1Internet Geeks

lift the books she wants to put on the library shelves without paying for them? Of course not.

Libraries pay for the books on their shelves. Or they ask the publisher or author to donate books.

Ms. Shell has her published books on library shelves by both of these methods.

Then why doesn’t the Internet Archive pay for the Intellectual Property it acquires? or ask

the author to donate it? Why does it just ‘lift’ a web site, and take it to its library home and then

give it away to anyone who wants it? Is there an Internet exception to stealing just because it’s

“only” copyrighted digital property? No, as Napster and others have found out differently.

Ms. Shell recently did an audit of copyright cases between 2000 and 2007 in the

U.S.District Court for the District of Colorado. Did you know that music companies and film

companies file suits against John Doe defendants when they don’t know the names of copyright

infringers so they can conduct discovery to learn their names and then sue them? These John

Does are doing things like, downloading music from the Internet, playing music in their retail

stores and bars without paying ASCAP or BMI license fees or downloading movies or television

programs without paying, or playing them in their retail locations.

It becomes clear that the rules of the Internet, which all these passionate people are trying

to teach us, are being proven wrong in court at every turn. In that context, we understand the

they don’t want to be held responsible. So they blame the victim. And ATTACK the victim by

trying to scare her away with all kinds of threatening, harassing and abusive technical tricks

causing harm to her business and her property.

Ms. Shell is simply taking the next logical step. She is an author of copyrighted literary

works which are displayed on the Internet. If the music industry and the movie industry are

protected on the internet by copyright law, then it stands to reason, so is the author or publisher

of online literary works. If the software industry can license it’s copyrighted property with a

shrinkwrap, clickwrap or browsewrap agreement, so can the author of online digital literary

works. One thing is certain, no court has ever found that there is an Internet exception to

copyright or contract law or any other legal principle for that matter.

So expand your tunnel vision, IGeeks. Lift those crazed, glazed eyes away from the glow

of your ‘puter screens and pay attention and think. This lawsuit isn’t about spiders. It’s not about

searching, finding or indexing or linking. It’s about copying, storing, displaying and distributing

without permission. It won’t hurt Google or any other of those valuable search engines out there

who are NOT copying. We LIKE the search engines. We use them. We are on them. They are

valuable. If you gotta get your panties in a knot, get it right. Otherwise you just look stupid and

malicious.

We realize this logic might be too taxing for the Internet technoIgeeksquad, as evidenced

by the following comments which came into Ms. Shell’s email:

counter-suing (this means Internet Archive sued HER first) Internet Archive for ‘copying’ and

‘storing’ and ‘displaying’ her web site which is registered with the copyright office. “Spidering’

and “copying,” etc are DIFFERENT acts. Take a reading comprehension course, Bozo.

bookstore or putting it on the shelves of a library places the book in public domain. She must

EXPRESSLY put something into the public domain. She did the express opposite. HINT: Tell

us, Einstein, why do copy machines at Kinkos have copyright notices on them? Ding, ding, ding,

. . .because Kinko’s was SUED for copyright infringement and LOST. As for COPYING. . . there

she is content to let her adversaries and other ilk underestimate her. As far as ‘trusting’ someone

she doesn’t know. . .Why on earth? How stupid is this?

BEFORE WYSIWYG, when only gopher and .txt sites were available from only universities and

Prodigy or Compuserve were the ONLY online providers. BEFORE AOL, Yahoo! and Google

and chat rooms. And BEFORE Internet Archive. You trying to teach your gramma to suck eggs?

Now, do you care to read a lecture about how COPYRIGHT works? Google THAT and learn.

The laws of the real world DO apply to the Internet.

is that Internet Archive has banks upon banks of computers, megagigaquads of technology and

booku bucks/donations to keep it running as well as a multimillionaire founder and backer, and

Internet Archive stole her Intellectual Property without permission. Can Ms. Shell compete

against that with a five year old Sony VAIO, no paid staff, no technology that she doesn’t buy

and can’t afford, and no funding except the meager amount she can raise through her web site.

Then, we have the unparalleled legal genius of spam@gettilted.com who bravely identified

himself [cough, cough - NOT] before instructing Ms. Shell, “If you put something into the public

Sender Russ Nelson tries to prove his literary prowess when he alleges, “You are a moron. Trust

And Alex Jordan thoughtfully wrote a condescending missive to Ms. Shell: “I'm writing these

“Archive.org is also a search engine, with the added twist that it keeps old versions of the pages

Who is screwing whom, here?

about Copyright law. As expertly versed as these [ahem] people are about Internet technology,

they are obviously completely ignorant about real world copyright law. And still, they blather

about the Internet which is totally irrelevant. Get a grip, IGeeks. You don’t control everything on

the Internet. Ms. Shell isn’t messing with your technology, why are YOU messing with her

copyrights and her web site? How rude!

in the search engines. She objects to copying the content without her permission. She also takes

the position that under copyright law, it is not HER duty to tell others not to copy, it is the duty of

the copier to get her permission first. So far, that position has been upheld in every court in this

country. And since the copyright office accepts registration applications for web sites, and since

there is no web site exception to copyright protections, she may be right. If you don’t like the

law, change it, but don’t attack Ms. Shell for seeking the protection of the law as it exists today.

