Melt Banana - Last Target On The Last Day

RT: @aligilliams 3-4-10

RT:  aligilliams http://tinyurl.com/yznsb5n check out an interview i did & some behindthescenes pictures from my alice in wonderland shoot at sweet harts! RT


Melt Banana - Lyrics Link

Last Target On The Last Day


All of the targets
they are not hidden
All of the law sets
they are forbidden
All of the poor heads
they are so broken
I just don't know why
They are so wasted...
And I lost one thing

All of the mistakes
they are in the heaven
All of the red cakes
they are so poisoned
All the the less names
they are so brightened
I just don't see why
They are so aimless

All of the targets
they are not hidden
All of the hit lists
they are not written
All of the checkmates
they are so fallen
I just don't wanna play
It's so wasted

The flakes are fallin', fade out
The flakes are fallin', look out
The flakes are fallin', reach out
The flakes are fallin',
You need to lock on
The same old last line...

All of the targets
they are not hidden
All of the law sets
they are forbidden
All of the poor heads
they are so broken
I just don't know why
So fascinated...

All of the targets
they are not hidden
All of the hit lists
they are not written
All of the checkmates
they are so fallen
I just don't wanna pay
So frustrated...

The flakes are fallin'
Fade out
The flakes are fallin'
Look out
The flakes are fallin'
Reach out
The flakes are fallin'
Shut out

LOCK ON..
The same last day
The same last day

Get ready for the Viacom v. YouTube summary judgment briefs

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Get ready for the Viacom v. YouTube summary judgment briefs

After nearly three years of discovery, the parties in the massive Viacom v. YouTube copyright suit will finally lay out their arguments on paper Friday, when opening briefs in support of summary judgment motions are due. Interested observers will finally get to see whether Viacom -- as well as the plaintiffs in the similar class action suit brought by the English Premier Soccer League, Bourne Music Publishers, and others -- has the goods on YouTube, or whether the video-hosting site will stay safely within the DMCA's Section 512(c) safe harbor. Did YouTube employees themselves upload infringing videos? What did they know about infringement on the site? How quickly do they respond to takedown notices? Did Viacom upload its own videos to YouTube, thus bolstering YouTube's arguments that it can't tell which videos are infringing, and so can't be expected to take them down without specific notice from copyright owners? Will Google have to dig into the reported $200 million it set aside to cover copyright liability when it bought YouTube in 2006? Tomorrow, we will likely get a little closer to the answers to these questions, and a lot more.

In the both the Viacom and Premier League cases, opening summary judgment briefs are due March 5, oppositions April 30, and replies June 4. In the Premier League case, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due March 26, YouTube's opposition May 7, and plaintiffs' reply June 11.

1st March, 2010

Dannii Minogue is 'f*****g useless' rants Sharon Osbourne

Sharon Osbourne just can’t let go of the Dannii Minogue-shaped chip on her shoulder as she continues one of show business’ biggest female feuds.

 

 

 

Sharon Osbourne is on the Dannii warpath again

Speaking about Simon Cowell’s hit TV talent show The X Factor, she fumed: "Dannii - I couldn't stand her. She wasn't so much a dim bulb as a bulb in a power cut. F***ing useless."
This may be spoken with a bitter edge however as Sharon was booted off the show in 2007 – unless she actually did walk – whereas Dannii still sits in her throne as a judge today.
She added in her rage: ‘They’d rather have some doll like Dannii Minogue as judge, endorsing this bulls**t.’
Seething Sharon, 57, went on to slate the contestants and how there is no longer any talent and how the show should be renamed: ‘We’ve Got No Fucking Talent At All.’
‘It’s like a revolving door for t**ts.’
Sharon famously sat on the panel with Dannii Minogue in 2007 and her brash attitude made sparks fly between the hot-headed pair. She then ‘walked’ from the show now claiming it was because she couldn’t stand the ‘bulls**t’ any longer from the charade.
Dannii Mingogue suffered heaps of torment from Ozzy Osbourne’s fiery wife whilst they judged together on the ITV show. Sharon has always slammed Dannii for being weak and having no opinion.
She even went as far as comparing her to an annoying mosquito that she wanted to flick away and rather hypocritically called her plastic surgery ‘appalling’.
Despite claiming that talent shows spurn nothing but wannabes, the TV star is actually a panellist on Simon’s Stateside show America’s Got Talent.
Seems like she just wanted another excuse to vent her Dannii jealousy, again.

