|Date:|| Wed, 22 Jul 1998 07:22:31 -0700 (PDT)|
|From:|| Paul Andrew Mitchell <email@example.com> | Block address|
|Subject:|| COPYRIGHT VIOLATION|
|To:|| Avi Freedman <firstname.lastname@example.org>||
In reply to your message below,
we refer you to Internet URL:
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
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
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Author (under a pen name)
---Avi Freedman <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Mr. Freedman:
> > 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.
> Mr. Mitchell:
> As I said, I am unable to find any evidence that the URL
> you reference has ever existed on our computers.
> In reference to your paragraph above, I am unable to see
> how it relates to Net Access. Can you clarify, please?
> > 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.
> That's correct, as far as I am aware. What action do
> you think that Net Access has failed to take? There is
> no such material on our computers and I am unable to
> find evidence that there ever was.
> > 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.
> I feel annoyed by your representations and form of
> > 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.
> There is no such material. The threat of suit for
> bullshit is what I find objectionable.
> > We intend to exhibit all offensive email to the
> > jury to be convened in this copyright matter.
> Have fun.
> I notice no LLB or JD in your list of degrees.
> > 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
> Also, I'd like to know what a "Private Attorney General" is, and why
> think being a Federal Witness is important to your communications.
> As far as I can tell, you are a delusional quack. However, if you
> explain your thinking in terms of standard US Law, I'm willing to
> As far as I understand, the obligation of an ISP is to remove
> that infringes, when such material is pointed out to an ISP. Since
> such material is currently on our network (and since I am unable to
> any evidence that it ever was), your continued communication with me
> a mystery.
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Terms of Service
Copyright © 1994-1999 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.