My first reaction when I learned of this last night was that it must be a twisted April Fools joke. But I went on PACER & actually found the documents in one of the suits. Here 's my blog post, which links to the complaint, ex parte discovery order, and ex parte declaration.
Incredibly, the Court's order:
-makes no provision for the customers to be notified; -relies on a representation that the plaintiff has "proprietary" evidence which shows the infringement; -required no evidence or detailed allegation as to why jurisdiction and venue could be placed in that district; and -allows 2094 defendants to be joined in 1 case, although there is no basis for doing so under the federal rules.
What I don't understand NewYorkCountryLawyer, and IANAL (... Yet and working on it...) is that why the damages have been up held since they are clearly punitive and break the Phillip Morris and Exxon precedents capping punitive damages.
An appeals court is not allowed to reach an issue that was not argued in the court below. The defendant failed to raise that argument in the district court. The 5th Circuit specifically noted that the issue of excessiveness of damages under due process standards was simply not before them, since it had not been preserved for appeal.
By the way, I should point out that the plain wording of the statute makes it pretty clear that the "access" being referred to in the statute is access to the specific copy that was being copied:
on the published phonorecord or phonorecords to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access
It doesn't refer to the fact that somewhere else in the world, there is a copy lying around somewhere which does have a copyright notice. It refers to the fact that the specific phonorecord being copied has a notice. The statute rationally provides that if you're copying something with a copyright notice on it, you lose the "innocence" defense. The undisputed facts in this case were to the contrary. It was undisputed by anyone, according to the Court, that these copies were made from mp3 files in a filesharing community which did not bear a copyright notice. Accordingly, the lower court was right, and the appeals court wrong, on this point.
NYCL states clearly and unambiguously in the opening quote "... (she) had not disputed that she had 'access' to the CD versions of the songs which bore copyright notices." Thus, clearly access was not the real issue in the case. He then goes on to opine about the definition of access. I don't see NYCL as the dishonest one.
Thank you for pointing that out, electricprof. One of the reasons I put the decisions and other documents online is so that people can make up their minds for themselves. I personally found the Fifth Circuit's discussion of "access" to be less than clear, and I can't really understand what it is they meant by access.
NewYorkLawyer characterized this decision as one about "access" (i.e. the argument that the defendant would have had *access* to other CDs with their copyright notices and so should have known that the same notices would have applied to downloaded music).
But the decision clearly states [page 9], "Rather than contest the fact of "access", Harper contended only that she was too young and naive to understand that the copyrights on published music applied to downloaded music."
Thus, the issue of "access" was NOT AT STAKE. It was not contested. The decision was made purely on whether Harper's ignorance of copyright law counts as a valid defense. And the court ruled clearly that ignorance of copyright law is not a valid defense. (If it were, then someone would be able to violate e.g. GPL merely by persuading the court that they didn't know how copyright worked.)
1. The name is "NewYorkCountryLawyer".
2. Your characterization of my summary as "dishonest" was quite dishonest on your part.
3. The decision was based on access; it was because of their conclusion on "access" that her lack of knowledge, etc., became irrelevant. Had she not had access, it would have been quite relevant.
4. I found the discussion of "access" vague, and for that reason used the term "seems". I wasn't sure exactly what they were saying. From their decision it seems that they had established that the copies were downloaded from copies that bore no copyright notice. So it would seem that the record supported the lower court's finding that there was no "access", and that they were defining access differently.
seems to equate 'access' with the mere fact that CDs on sale in stores had copyright notices, and that she was free to go to such stores.
I don't read it like that; the Court seems to be saying the trial judge's ruling, that the copyright notice alone wouldn't bar an innocent infringer defense, is incorrect as a matter of law. Since she did not contest she had access, her understanding (or lack of it) does not support an innocent infringer defense under the statute. If she had argued access, she might have had a shot.
Maybe. The decision is unclearly written and I can't be 100% sure what they were saying, which is why I said "seems". But I thought the facts were pretty clear in the record that she made the copies through a p2p file sharing program, and that the ones she saw had no copyright notices.
So then we don't know for sure whether or not he is a paid shill, but we have further evidence he's a pure troll.
Also, thanks for clearing up those other points.
