Fraudulent copyrights claimants analysed...

Bogus copyright claims analysed

London-UK, Sunday 20 December 2009: Almost all video web sites, including Google YouTube, and almost all legitimate copyright owners benefit from free promotions, whenever copyright is cited, to increase their web site traffic. Copyright fair use (reviews, comment, rate, vote, news report) also drive site visitors.

However, dealing with fake, bogus, dubious and fraudulent Google YouTube copyright claimants has become a full time job for several people, costing serious time and money only to discover the covert claimants breach privacy. Bogus claimants have no plausible legal case to verify their copyright ownership. They fail to prove their claims with irrefutable evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, adding insult to “you remain guilty until proven innocent” injury.

Some claimants are tied to snoopy intelligence agencies. Some are tied to covert credit ratings agencies. Some claimants are merely jealous. Most of them are phishing for personal information, breaching privacy without disclosing their own traceable and verifiable details. All video websites, including Google YouTube and covert copyright claimants, also breach statutory rights, freedom of expression, and stifle free market competition. They aid, protect and defend the criminals around the world. Their bans sacrifice human rights for their corporate financial interests, knowingly participating in fraudulent criminal scams and thus becoming an active party to any legal action that may ensue. They risk getting sued for punitive damages. When, if ever, identified, the criminal fraudsters and parasites will be named, shamed and SUED, big time.

Takedown spammers or fake claimants file copyright on hundreds of videos based on the title, keywords and description of videos that they google, yahoo or bing. All video web sites actively help and enable fake or politically motivated copyright claimants, Internet stalkers, child-abusers and cyber-criminals to abuse their subscribers or users, including females, under-age and vulnerable old. The unsuspecting subscribers and users are forced to waste considerable and needless time and money to defend the fraudulent claims; make the sites lift blanket bans; restore and reactivate suspended accounts. The wasted time and money only adds injury to “you remain guilty until proven innocent”.

All video web sites, subscribers and users must remember that filing a fraudulent copyright claim is a crime, but laws don’t deter criminals. All video web sites must be required to report fraudulent copyright infringement notices so their subscribers or users remain protected from disclosing their personal information to the criminals.

Unfortunately, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows a content owner to issue a subpoena for the identity of an alleged infringer without first filing an actual lawsuit. Back in 2007, a 15 year old from Perth, Australia, sent a signed form to YouTube pretending to be from the Australian Broadcasting Co. The form ordered the takedown of hundreds of ABC video clips. Google YouTube terminated hundreds of subscribers without investigating the bogus copyright claim. Such repeated failures remain unacceptable. Even today many people order Google YouTube to takedown videos without any consequences for the fraudulent copyright claimants, their active accessories, financial beneficiaries or partners in the crimes.

Clearly, there a need to amend the flawed copyright (DMCA USA, and Digital Economy Bill, UK) laws in order to criminalise fake or fraudulent copyright claimants for the deception and the damages they cause; make all video web sites reassess their terms of service and policies that impose blanket bans, help claimants breach privacy, strangle freedom of speech and stifle free market competition, and enable video web site subscribers or users to sue false claimants for tangible, meaningful and punitive damages. The criminals must be prosecuted, named, shamed, jailed and fined. It is time for “criminal penalties for ‘copyfraud’ and non payment of artists, and writers. Lets also throw in open accounting standards for copyright holders,” according to Hephaestus on techdirt.

Why there are no severe legal consequences for Google YouTube and the unknown third parties or claimants for filing a fraudulent DMCA notice?

S P Syed, for example, is set to seek punitive compensation for (defamation, libel, tort) damaging his reputation repeatedly to deter the fraudsters and the criminals. Spsyed invested more than £200,000 (US $330,000) in diligent research portfolio for more than 400 video clips on Google YouTube. His research takes many weeks or even months to put together. His researched clips made him popular, ranking in top-100 on 17 July 2009 Google charts before Google imposed a blanket ban on the undisputed 400 clips for five months to Monday 14 December 2009.

