The information you are now requesting
has already been supplied -- in the
NOTICE AND DEMAND previously transmitted.

An electronic copy of that message is
not conveniently available to me at
this moment.

You have our permission to contact the
individual subscriber(s) responsible for
the web page(s) in question.

In further reply to your message below,
we refer you to Internet URL:

  http://supremelaw.com/wwwboard/messages/1200.html

If you don't understand plain English,
then get some help -- somewhere else.

Copies of "The Federal Zone" now extant on the
Internet were stolen, and then modified
WITHOUT THE AUTHOR'S PRIOR PERMISSION.

We are therefore now demanding that ALL copies,
in whole or in part, and ALL links, whether
in web pages or in search indexes, be removed
COMPLETELY AND IMMEDIATELY.

I am sure that Webster's Dictionary has most
of the above words well defined, for your
reading enjoyment.

If you don't understand the legal implications,
then hire someone who can explain it all to you.

There are criminal penalties in the federal
copyright laws, in case you are ignorant of
these laws.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Author (under a pen name)






---Sebastian Bernheim <sbern@mail.eclipse.net> wrote:
>
> I don't happen to have a copy of your previous email lying around. 
I'd
> be happy to help you if you can tell me where to find the site to
which
> you are referring.  Giving examples like A and B might be great as a 
> theoretical illustration, but it doesn't do me any good at all when I
> need to know where to find the site which is allegedly infringing on 
> your copyright.
> 
> If you don't send me the URL I won't be *able* to help you no matter
how 
> much you whine and no matter how many times you threaten to sue us. 
Your
> failure to cooperate when I am offering you an amicable resolution to
> your problem tends to indicate that you are more interested in
wasting my
> time than in protecting your copyright.
> 
> I'm prefectly capable of looking up a legal reference in standard
format,
> so if you'd care to provide a state or federal apellate court
decision 
> that establishes a precedent for an ISP being held liable for the
actions
> of a user who is LINKING to materials posted publicly by a third
party,
> not even on the ISP's server, I'd be very interested to see it.  If
one of
> our users has posted copies of your copyrighted works, I can do
something
> about it.  It's a violation of our contract with that customer.  If
they
> are merely linking to someone else's copy of your copyrighted work,
then
> go after the person who posted it.
> 
> I don't consider SPA policy a proper legal precedent as the SPA has 
> neither lawmaking nor regulatory authority as far as I'm aware. Just 
> because you think our actions fail to comply with your
interpretation of 
> some industry standards group guidelines, however influential they
may 
> be, doesn't mean that we should accommodate your rather truculent
demands.
> 
> In any case, my interpretation of that policy differs significantly
from 
> yours.  They refer only to cases in which the copyrighted work is
posted
> directly on the ISP's server or in cases where information is posted
on
> the ISP's server which makes it possible for others to use pirated 
> software obtained from another source (crackers and stolen serial
numbers
> and the like).  That policy does not apply to this particular case, 
> because the user on our system is merely linking to materials on
another
> server.  They do not provide the materials, nor do they provide any 
> information that enables other people to use the materials.  They
merely 
> tell other people where the materials are (or possibly where they
once 
> were) posted.
> 
> This situation is NOT addressed by the policy, and therefore the
policy
> does not apply.  I invite you to read it again yourself:
> 	http://www.spa.org/piracy/contrib.htm
> 
> If you can provide me with the URL of a site on our server on which
your
> copyrighted materials are posted, I will see to it that they are
taken
> down.  Otherwise, I can't help you.
> 
> -Sebastian Bernheim
> 
> > 
> > Dear Sebastian Bernheim:
> > 
> > Please review the electronic NOTICE AND DEMAND
> > which we transmitted to you and/or your company
> > several days ago.  Please also see the InterNIC
> > WHOIS entry for the violating domain at URL:
> > 
> >    http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/whois
> > 
> > for names of contacts responsible, in part,
> > for that domain.
> > 
> > Please also be informed of the following:
> > 
> > If A is pointing to stolen property on B's computer,
> > and B decides to move the stolen property without