U.K. - New law could put block on YouTube

New law could put block on YouTube

Video-sharing websites such as You­Tube could be blocked in Britain after a last-minute change to a new law.

YouTube: could be hit by the controversial amendment to the Digital Economy Bill

They are facing a major clampdown on using copyright material under an amendment passed by the House of Lords.

The change grants TV and music companies the right to demand their material is taken down. If the request is refused, they can take their challenge to court, where high legal costs will make it pointless to launch a defence.

Critics say the Digital Economy Bill is a blow to web freedom and hands far too much power to big entertainment companies. They say the reasoning behind the amendment is ‘wholly misguided’.

Websites such as YouTube and its smaller rivals have long been under pressure for posting music videos, film and TV clips without consent.

The law could also affect services used for sharing large files, such as YouSendIt and Dropbox.

Under the new law, copyright holders must ask internet service prov­iders – comp­anies such as Virgin, BT, TalkTalk and Orange – and the website itself to remove the material or any links to other sites hosting it.

If it is not taken down, a court order can force the ISP to block the site.

The amendment is aimed at websites with ‘substantial’ amounts of copyrighted material. However, critics say the law, which is set to be passed in April, is unclear about what ‘substantial’ means and that it is unfair to block an entire site over a few minor breaches.

They say ISPs would simply shut out a site rather than risk the high legal costs of defending a case.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said: ‘ISPs are almost certain to cave into rights holders’ demands rather than go through a lengthy court process.

‘It’s hard on ISPs because they have no power to change what websites are doing but, if they block them, they could lose users.’

Nicholas Lansman, secretary-general of the Internet Service Providers Association, said: ‘Our members are extremely concerned that the full implications of the amendment have not been understood.’

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement-Jones, who put forward the amendment, said ISPs should have little cause for concern as an injunction would be granted only where a website had been warned repeatedly of copyright breaches.

Senate rejects bonus Social Security payments

Senate rejects bonus Social Security payments

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate has rejected President Barack Obama's proposal to give a $250 bonus payment to people on Social Security.

The proposal failed by a 50-47 vote in which Republicans and Democratic budget hawks opposed the idea for adding $14 billion to the budget deficit. Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said the $250 payment was needed to make up for the lack of a cost-of-living adjustment this year for beneficiaries. Disabled people and veterans also would have been eligible for the payments.

Seniors received an identical $250 bonus last year as part of the economic stimulus bill.

But economists say the payments don't do much to boost the economy since many seniors simply save the money rather than spend it.

Jane's Addiction member quits after Australia tour

Jane's Addiction member quits after Australia tour

Wed Mar 3, 2:47 pm ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The bass player with Jane's Addiction has quit the band, and will reportedly be replaced by former Guns N' Roses rocker Duff McKagan.
Eric Avery, 44, announced his departure through a Twitter message on Monday, hours after the band completed a seven-date Australian tour in Perth
"That's it," he wrote. "With equal parts regret and relief, the Jane's Addiction experiment is at an end."
Guitarist Dave Navarro confirmed Avery's departure on Tuesday, saying on Twitter "We wish him all the best!"
Singer Perry Farrell also took to Twitter on Tuesday, offering a more-cryptic perspective: "Slipping out of that shell of a past. Gripping; wow we're onto something faster now. And so worth the wait. It's the Art Of Great Escape."
McKagan, 46, will join Jane's Addiction in the studio as it attempts to record the follow-up to its 2003 album "Strays," according to various unconfirmed reports. Avery had previously indicated he was not writing songs for the album.
Spokeswomen for McKagan and Avery did not immediately respond to emails seeking more information. McKagan's post-Guns N' Roses band, Velvet Revolver, has been on hiatus since a messy split with singer Scott Weiland in 2008.
Jane's Addiction emerged from the Los Angeles rock underground in the 1980s, distinguishing itself from other post-punk groups with Farrell's sexually ambiguous stagecraft and the musicians' deft ear for melodic tunes. They recorded just three albums and scored radio play with such songs as "Been Caught Stealing" and "Jane Says."
But drug-fueled friction led to the band's demise and the original lineup played its last gig in Hawaii in 1991. The band reunited in 1997 with Red Hot Chili Peppers bassist Flea coming aboard as the first of several substitutes for Avery.
Avery eventually rejoined the band in 2008, when it played its first shows since a 2003 tour was cut short by a flare-up of internal tensions. The band toured with Nine Inch Nails last year.
(Reporting by Dean Goodman)

Supreme Court clarifies basis for why copyright suits over unregistered works should be dismissed