Google YouTube also violated his right to free speech, enshrined in the US’ First Amendment. The move would cost Google YouTube and the bogus claimants tens of millions of dollars in the courts, including the US Federal District Courts and libel rulings in British courts. That would cause intense investor unease on top stock markets around the world.

Google YouTube blanket bans are really about shutting up critics who have exposed serious human rights violations and abuses against minorities in countries like India. No American court would have entertained such overt censorships and blatant blanket bans.

Google YouTube’s audio-visual copyright “content ID” fingerprint enables fraudulent copycat criminals to obtain uncontested copyright ownership over someone else’s video clips and advertising revenue they generate as the ad revenues are split between the claimants and Google YouTube. It seems the fingerprint “asset” software has turned into a liability for Google for the financial benefit of the parties and partners. That is a large revenue stream for the bogus claimants as well as Google YouTube.

The bogus copyright claimants remain untraceable and unknown. They don’t exist! So, one can’t prosecute and sue them for their crimes, fraud or even perjury. The criminals are defended and protected by Google YouTube, and they demand removal of the material that they deem damaging to India’s fake “democratic, secular” public relations image at home and abroad. Google fails to investigate the bogus claims and complies with the disguised gag orders, citing the US DMCA laws.

Moreover, all video web sites, including Google give the accuser the benefit of the doubt without having to provide a shred of irrefutable evidence that the accuser legally holds the copyright. All video web sites’ “terms of service” and DMCA puts way too much power in the hands of the criminals around the world. Google and the accuser force the accused to provide personal information to the accuser, while the accused find out nothing about the accuser other than untraceable “business” name without postal address, telephone/fax numbers, website and email address. What have they got to hide?

Bogus copyright criminals also abuse DMCA notice as “phishing” technique on adults, under-age, females and pensioners. In addition to getting personal details, the criminals file three or more false claims without any irrefutable evidence, and immediately get Google to impose blanket ban, have any account suspended or terminated. The claimants do not have to prove legal copyright ownership. How, why is that even legitimate, and fair?

Moreover, the criminals are also using this as a means to spread viruses, panic people into opening attachments they should never open from anyone they don’t know and trust.

The unilateral Google YouTube blanket bans have become an absolute scandal. The most sinister thing of all is that – by definition – people don’t know what it is they aren’t being allowed to know by the global brands, and the protected criminals.

There is an obvious automated step that Google YouTube must be forced legally to take to stop these bogus claims immediately. All persons/companies wishing to file copyright infringement claims should be required to register, and have their addresses and copyrights, trademarks and patents verified. Google Ads has a system whereby a PIN number is sent to the registrant's address for verification. This would certainly make individuals and companies, including all video websites, think twice before filing false claims, because they become vulnerable to legal actions and to serve any DMCA counter-notifications and other legal papers. Until then it remains too easy for criminals to get Google YouTube, Yahoo, and Bing content taken down.

The fullest examination is vital of those raising copyright and ad money fraudulently. It is time to examine the flow of money towards extremist (such as Indian or Hindu organisations) and terrorism who preach the ideology of hate against Indian minorities, such as Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Muslims.

Spsyed, for example, gave more than adequate time to Google YouTube to help them avoid the issue going before to the judges but Google ignored his repeated pleas to route out the bogus copyright claimants. Google YouTube failed to stop the cyber criminals who try or get a free ride on the back of someone else’s intellectual property, copyrights, trademarks and patents.

There are global financial and political interests and connections that are obviously of great interest to investigative journalists and others who demand accurate and rigorous investigation and reporting. That is in public interest.

There are costly and time consuming legal procedures to help deter unknown, unidentified, untraceable, fraudulent, fake and dubious copyright claimants. The claimants also use the web sites to impose blanket ban, strangle free speech, and stifle free market competition.

Google YouTube and its subscribers or users should contact the author when they are ready to probe the fraudulent, bogus, fake copyright criminals, and nullify or quash their dubious claims.