And since I seemingly have your attention for a bit, let me just say you've garnered a lot of respect from me already. You've shown yourself (IMHO) to be an individual of integrity and honesty, and for that I commend you. We as consumers and artists both need the kind of efforts people like yourself are doing to bring down (or clean up) greedy corporations like the RIAA that prey on the weak.
Thank you. Very much appreciated. That's why I jumped into these cases. I hate bullies. And these vermin are the classic schoolyard bullies. I want our court system to be something better than a deserted schoolyard.
I find it interesting that you assume that because I don't confuse theft with copyright infringement I must "refuse to pay for the creation of music that [I] enjoy". Not that it has any relevance to this argument, but I acquire my music legally, either from my not-all-that-vast collection of CDs, or through my premium Spotify account for which I pay a monthly fee.
I refute your argument here as a non sequitur as well as an ad hominem. Merely believing in a distinction between theft and copyright infringement (a belief that is backed up, in UK law at least, by the existence of separate Acts to deal with the two) is not evidence of a wilfulness to commit copyright infringement.
If I were one to stoop to ad hominem attacks, I would suggest that your failed attempt to create an equivalency between copyright infringement and theft makes you sound either ignorant, or like a tool of the music industry. In either case it would seem to me that you more strongly represent "what's wrong with the world today" than I.
At last. Someone who could tell me what those Latin phrases really mean. I only get the legal ones.
If you have read through the whole thread up to the time of your post here and still failed to see how Theaetetus is trolling and NYCL is merely calling him out on it, then all I can really say is I feel sorry for you. You must get trolled a lot, because it's not even that subtle here any more.
Additionally, here are a few more things I've observed, and my impressions of reading between the lines on them.
Fact 1. Theaetetus claims to have personally contacted NYCL in private, prior to all this, and at that time revealing his true identity, amongst other things.
Fact 2. By all appearances, NYCL freely admits who he actually is on these forums, and allows us all to see what his intentions are. He has also never given reason to doubt his honesty. He states his positions, and when people twist them around and put words in his mouth, he sets them straight.
Fact 3. Theaetetus, while claiming to have revealed his identity to NYCL, does none of that on the forums here. We have no clue who he may actually be. For all we know, he actually *could* be a genuine shill, paid by the RIAA.
Based on these facts, here are my impressions:
NYCL is actually being generous by not revealing Theatetus's true identity here, and trying to forewarn us as honestly and politely as possible, in letting us know who the troll is. He knows who Theatetus actually is (in Theaetetus' own words) so he should know whether or not he's actually a troll. Furthermore, Theaetetus doesn't even bother to deny that he's a troll or a shill, and tries to deflect it by name-calling against NYCL. (A coward? Really? Need I say more?)
For the record, let me say: 1. I haven't a clue who Theaetetus is. 2. I can neither confirm nor deny that he contacted me by email. I've received thousands of emails over the past 5 years from people I don't know about the RIAA cases. Some of the emails identify the person, some don't. Maybe he did contact me and reveal his identity, and maybe he didn't. If someone were to contact me today, and state that he is the real Theatetus on Slashdot, how would I know?
He admitted to uploading to at least one person, which is entirely different from the legal definition of "distribution" as NYCL has pointed out. And also as NYCL pointed out, even if he *had* admitted to "distributing" that doesn't mean he's guilty of "distribution" under the legal definition.
Exactly. The statute protects only the right to distribute -to the public, and -by sale or other transfer of ownership, or rental, lease, or lending.
but someone in the case has to raise that evidence
As a disclaimer I'm in disagreement with the major portion of what you've said in these other posts, specifically with regards to other NYCL posts, but I'll avoid the he said / she said for this thread and admit the above is actually a good point regarding the case and a slight though significant error in my analogy.
That is absolutely false. Even when the defendant defaults, the plaintiff has to submit evidence proving each of the required elements, and the Court is NOT allowed to enter judgment without that evidence. If the evidence is there, it doesn't matter whether a 24 year old nonlawyer THINKS the plaintiff proved their case, it matters only whether the JUDGE can find the evidence in the record. In this case the RIAA did not offer any evidence of several of the REQUIRED elements of the distribution right.
Tenenbaum didn't appropriate any sort of license. If he had a license, by whatever means, it would be legal to distribute, and it wasn't. Any testimony of his about distribution would be irrelevant.
What he did was illegally distribute several copies of songs. Without a license. Any argument about a license is irrelevant.
