Source: http://www.copyhype.com/2014/01/fridays-endnotes-010314/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 23:42:29+00:00

Document:
posted January 03, 2014 by Terry Hart.
Happy New Year, readers! I hope everyone has had a wonderful holiday season. Now it’s time to get back to work.
It Turns Out Shia LaBeouf Is Your Anti-IP Laws Messiah, Internet — 2014 starts out with a bang, with this brilliant take on a recent anti-copyright screed by actor Shia LaBeouf. Be sure to check out the author’s previous piece, How Copyright Law Gave us Star Wars, as well.
Blame Silicon Valley for the NSA’s data slurp… and what to do about it — One of the top stories of 2013 were revelations about widespread NSA surveillance. But as Andrew Orlowski points out here, the NSA is only following the lead of Google, et al.
TV Broadcasters Fire Back at Aereo’s Supreme Court Claims — Just before Christmas, TV broadcasters filed their reply brief in Aereo, where they are seeking Supreme Court review of the Second Circuit’s holding that the definition of public performance is technology-dependent. Aereo is in the stack of petitions the Supreme Court will look at during its first conference of the new year on January 10, and it was featured in a SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day.
10 Great Internet Essays Condemning… the Internet — Paste Magazine rounds up some recent articles that take a critical look at the invisible technology of the internet.
How a Fabricated Story about Iron Maiden’s Love of Music Pirates Became Internet Truth — In case you missed it, last week saw the tech press breathlessly spreading a story about a band that “embraced piracy” to plan a tour. Except, as TechCrunch points out here, the story turned out to be fake.
Gibson Guitars On TV: How Props Master Danny Rowe Finds the Great Six-Strings on Nashville — Behind-the-scenes crew have the most fascinating jobs. Here, Gibson Guitars speaks with instrument wrangler Danny Rowe, who currently wrangles guitars for TV’s Nashville.
The Fascinating Method by which Megaupload Deleted Copyright Content without ever Deleting Copyright Content — The upcoming year is likely to bring new developments in the Megaupload criminal proceedings, though if what has gone on so far is any guide, then who knows what those developments may include. The DOJ publicly released hundreds of pages of evidence it had on Megaupload and its operations late last year, and here, Forbes digs into those bits that demonstrate how Megaupload operated behind a sham of DMCA compliance. Also check out the Southland Time’s editorial, Not Sitting on a Fence.
1) Provides evidence that Google/YouTube commits perjury in the Viacom case by enabling downloading for everyone inside and outside of MegaUpload’s theft. In the Viacom case, Google/YouTube assert “no downloads” to avoid Grokster. There is no escape from 18 USC § 1621 (see 18 USC § 1623) for Google/YouTube.
2) PayPal/Ebay (with the credit card companies) knowingly granted, enabled, and continued money laundering for nearly a decade with MegaUpload (and Mozilla), with communications that they knew. See 18 USC § 1960, see MPAA v. HotFile, see MPAA v. Fung IsoHunt. In other words, we have a “great rotation” from eBay and Silicon Valley to destroy the value of material physical objects, enable money laundering, program machines to charge high fees on machines, pay shareholders on Wall Street, and then have retailers (and the US Postal Service) compete with eBay committing copyright theft. Man, there needs to be a federal raid on Silicon Valley.
3) MegaUpload’s embedding feature is exactly the same as Google/YouTube’s; the latter (Google) commits catastrophic copyright theft 100 times worse that MegaUpload.
Conclusion: MegaUpload is a file-copying site, not a file-sharing site. Google/YouTube is worse (and exactly the same kissing Mozilla and PayPal). But Google/YouTube has committed the crime of perjury based on contradictory oaths (they are liable in the Viacom case). If the DOJ have Google/YouTube testify against MegaUpload, that is going to be a battle between devils. Most importantly, Congress’ 17 USC § 512(i)(1)(A) provision is unconstitutional. All statutes penalize the imposition not authorize, and then claim exclusive right to authorize then opt-out of non-authorization. 17 USC § 512(i)(1)(A) disrupts Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution.
All statutes penalize the imposition not authorize, and then claim exclusive right to authorize then opt-out of non-authorization.
That should read: All statutes penalize the non-authorization, There is no protection to claim an exclusive right to authorize can opt-out of a non-authorization violation, and then not receive compensation from the punitive harm.

References: § 1621
 § 1623
 § 1960
 v. 
 v. 
 § 512
 § 512