Indian “secular democracy” exposed…

Bollywood star Emraan Hashmi cant get a house in Pali Hill (Mumbai, India), Friday 31July 2009. Video link here

The news about top Bollywood stars facing religious discrimination in India (news link here), only goes to expose baseless claims about “secular democracy, equality and harmony in India. Religious discrimination against top Bollywood stars who happened to be Muslims in the largest world “secular democracy” is nothing less than the ugliest face of India where, thanks to Hindutva-RAW bigots in Gujarat and Mumbai, ordinary Christians and Sikhs are also considered fourth class citizens, their human rights abused, and justice subverted to protect Hindu extremists, criminals and terrorists. Emraan Hashmi video clips link here.

For other diligent information about human and womens rights violations, plight of poor villagers displaced by a dam project in Gujarat, massacres of Christians and Muslims, freedom of speech strangled, competition stifled, plagarism in Bollywood, and Indian intelligence agency RAW-media assets exposed: click here to see video clips linked.

Telecoms watchdog protects price cartels...

Tuesday 28 July 2009 Telecoms watchdog protects price cartels...

Broadband customers are not getting the top download speeds they are paying for, British communications regulator Ofcom confirmed on Tuesday 28 July 2009. Click here here for the news story

Ofcom failed to break the telecoms price cartels on landline connections, broadband and the mobile telephone charges. The advertised 8mb claimed speed only delivers less than 4mb (50% less than advertised and claimed). The broadband service providers (BSP), such as BT and Virgin, cripple or fix speed to generate extra revenue. Almost all BSP can reduce line noise and increase power to deliver 10mb or more. In other words, BSP fix or cripple the broadband speed, and then sell the capacity to larger or other customers. Other price-speed fixers named by Ofcome include: AOL, O2, Orange, Plusnet, Sky, TalkTalk, and Tiscali. Ofcom must break the price fixing and speed fixing cartels.

Are you satisfied with the price-speed cartels and your BSP or broadband ISP?

FixyaExperts.com business solutions...

YouTube Google cave into political copyrights - by Parveez Syed (c) 21 July 2009

The global giant who brought MySpace, Facebook and YouTube gave in to a poilitically motivated copyright threat of law suit. The pressure panicked Google into imposing blanket ban on YT user spsyed for hightening public aware to Indian women's rights issue (described here http://www.motionbox.com/video/player/7a9adeb51f1ae6c4f5).

Spsyed uploaded many music videos, citing rights abuses; plights of the women and people displaced by dam project in Gujarat-India, subverted justice, Hindu terrorism, plagarism in Bollywood as well as the murky death of a rapidly rising Bollywood films queen Divya Bharti soon after she converted to Islam, changed her name to Sanah and married a Muslim film maker Sajid Nadiadwala.

The additional information spsyed provided diligently made "dmcl" India extremely unhappy. The blanket ban motivated spsyed to move some of the videos complete with the additional information to other video sharing websites, away from cowardly, spineless, guttless, ball-less and even brainless YouTube Google directors.

Describing the plight of four women in the 2001 Bollywood movie "Lajja," for example, the banned YouTuber and veteran media-guru spsyed, wrote "this film is about the plight of four Indian women and how they are patronised and controlled" in India. See link here http://www.motionbox.com/video/player/7a9adeb51d1beacbf5 ;

Giving other examples of rampant plagarism in the Bollywood, such as the 2002 film "Dil Hai Tumhaara," and the 2002 film "Haan Maine Bhi Pyaar Kiya" he wrote the two tunes "were copied twice from Pakistani- Punjabi song 'Boohey Bariyan' (meaning doors and windows) by Hadiqa Kiani," link here http://www.motionbox.com/video/player/7a9adeb51f1fe6c1f5, and here http://www.motionbox.com/video/player/7a9adeb51f11e9c0f5, as well as the 1995 film "Yaraana" that plagarised Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan's rendition "Mera Piya Ghar Aaya" link here http://www.motionbox.com/video/player/7a9adeb51c19e2c0f5 and here http://www.motionbox.com/video/player/7a9adeb51c1de0c6f5 ;