Well said, David. The discussion of the value of a 'distribution agreement' is... absurd.
so don't obfuscate or stammer and stomp around NYCL's point. it is an obvious and easy point for you or anyone else to understand, and so you either address the point directly, or you fail to make a convincing argument of your own that dispels NYCL's point. but as it is now, your mockery of NYCL's point about the meaning of "distribution" only makes a mockery of your own position
by changing the subject, you are making yourself appear to be avoiding the topic at hand, which is really only a kind of a way to concede to the superiority of NYCL's argument in the eyes of everyone else
So far I've asked him the same question about 10 times, in this thread and in an earlier thread from a few weeks ago, and he is unable to answer it. So don't hold your breath on getting an answer.
You demonstrated again that you are a liar because you truncated my statement. Why did you leave out the part that began "except". You are a shameful liar. I am not responding further. Slashdot readers are intelligent enough to see through your game.
And as to 'how the law should be'.... you've never heard that from me. I have never ever discussed that publicly. That's for Lawrence Lessig, and Charles Nesson, and other academics. As a litigator I take the law that is. No more and no less.
In the cases I've been involved in the only "activists" have been the RIAA lawyers, making arguments that have no basis in existing law. You have never seen me do that, in my court papers, or here.
I think NYCL is a bit too fond of telling slashdot of how the law should be and how it should work, not so much practical reality.
Well I'm a lawyer. I have to work with what the law is. I have written elsewhere, in the ABA Judges Journal, about the unfairness of the way these cases work out in practical reality, due to the economic imbalance between the litigants. But when I bring that type of issue up here, I get accused of 'playing violins'.
Here I'm dealing with readers who are largely (a) very intelligent, (b) educated, (c) interested in hard news and substance rather than "human interest", and (d) intensely interested in copyright law as it bears upon digitalization, software, and the internet. So I try to confine myself to discussing (a) the legal events and (b) the legal issues to the extent I can comment on them without disclosing thoughts I haven't yet disclosed in publicly filed litigation documents.
You don't need yet another voice here griping about the RIAA's improper influence on Congress, and even on the Department of Justice. I'm aware of those things, but have nothing special to say about them.
And most importantly, the life of a lawyer is all about "practical reality". My practical reality is the given facts, and the given law. I do the best I can in that world.
You're the coward hiding behind the cloak of anonymity and refusing to disclose your true identity, and what the axe is that you have to grind. Your motivations are quite suspect. You have some gall to call me a coward.
If you had any knowledge of the law you would know that Joel Tenenbaum doesn't tell the Court what the law is. The Court determines what the law is, and doesn't ask a 20-something non-lawyer who's a witness and party in a case what he thinks the law is and whether he thinks he violated it. And the law in this case is a statute that was enacted by Congress and signed by the President, which describes what a "distribution" is. And as you well know there was no evidence of the components of a violation of the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right. The testimony of a 20-something young adult that he "distributed" something is legally meaningless.
Interestingly, Judge Gertner in the Tenenbaum trial is quite pro-little guy. Take a look at most of her decisions, and she really tries to help defendants.
That is a ridiculous assessment. Judge Gertner has been the best friend the RIAA has had in the US to date. She consolidated all of the hundreds of Massachusetts cases under her watch, and she's never ruled in favor of a defendant. She's upheld every subpoena, and entered every judgment, and signed every ex parte order that's been presented to her by the RIAA over a 7 year period, except for a few fine distinctions on minor procedural issues during the past year and a half. I'm convinced you are just a dishonest person and I wish you'd STFU rather than keep on trying to mislead the nonlawyers here.
To date, the only person who has argued that Tenenbaum didn't distribute has been Ray Beckerman - not Tenenbaum, not Charles Neeson, not anyone except NYCL.
So?
Is that your best argument for your position; that Charles Nesson did not make the same argument?
When I asked you what evidence there was of any of the requisite elements of a distribution, you failed to come up with any. Why are you so interested in misleading people? What is your angle?
Slashdot Mirror
My first reaction when I learned of this last night was that it must be a twisted April Fools joke. But I went on PACER & actually found the documents in one of the suits. Here 's my blog post, which links to the complaint, ex parte discovery order, and ex parte declaration.