Frankly, she’s doing some laughing at you, herself, because your emotions are overriding the

already limited intellect that has been exhibited and MANY of the comments offered are so

ridiculous as to defy contemplation.

Scientology. . .but she will accept donations should any be offered.

of what has become the worlds [sic] main cultural vehicle.” Then he gives this veiled threat . . .

“I just hope that your site won't come under the attack of hackers, since it is mainly people who

gotta give him credit, at least he had the stones to give his name.

You wouldn’t believe how many people offered the “If you don't want to be on record, just

And is THIS from the intelligentsia? Sean Cohen writes from a college email. “Your lawsuit is a

address by Joe Roback who contributed his exceptionally persuasive debating skills with, “you

are a stupid whore.” He even spelled it right. Then we have steve hunter (no caps, can’t find the

retard.” That did it for us. . .we are convinced in the face of this overwhelmingly keen logic.

NOT!

And then we have the mercenaries seeking the reward for reporting copyright infringement by

is considered by the courts to be fair use. Unlike Google, Internet Archive copies, takes and

stores web sites in its vast computer banks in three countries. In Ms. Shell’s case, 87 different

versions of her web site. Google indexes your site and when someone searches and clicks on the

link that Google brings up, it goes to your site to get a copy - only if it is still available on the

Internet. It does not store anyone’s web sites on its computers. Don’t you know ANYTHING

about how the Internet works? You should have read the copyright law and studied the case law.

Sorry you exposed your ignorance and stupidity so publicly. But it IS good for a giggle. . .hee hee

objection to Brewster Kahle’s vision for Internet Archive. It is interesting, but noble? A matter of

opinion. She does object to the way he implements it, especially since it infringes her copyright.

He has expressly REFUSED to seek prior permission from copyright owners, preferring to take

what he wants without asking and without telling. Ms. Shell never even knew Internet Archive

existed until she discovered her web site on it in December, 2005. By then, Internet Archive had

stolen and archived 87 versions of her web site from 1998 to 2005 without her permission. From

property it archives. Internet Archive seems to think it is above the law when it comes to other

people’s property. Is that OK with you?

considered by the courts to be fair use. . .she never alleged infringement for viewing on a

computer, dumbass.

perhaps YOU’LL pay for what it stole from her so the suit can be dropped? Nah. . .y’all just like

the tempest in a teapot controversy.

Some readers are courteous, a trait which is always appreciated.

FamilyRights.5.dronge@spamgourmet.com wrote: “I am however very concerned about your

lawsuit against archive.org. You are suing an organization that's only purpose is to archive the

And Benjamin Schwartz, thinking that he was being so clever, exposed the true depths of his

ignorance when he commented, “Hi. I visited your website and my computer saved a copy into

Ben Ford Secretary Washington, State University Linux Users Group overreacts and misstates

when he writes, “The result of a win on your part would be that search engines would be litigated

search engines, Mr. LinuxUsersGroup Secretary. It’s about copyright e.g Copying, displaying,

distributing, NOT searching finding and indexing. And YOU have a college education? Didn’t

anyone teach you critical thinking and research skills?!! Does anyone need more proof that a

college education is highly overrated?

commentators and contributors to this discussion. She believes that your generous outpouring of

information and comments will be useful in bolstering her claims against Internet Archive.

credibility, except to those easily influenced by empty posturing.

help from anyone. She’s happy to accept tax deductible donations of web design services. Are

you offering? Nah. . .that would mean taking your foot out of your mouth and walking the walk.

You prefer a nasty put down, rather than a helping hand. She’s not trying to win awards, just get

a message out. If you don’t like it, by all means, please, don’t visit here. (Sound of toilet

flushing)

with her lawsuit, to invest any time in HTML tutorials. It’s easy to criticize, how about offering

help? Nah. . .because they really don’t mean the criticism to be constructive, they mean it to be

abusive.

Oh. . .and the macho cheap shots, like from Mark, anonymously of course, “I'm a professional

this is one of the WORST sites I have ever seen. My company charges $249 for a site analysis

and I have gotten pretty good with them. Right off the bat, I would rate your site a 15 out of

And more egotistical cheap shots by Jim Beem, “Your site (http://www.profane-justice.org/)

forward to your response!” - coincidentally none of these fine gentlemen offered web design

services to this non-profit. . .do we see a pattern here?

Here’s a NICE one from Jack Thompson (yeah, sure that’s his real name) who wrote that he

would represent me as a lawyer, adding, “And will kill your kids afterwards, and rape them in the

ass.” Nasty, sick, abusive, scary bunch of people, these Igeeks.

Since it is evident that most IGeeks are not able to moderate their passions appropriately, nor

logically, nor consider other points of view objectively, nor even pretend to be open minded, and

are afraid to identify themselves so they can be safely abusive in their anonymity, there is no

point in any debate. Ms. Shell will simply agree to disagree.