In another description about the 2006 film "Fanaa", for example, the veteran media-guru spsyed wrote "The film was banned by the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) fans in Gujarat-India where Aamir Khan's posters and effigy were burnt. As a result, almost all film exhibitors said they could not provide security to customers, and so they refused to screen this movie in the Indian state. Indian Supreme Court rejected appeal to provide protection in Gujarat where people felt threatened by Hindu terrorists and the BJP who disliked Aamir Khan's legitimate humanitarian and legal concerns about the rehabilitation of villagers displaced by Narmada Dam project, and made the fim makers lose over 20 per cent income/revenue in the Indian state". In an earlier court ruling about massacre of minorities in Gujarat, BPJ fans subverted justice in criminal murder trials. See link here http://www.motionbox.com/videos/7a9addb31a1eeccaf5

In other music video descriptions the veteran media-guru named and praised under-paid and unrecognised Bollywood lyricists, writers and playback singers, always with due copyright credits. He even corrected misleading quotes from the disputed, outdated and unproven claims removed by the "Guiness Book of Records" in 1992 about the alleged achivevements of playback singer Lata Mangeshkar who even marginalised her own younger sister, Asha Bhosle, forcing Asha eat crumbs leftover by Lata. And so on and so on with each of some 400 video clips spsyed uploaded with related diligent and added researched infortainment.

Such additional information also made spsyed YT channel rise rapidly in global YT charts, reaching top 20 by Thursday 16 July 2009 in a few weeks from the April/May 2009 start date. YouTube Google imposed blanket ban on spsyed channel, seemingly for violating fair use copyrights of a relatively unknown "dmcl". All video clips are licensed with due credits under "fair use" provisions of the copyright laws, and a Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Three of the clips were from a relatively unknown India media outfit "dmcl" which is linked to Zee TV which is in turn linked to Indian intelligence agency RAW. Those three dmcl video clips, along with some 400 similar items, were removed rapidly by YT Google within 24 hours. However, the 400 clips are still available from hundreds of other YT Google links, but without the additional information. So, it proves that the blanket ban on spsyed was politically motivated with copyright pretext or cover.

The veteran media-guru spsyed who is also an investigative journalist tracked down Indian owned "dmcl" that is linked to Zee TV network, hiding behind YouTube Google blanket censorships and bans. The former YT customer spsyed discovered human rights violations, social, cultural, religious and economic problems exist in India at a much gigantic proportion but the Indian media and journalists are ordered to suppress, stifle and strangle the democratic debates over the issues on every media outlet in India and abroad.

He discovered that almost all governments have given a free hand to their respective intelligence agencies to fund, manipulate, direct broadcasting and publishing media groups to gain the required results, strangle freedom of speech, stifle competition, malign, demonise, exclude, marginalise alternative democratic views, promote propaganda, misinformation, foreign policy objectives, promote Hindu mythology, and build India's hegemonic image. The covert Indian intelligence hands fund and direct them.

Since 1970s, the Indian intelligence agency "Research and Analysis Wing" (RAW) has increasingly taken the issue more seriously than its contemporary counterparts in the region and even around the world. Some of the funny money (US $25m) also came from the Swedish Bofor gun-run deals. Some of the RAW media assets were funded by top RAW agents including Vasant Parekh, Indian misinformation ministers Parmod Mahajan and Sushma Swaraj who enforced sweeping draconian powers under the lethal 1980 Indian National Security Act combined with the 1990 Indian broadcasting laws such as "Prasar Bharati Act," Chapter IV, 23; “Power of Central Government to give Directions” if they did not comply with the RAW orders. RAW uses and abuses imaginitive, inventive and creative pretexts to penalise channels not receptive of its directives.