Incredibly, the Court's order:
-makes no provision for the customers to be notified;
-relies on a representation that the plaintiff has "proprietary" evidence which shows the infringement;
-required no evidence or detailed allegation as to why jurisdiction and venue could be placed in that district; and
-allows 2094 defendants to be joined in 1 case, although there is no basis for doing so under the federal rules.
What I don't understand NewYorkCountryLawyer, and IANAL (... Yet and working on it...) is that why the damages have been up held since they are clearly punitive and break the Phillip Morris and Exxon precedents capping punitive damages.
An appeals court is not allowed to reach an issue that was not argued in the court below. The defendant failed to raise that argument in the district court. The 5th Circuit specifically noted that the issue of excessiveness of damages under due process standards was simply not before them, since it had not been preserved for appeal.
on the published phonorecord or phonorecords to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access
It doesn't refer to the fact that somewhere else in the world, there is a copy lying around somewhere which does have a copyright notice. It refers to the fact that the specific phonorecord being copied has a notice. The statute rationally provides that if you're copying something with a copyright notice on it, you lose the "innocence" defense. The undisputed facts in this case were to the contrary. It was undisputed by anyone, according to the Court, that these copies were made from mp3 files in a filesharing community which did not bear a copyright notice. Accordingly, the lower court was right, and the appeals court wrong, on this point.
NYCL states clearly and unambiguously in the opening quote "... (she) had not disputed that she had 'access' to the CD versions of the songs which bore copyright notices." Thus, clearly access was not the real issue in the case. He then goes on to opine about the definition of access. I don't see NYCL as the dishonest one.
Thank you for pointing that out, electricprof. One of the reasons I put the decisions and other documents online is so that people can make up their minds for themselves. I personally found the Fifth Circuit's discussion of "access" to be less than clear, and I can't really understand what it is they meant by access.
NewYorkLawyer characterized this decision as one about "access" (i.e. the argument that the defendant would have had *access* to other CDs with their copyright notices and so should have known that the same notices would have applied to downloaded music). But the decision clearly states [page 9], "Rather than contest the fact of "access", Harper contended only that she was too young and naive to understand that the copyrights on published music applied to downloaded music." Thus, the issue of "access" was NOT AT STAKE. It was not contested. The decision was made purely on whether Harper's ignorance of copyright law counts as a valid defense. And the court ruled clearly that ignorance of copyright law is not a valid defense. (If it were, then someone would be able to violate e.g. GPL merely by persuading the court that they didn't know how copyright worked.)
1. The name is "NewYorkCountryLawyer".
2. Your characterization of my summary as "dishonest" was quite dishonest on your part.
3. The decision was based on access; it was because of their conclusion on "access" that her lack of knowledge, etc., became irrelevant. Had she not had access, it would have been quite relevant.
4. I found the discussion of "access" vague, and for that reason used the term "seems". I wasn't sure exactly what they were saying. From their decision it seems that they had established that the copies were downloaded from copies that bore no copyright notice. So it would seem that the record supported the lower court's finding that there was no "access", and that they were defining access differently.
seems to equate 'access' with the mere fact that CDs on sale in stores had copyright notices, and that she was free to go to such stores.
I don't read it like that; the Court seems to be saying the trial judge's ruling, that the copyright notice alone wouldn't bar an innocent infringer defense, is incorrect as a matter of law. Since she did not contest she had access, her understanding (or lack of it) does not support an innocent infringer defense under the statute. If she had argued access, she might have had a shot.
Maybe. The decision is unclearly written and I can't be 100% sure what they were saying, which is why I said "seems". But I thought the facts were pretty clear in the record that she made the copies through a p2p file sharing program, and that the ones she saw had no copyright notices.
The RIAA is the best argument in the world not to buy music.
The RIAA is the best argument in the world why you SHOULD be buying music -- NON-RIAA MUSIC (see RIAA Radar).
To those commentators and moderators who criticized me for flaming.... I forgive you.
So then we don't know for sure whether or not he is a paid shill, but we have further evidence he's a pure troll.
Also, thanks for clearing up those other points.
And since I seemingly have your attention for a bit, let me just say you've garnered a lot of respect from me already. You've shown yourself (IMHO) to be an individual of integrity and honesty, and for that I commend you. We as consumers and artists both need the kind of efforts people like yourself are doing to bring down (or clean up) greedy corporations like the RIAA that prey on the weak.
