se defendants for commercial gain"
That isn't uncommon and really isn't illegal. I can pay lawyers left and right for advice which I use myself in a courtroom without a lawyer present. Just because I have the right to an attorney doesn't necessarily mean I'll be hiring one to talk on my behalf in the courtroom.
Just because you have the right doesn't mean they aren't violating their state bar ethics rules. Maybe we should, oh, see the complaint?
'or is aiding them in filing frivolous motions"
Given the nature of the USCG, I find it hilarious you'd even suggest that nonsense.
So if one side files something questionable, the other side has free reign? Doesn't work that way. But tell you what... Maybe we should see the complaint?
im pretty fucking sure the founding fathers meant 'legal advice' = 'free speech'. especially if our modern SCOTUS thinks corporations donating billions to false campaign ads is 1st amendment. this whole fucking argument is re god damned diculous.
you cant sue someone thousands of miles from where they live just so you can get away with it becuase they cant afford to defend themselves and you cant sue someone for harming you if they --didnt actually harm you--. if they have properly transferred power of attorney or something thats one thing. but there are rules and they need to be followed.
Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!
Buy Mr. Syfert's $20 packet, just to support him.
The USCG have now moved on from copyright abuse to attempting to squash people's legitimate 1st amendment free speech rights, and their 5th amendment due process rights.
The USCG's lawyers need to get disbarred for this.
The long and short of it is that the motions were procedurally defective, irrelevant, and without legal basis. Thus the USCG has sought sanctions against the attorney for assisting the defendants in filing frivolous motions. The relevant federal statute, 28 USC 1927, providing penalties for such conduct, reads as follows:
"Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct."
I would think that an attorney suing another attorney is fairly common. Remember one party can sue anyone for any reason, especially in a civil matter.
Actually, if you file a suit which is clearly frivolous you can face sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You *can* sue anyone for anyone reason, but if the suit had no chance of winning then the attorney who filed it can face sanctions.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? I don't think you can shut down a attorney like this.
Yes, but whether they will be is another matter. Filing frivolous lawsuits is often grounds for disbarment at the discretion of the relevant bar. If the court gives USCG sanctions under Rule 11 it's more likely, but the fact that they're a corporate entity makes it less likely. Like I said, at the bar's discretion. Let's wait and see what happens.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Sounds like what this attorney was doing is fair game. If they can go after everyone with boilerplate, why can't people defend themselves with boilerplate? This fine, upstanding attorney is just making it happen, and taking one small step toward evening the odds. Of course the corporate behemoth doesn't like that; it thrives on being the beneficiary of a huge power imbalance.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
US Court Of Appeals Lifts Texas Ban On Sales Of Quicken Family Lawyer (one of the first hits in a search for "quicken family lawyer texas" sans quotes) states:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has vacated a judgment restraining Parsons Technology Inc. from selling and distributing Quicken Family Lawyer Version 8.0 and Quicken Family Lawyer '99 legal software within the State of Texas.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Thank you. I didn't click on every random link in TFA. The TorrentFreak article was far more useful. I'm also now satisfied that the USCG complaint is also entirely frivolous, but I try to reserve judgement on that sort of thing without seeing a primary source.
Graham Syfert's website appears to be http://www.jacksonvilleforeclosuredefense.org
There is a link at the bottom to the purchasable PDF mentioned in the summary.
"Malicious prosecution" like "vexatious litigation" normally require more than one act.
Like, say, bringing thousands copyright infringement lawsuits when you have no legal standing (that's the motion that always wins in the USCG cases)?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
..are you saying that they're suing because the packets are allowing self-defenders to actually win in some of these cases?
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
Ah, insult people who call you on your laziness and slipshoddiness. If you can't be bothered to proofread what you write, why should I bother reading it? Whether you accept the fact or not, a spellchecker is not a sufficient replacement for your brain.
People who complain about spelling nazis are just too damned lazy to care what others get from their message. Why bother writing it in the first place if you don't care what your readership gets from your words?
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
I think the U.S. Coast Guard should sue the U.S. Copyright Group for stealing their acronym.
This sort of legal bullshit only demonstrates how bad the USian legal system is!
Do your children become community-property & independent at the age of 28?
or at the age of 120?
objectivity suggests that if the
a) ANY NOTE EVER PERFORMED OR RECORDED IS COPYRIGHTED, &
b) COPYRIGHT IS FOREVER
paradigm is right, then speech itself is illegal ( under ACTA, criminal ),
as every syllable you or I ever speak would have been
"performed" or "recorded" before we did it
( especially as we got our language from the community we were born into! )...
If we don't own our children forever,
and they are MUCH more intimately of us than any
arrangement of cultural-meaning
that we created...
given the culture we were given,
then claiming that we possess our re-arrangements of given-to-us
cultural-substance is magnificently asinine.
The architect owns copyright on the building-design,
but the construction-workers get no copyright on the rendition?
Therefore the architect keeps getting royalties &
the construction-workers have to keep grinding for income?
Typical class privilege, leveraging more of itself for itself...
Probably.......
Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?