RAW is spending over US $500m every year on their media assets at home and abroad, and their Zee TV dmcl linked pet is not included in this budget. That is the kind of money British and American governments invest on their media assets. RAW continues to use the Indian government money, resources and assets to create a solid grip on Indian and non-Indian media groups and their workforce. RAW trains and enables young Indians to penetrate into different broadcasting and publishing media groups, including the BBC (India Hour), CNN, Google, YT, Microsoft, even China Daily, and the Beijing Review, to promote "good" Indian images, perceptions and perspective as ordered and planted by the RAW. It induces Non-Indian journalists, reporters, columnists and brainwashed "analysts" with all paid lavish functions, seminars and even holidays in India and the UAE. RAW funds popular "talent" shows complete with advertisement support on Indian TV channels beamed around the world. In addition to funding and patronising over to 100 newspapers in Indian and abroad, RAW assets work for Zee TV, SONY Entertainment Television (SET), Asian News International (ANI), 9x News, Aajtak, NDTV 24×7, Times now, TV9, Time TV, Essel Group, Sunrise Radio and Sunrise TV, just to name a few. The Indian media outfits and media workers would never admit their covert links to RAW, but their news and programme content frequently give away any semblance of neutrality that Indian channels portray, exposing their real faces and the Indian government’s propaganda campaigns. They continue to narrate RAW orchestrated scripts like parrots in a predictable frenzy copied from Fox, Sky and even the BBC.

RAW also established South Asian Free Media association (SAFMA) who manage to generate funds for the highly lavish functions and seminars under its banners.

Without such diligent facts and infortainment, according to spsyed: "most YT users, for exmple, feel they are using a computer with nothing better to do". "There is a growing sense among YT, Facebook and MySpace users that the amount of time a person spends on the Google-owned websites may be inversely proportional to how much is going on in the person's life, on or offline. Perhaps unfairly, you may get the impression that only bored, dull or brainless people love video clips on the sites with nothing new or more to say about the clips. The sites long-term survival is up to the people who use it creatively. The quality of the added facts with the clip content that people share would most likely to contribute to the longevity of the such global social networking sites far more than the sheer number of people who connect with each other to share the clips," spsyed explained. This story is still developing. Has anyone probed the link between Zee TV, RAW, YouTube Google and "dmcl"? As a banned YouTube customer, I am also investigating the alleged links. The report will be published here. It would be rejected by the spineless, guttless, and ball-less RAW assets, including the BBC and even C4UK. E&OE.

NEXT

Copyright vultures strangle freedom, competition - by Parveez Syed (c) 17 July 2009

Copyright laws are being abused by some large vultures to strangle freedom and stifle competition. The vultures ignore the legal significance of the doctrine of fair use, for creators, commerce, consumers and the soaring global social networks for over one billion people around the world. The 1976 US Copyright law permits a wide range of uses of copyrighted material without permission or payment. But many provisions of the law are being abused by many Internet platforms based in the USA and around the world. The ignorant mindset from India, for example, stifle, strangle and deny freedom of speech, critical thinking and comments.

"Fair use" is the right to use copyrighted material without permission or payment when the cultural or social benefits of the use are predominant (as on popular video-sharing and social networking websites, such as YouTube, MySpace and Facebook, etc) even in situations where the law provides no specific authorisation for the use in question, such as the media literacy education providing specific, researched and additional information related to the content and topics in audio-visual and textual formats, and thus adding value to build knowledge, critical thinking and communication skills.

The additional information or knowledge cultivates and enables critical thinking and expression about media content and its glocal social and global networking roles in anyone country, across the frontiers and around the world. The common collective benefits to six billion people outweighs almost any other financial consideration or commercial factors. Moreover, such discussions with fair use of popular culture content do not deprive the copyright owners of revenue, and would increase the marketability of the original content far and wide. However, the evidence is removed or deleted within hours by YouTube-Google to please Indian vultures, thereby denying the rights of over two billion people living in south-east Asia, central Asia, the Middle East, USA, UK, EU, Canada, Australia, thus strangling freedom of speech and critical thinking by unnecessary, needless and even baseless copyright restrictions on fair business practices.