Thank you. Very much appreciated. That's why I jumped into these cases. I hate bullies. And these vermin are the classic schoolyard bullies. I want our court system to be something better than a deserted schoolyard.
I find it interesting that you assume that because I don't confuse theft with copyright infringement I must "refuse to pay for the creation of music that [I] enjoy". Not that it has any relevance to this argument, but I acquire my music legally, either from my not-all-that-vast collection of CDs, or through my premium Spotify account for which I pay a monthly fee.
I refute your argument here as a non sequitur as well as an ad hominem. Merely believing in a distinction between theft and copyright infringement (a belief that is backed up, in UK law at least, by the existence of separate Acts to deal with the two) is not evidence of a wilfulness to commit copyright infringement.
If I were one to stoop to ad hominem attacks, I would suggest that your failed attempt to create an equivalency between copyright infringement and theft makes you sound either ignorant, or like a tool of the music industry. In either case it would seem to me that you more strongly represent "what's wrong with the world today" than I.
At last. Someone who could tell me what those Latin phrases really mean. I only get the legal ones.
You may not like NYCL or agree what he says, but he's posting facts based on law, and you're posting what you pull out of your posterior.
I can't imagine anyone not liking me. At least anyone who doesn't know me.
If you have read through the whole thread up to the time of your post here and still failed to see how Theaetetus is trolling and NYCL is merely calling him out on it, then all I can really say is I feel sorry for you. You must get trolled a lot, because it's not even that subtle here any more.
Additionally, here are a few more things I've observed, and my impressions of reading between the lines on them.
Fact 1. Theaetetus claims to have personally contacted NYCL in private, prior to all this, and at that time revealing his true identity, amongst other things.
Fact 2. By all appearances, NYCL freely admits who he actually is on these forums, and allows us all to see what his intentions are. He has also never given reason to doubt his honesty. He states his positions, and when people twist them around and put words in his mouth, he sets them straight.
Fact 3. Theaetetus, while claiming to have revealed his identity to NYCL, does none of that on the forums here. We have no clue who he may actually be. For all we know, he actually *could* be a genuine shill, paid by the RIAA.
Based on these facts, here are my impressions:
NYCL is actually being generous by not revealing Theatetus's true identity here, and trying to forewarn us as honestly and politely as possible, in letting us know who the troll is. He knows who Theatetus actually is (in Theaetetus' own words) so he should know whether or not he's actually a troll. Furthermore, Theaetetus doesn't even bother to deny that he's a troll or a shill, and tries to deflect it by name-calling against NYCL. (A coward? Really? Need I say more?)
For the record, let me say:
1. I haven't a clue who Theaetetus is.
2. I can neither confirm nor deny that he contacted me by email. I've received thousands of emails over the past 5 years from people I don't know about the RIAA cases. Some of the emails identify the person, some don't. Maybe he did contact me and reveal his identity, and maybe he didn't. If someone were to contact me today, and state that he is the real Theatetus on Slashdot, how would I know?
He admitted to uploading to at least one person, which is entirely different from the legal definition of "distribution" as NYCL has pointed out. And also as NYCL pointed out, even if he *had* admitted to "distributing" that doesn't mean he's guilty of "distribution" under the legal definition.
Exactly. The statute protects only the right to distribute
-to the public, and
-by sale or other transfer of ownership, or rental, lease, or lending.
why the distribution troll has so much time to spend on this thread, constantly repeating misinformation.
but someone in the case has to raise that evidence
As a disclaimer I'm in disagreement with the major portion of what you've said in these other posts, specifically with regards to other NYCL posts, but I'll avoid the he said / she said for this thread and admit the above is actually a good point regarding the case and a slight though significant error in my analogy.
That is absolutely false. Even when the defendant defaults, the plaintiff has to submit evidence proving each of the required elements, and the Court is NOT allowed to enter judgment without that evidence. If the evidence is there, it doesn't matter whether a 24 year old nonlawyer THINKS the plaintiff proved their case, it matters only whether the JUDGE can find the evidence in the record. In this case the RIAA did not offer any evidence of several of the REQUIRED elements of the distribution right.
Tenenbaum didn't appropriate any sort of license. If he had a license, by whatever means, it would be legal to distribute, and it wasn't. Any testimony of his about distribution would be irrelevant.
What he did was illegally distribute several copies of songs. Without a license. Any argument about a license is irrelevant.