March 3, 2010 | by Evan Brown   | Share on Facebook

Image via Wikipedia

Supreme Court overturns Second Circuit, holding that a copyright plaintiff’s failure to register the work before filing suit does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, Slip. Op., 559 U.S. ___ (March 2, 2010) [View opinion here]
“Subject matter jurisdiction” refers to a court’s power to hear the matter before it. The Constitution sets out the general contours for the federal courts’ jurisdiction, and Congress enacts statutes that give more detail to this set of powers. Particular statutes can define whether the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over certain types of cases. For example, Congress has declared that the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright cases (See 28 U.S.C. 1338).
If a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the type of matter before it, it has no power to adjudicate the case. So the question of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists is critical.
The Supreme Court just decided a case that deals with the scope of subject matter jurisdiction in copyright cases, and clarifies a notion that has been the subject of some uncertainty. The question the court decided was whether a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a copyright case when a work at issue is not the subject of a copyright registration.
Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act (at 17 U.S.C. 411(a)) provides, among other things, that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until . . . registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.”
Some courts have held, and many litigants have argued, that this provision of Section 411 is a “jurisdictional prerequisite.” Said another way, some have argued that if the copyright plaintiff files suit without having secured a registration, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction over the case. In the case of Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, however, the Supreme Court held that Section 411 does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction, but instead merely provides a “claim-processing rule,” akin to an element of the case.
The lower court proceedings
A group of freelance writers filed a class action copyright infringement case in federal court in New York. They settled the case and the judge approved the settlement. Some of the plaintiffs objected to the settlement on procedural grounds, and when the court entered final judgment, those objecting plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit. On its own motion, the Second Circuit raised the question of whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over the case, as some of the plaintiffs in the class had unregistered works.
The case took on a peculiar procedural aspect — neither side in the dispute argued that the federal court was without subject matter jurisdiction, but the Second Circuit decided anyway that it did not. (After all, subject matter jurisdiction pertains to the power of the court, not the rights of the parties, so parties cannot waive the absence of subject matter jurisdiction.) Concluding that it didn’t have jurisdiction, the Second Circuit reversed the approval of the settlement.
The defendants in the underlying case sought review with the Supreme Court, and the high court took on the case. It reversed the Second Circuit, holding that the court did indeed have jurisdiction, even though some of the plaintiffs’ copyrights at issue were unregistered.
The court’s holding
It is worth noting that this case does not address the bothersome question of whether Section 411 requires that a copyright plaintiff actually have a registration certificate in hand before filing the complaint, or whether he or she simply needs to have the application on file. The case also does not stand for the proposition that one can pursue copyright infringement litigation without having registered his or her copyright. A plaintiff without a registration will still lose, just for different reasons.
Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion. He began the analysis by noting the court’s recent efforts to curtail “drive-by jurisdictional rulings,” which can “miss the critical differences between true jurisdictional conditions and nonjurisdictional limitations on causes of action.” It was with this eye toward careful analysis that the court looked to the present question.
The court reviewed the general approach it set out in the case of Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) for distinguishing jurisdictional conditions from claim-processing requirements or elements of a claim, stating in part that “when Congress does not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character.” Said another way, if a statute somehow limits the way a case can be brought before federal court but doesn’t come out and say that it’s a limitation on subject matter jurisdiction, it should not be read as limiting jurisdiction. In this way, the court’s approach is to broaden federal jurisdiction.
In this case, the court found that Section 411(a) did not “clearly state” that the registration requirement is jurisdictional. Moreover, the section of federal law that provides for federal court jurisdiction in general (28 U.S.C. 1331) and federal jurisdiction over copyright claims (28 U.S.C. 1338) says nothing about a requirement that there be a registration before the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, Section 411 provides on its face certain exceptions for the registration requirement (e.g., no registration is required for non-United States works). The court observed that “it would be at least unusual to ascribe jurisdictional signifcance to a condition subject to these sorts of exceptions.”
What does it mean?
The case actually addresses a rather nuanced point of copyright law. And the effect of the holding will not change the end results of cases brought in the future with the same facts — after all, a non-registering plaintiff will still lose either way, now just for a different reason. Motions to dismiss copyright complaints alleging infringement of unregistered works will clearly fall under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim) and not 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction).
But the question of a federal court’s jurisdiction is of significant import, regardless of how nuanced the question is, or the lack of difference in practical effect. The question of whether a court should dismiss a case because it doesn’t have the power to hear it, as compared to dismissing it because the plaintiff has not jumped through the appropriate hoops, is an important one.