It just takes one copyright vulture to panic YouTube Google to impose blanket ban consumer account that frequently contains content from other major content providers-advertisers. Every eye ball represents free residual content promotion, particularly with related additional information, descriptions and tags. But the blanket YouTube Google bans deprive other copyright owners of sales and marketing platforms, free promotion and profits as non-infringing content is also removed by YouTube Google. In one recent case one unknown and unidentified copyright claimant alleged infringement on three out of some 400 items, and panicked YouTube Google to impose blanket ban on the remaining 397 items. That means over 99% of the items were deemed to have been uploaded or added under fair use provisions of the law. However, unilateral Google bans deprived much larger advertisers such as iTunes, and 80 other content providers such as the official Michael Jackson websites, Sony Music, iTunes, Yash Raj Films, Eros, Shemaroo and Rajshri who were happy with "advertising banner" on their items. This blanket ban was imposed on a top 20 YouTube Google channel that became very popular within three months of its launch to reach the rank worldwide. In this case, for example, the reason of its rapid popularity was its rare ability to add researched value to each content on its channel. The blanket ban also deprived established and new content creaters who remain less greedy and who welcome competition even from greedy copyright vultures.

YouTube Google also refused to identify the copyright claimants who allege copyright violations or infringements. YouTube Google users diligently try to identify and locate the real copyright owner but were stonewalled by YT-Google copyright, legal and support teams. By refusing to provide complete legal discovery information unconditionally, YouTube Google is in breach of the legal provisions of the copyright laws in the USA where the global company is based.

The material remains in the public domain, frequently without additional information and descriptions, and in this particular case, the three items are still available from over 800 links on YouTube and Google video alone. In this case, the unknown copyright holder seems to single out some YouTube Google users in order to stifle competition, strangle freedom of speech and critical comments about Indian copycats; plight of Indian women (as in film Lajja), and the people displaced or made homeless by a dam project in Gujarat, subverted justice, human rights for the second, third or even fourth class Indian nationals, untouchable sects, lack of democracy in India, inadequate compensation for the creators such as lyricists, story writers, musicians and singers as well as lack of women's rights. Ironically, Bollywood film makers and music composers frequently rip off, plagiarise violate, infringe and abuse copyrights of many American and European writers as well as lyricists, musicians, popular and cultured melody makers from Pakistan, frequently with citation or without giving due credit to the original sources.

In the final analysis: Instead of imposing unilateral blanket, it is possible for YouTube Google to remove each disputed item until the issues are resolved. Right from the outset (05 April 2009) on YouTube Google, for example, my goal is to empower people to discuss the issues in the media content, providing new or other uses for the original work, reaching more audience far and wide with additional informational content, descriptions and tags. Most viewers prefer the truly creative efforts of individuals who provide additional information or knowledge with the entertaining or educational content. As a result, the channel rapidly became popular, reaching thousands of viewers every day, consistently ranking around top 20 worldwide in less than sixty days from the outset and banned by YouTube Google on Thursday 16 July 2009. Clearly, there is a need to make YouTube Google find democratic and viable solutions in a free market economy for healthy and fair competition. That would also expose copyright vultures who are smart enough to infringe or copy other people's copyrights and then use their copies to stifle competition, strangle and freedom of speech, democracy and human rights by curtailing critical thinking and comments. It goes without saying that under Section 512(f), YouTube Google along with some major copyright vultures, knowingly or materially misrepresents copyright allegations or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages. It has always been the responsibility of the copyright holder to defend their copyright. Basically, they and YouTube Google wants additional information uploaders to do copyright vulture's job.

http://www.youtube.com/4407831196693

http://www.FixyaExperts.com

NEXT

Financial challenges, winners and losers...

Bailouts and stimulus initiatives may help some. The post-mortems on the wrecked global economy, toxic derivatives, US market and dollar crash would continue for several decades. Is it time to focus on viable and sustainable solutions?

Businesses and banks need bespoke turnaround survival strategies to reduce losses, improve efficiency, increase revenue, gain sustainable competitive advantage, and outperform market competition. The results add real business values, attract investors; create new business opportunities and jobs.

Online retail sales, for example, will climb by 11 percent in 2009, even in the recession.

One FixyaExperts.com client was advised to reduce losses by 30% and increase production by 50% to attract investors who continue to target undervalued growth sectors, niche and captive markets where consumer demand still continues to grow in double-digits annually to 2030. What other solutions are out there for recovery?

http://www.youtube.com/fixyaexperts

http://www.FixyaExperts.com