Well said, David. The discussion of the value of a 'distribution agreement' is ... absurd.
I've read the brief, and it is interesting, but it seems to me that the authors are punching above their weight.
I disagree. This brief was excellent, far better than anything the RIAA lawyers have ever submitted.
so don't obfuscate or stammer and stomp around NYCL's point. it is an obvious and easy point for you or anyone else to understand, and so you either address the point directly, or you fail to make a convincing argument of your own that dispels NYCL's point. but as it is now, your mockery of NYCL's point about the meaning of "distribution" only makes a mockery of your own position
by changing the subject, you are making yourself appear to be avoiding the topic at hand, which is really only a kind of a way to concede to the superiority of NYCL's argument in the eyes of everyone else
So far I've asked him the same question about 10 times, in this thread and in an earlier thread from a few weeks ago, and he is unable to answer it. So don't hold your breath on getting an answer.
You demonstrated again that you are a liar because you truncated my statement. Why did you leave out the part that began "except". You are a shameful liar. I am not responding further. Slashdot readers are intelligent enough to see through your game.
And as to 'how the law should be'.... you've never heard that from me. I have never ever discussed that publicly. That's for Lawrence Lessig, and Charles Nesson, and other academics. As a litigator I take the law that is. No more and no less.
In the cases I've been involved in the only "activists" have been the RIAA lawyers, making arguments that have no basis in existing law. You have never seen me do that, in my court papers, or here.
I think NYCL is a bit too fond of telling slashdot of how the law should be and how it should work, not so much practical reality.
Well I'm a lawyer. I have to work with what the law is. I have written elsewhere, in the ABA Judges Journal, about the unfairness of the way these cases work out in practical reality, due to the economic imbalance between the litigants. But when I bring that type of issue up here, I get accused of 'playing violins'.
Here I'm dealing with readers who are largely (a) very intelligent, (b) educated, (c) interested in hard news and substance rather than "human interest", and (d) intensely interested in copyright law as it bears upon digitalization, software, and the internet. So I try to confine myself to discussing (a) the legal events and (b) the legal issues to the extent I can comment on them without disclosing thoughts I haven't yet disclosed in publicly filed litigation documents.
You don't need yet another voice here griping about the RIAA's improper influence on Congress, and even on the Department of Justice. I'm aware of those things, but have nothing special to say about them.
And most importantly, the life of a lawyer is all about "practical reality". My practical reality is the given facts, and the given law. I do the best I can in that world.
NYCL, don't be a coward. Address my arguments
You're the coward hiding behind the cloak of anonymity and refusing to disclose your true identity, and what the axe is that you have to grind. Your motivations are quite suspect. You have some gall to call me a coward.
If you had any knowledge of the law you would know that Joel Tenenbaum doesn't tell the Court what the law is. The Court determines what the law is, and doesn't ask a 20-something non-lawyer who's a witness and party in a case what he thinks the law is and whether he thinks he violated it. And the law in this case is a statute that was enacted by Congress and signed by the President, which describes what a "distribution" is. And as you well know there was no evidence of the components of a violation of the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right. The testimony of a 20-something young adult that he "distributed" something is legally meaningless.
I encourage you to rethink at least the spirit of Thaetius's contributions to the dialogue.
He's a sophisticated shill. I'm sorry you fell for his act.
Interestingly, Judge Gertner in the Tenenbaum trial is quite pro-little guy. Take a look at most of her decisions, and she really tries to help defendants.
That is a ridiculous assessment. Judge Gertner has been the best friend the RIAA has had in the US to date. She consolidated all of the hundreds of Massachusetts cases under her watch, and she's never ruled in favor of a defendant. She's upheld every subpoena, and entered every judgment, and signed every ex parte order that's been presented to her by the RIAA over a 7 year period, except for a few fine distinctions on minor procedural issues during the past year and a half. I'm convinced you are just a dishonest person and I wish you'd STFU rather than keep on trying to mislead the nonlawyers here.
To date, the only person who has argued that Tenenbaum didn't distribute has been Ray Beckerman - not Tenenbaum, not Charles Neeson, not anyone except NYCL.
So?
Is that your best argument for your position; that Charles Nesson did not make the same argument?
When I asked you what evidence there was of any of the requisite elements of a distribution, you failed to come up with any. Why are you so interested in misleading people? What is your angle?