> > telling A, then A is still pointing to stolen property,
> > even if the link is rendered invalid by such a move.
> > 
> > Moreover, the link to what was once a valid URL
> > provides valuable clues to locating the principal
> > infringer, who continues to violate the author's
> > exclusive copyrights with AOL's file servers,
> > and other file server(s).
> > 
> > If an Internet Service Provider fails to act,
> > after being informed of a copyright violation
> > on their computers, that ISP is liable for
> > contributory copyright infringement, and 
> > possibly also direct copyright infringement.
> > 
> > Contributory copyright infringement is explained in the
> > industry standards now documented at the website of
> > Software Publishers Association (http://www.spa.org).
> > 
> > Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  If criminal
> > violators feel "threatened" by imminent copyright
> > enforcement, that is a problem of their own making.
> > 
> > A lawful NOTICE AND DEMAND, to produce certified 
> > evidence of the author's prior permission to
> > post all or part of "The Federal Zone" on the
> > Internet, is in no ways a "threat" [sic],
> > particularly when that permission was not given.
> > 
> > We intend to exhibit all offensive email to the
> > jury to be convened in this copyright matter.
> > 
> > If necessary, we will repeat this message.
> > 
> > 
> > Sincerely yours,
> > 
> > /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
> > 
> > Author of "The Federal Zone: Cracking the
> > Code of Internal Revenue" (all editions),
> > under a pen name
> > 
> > website:  http://supremelaw.com/library
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---Sebastian Bernheim <sbern@mail.eclipse.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Sir,
> > > 
> > > Eclipse Internet's Acceptable Use Policy specifically forbids the
> > use of
> > > our server to redistribute copyrighted work without the author's 
> > > permission.  (See http://www.eclipse.net/about/tnc.dial.html
Section 7
> > > Subparagraph 1 (ii).)  If you will supply us with the URL of the
> > relevant
> > > site, we will require the user to remove the offending content
from
> > their
> > > page.  Otherwise we can do nothing to help you, and it does you
no
> > good
> > > to "serve" us with this notice.
> > > 
> > > Eclipse Internet does not publish any such materials on its own
> > site.  We
> > > act merely as a "common carrier", allowing third parties to
publish
> > their
> > > own information on our servers in return for various forms of 
> > > consideration.  As such, we are largely indemnified from claims
> > arising 
> > > from the actions of our users.  Our user policy clearly states
this
> > as a
> > > condition of use (See http://www.eclipse.net/about/tnc.dial.html
> > Section 8
> > > Subparagraph 1).
> > > 
> > > We will gladly respond to your report of a violation of our
Terms and 
> > > Conditions by one of our users, but we require more information
> > before we
> > > can take the appropriate action.
> > > 
> > > -Sebastian Bernheim
> > >  Eclipse Network Abuse Team
> > > 
> > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@yahoo.com>
> > > > To: support@eclipse.net
> > > > Subject: COPYRIGHT VIOLATION
> > > > 
> > > > TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
> > > > 
> > > > A lawful PUBLIC NOTICE TO COPYRIGHT VIOLATORS
> > > > has been published and posted at Internet URL:
> > > > 
> > > >    http://supremelaw.com/wwwboard/messages/1181.html
> > > > 
> > > > with a supplement at URL:
> > > > 
> > > >    http://supremelaw.com/wwwboard/messages/1182.html
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > You are hereby served with same.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Sincerely yours,
> > > > 
> > > > /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
> > > > 
> > > > Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
> > > > Private Attorney General, and Candidate
> > > > for the U.S. House of Representatives
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ---Auto.Reply.from.Eclipse.Tech.Support@mail.eclipse.net wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Your message has been received by Eclipse Technical Support. 
> > One of
> > > > our
> > > > > support technicians will get back to you as soon as possible.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please keep in mind that messages sent to
support@eclipse.net are
> > > > read by 
> > > > > more than one person.  The technician who responds to your
first
> > > > message
> > > > > will probably not be the same one who responds to your second
> > > > message.  It
> 
=== message truncated ===

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com