You decide!
You decide!
GINtruth.com
Global Informative News Truth
1) The following post is in regard to an email I received from an Attorney in the United States this morning, the GIN Affiliate Agreement (current copy scanned, printed, dated and saved in case GIN tries to alter it), the complaint made by a ‘‘GIN customer’’, a breakdown of the GIN Agreement and just why the Attorney, the ‘‘customer’’ and the Agreement have no legal jurisdiction other than that relating to the services of the hosting company Namecheap.com (whereby only the hosting company has any cause for contact).
First of all, the email from the attorney: (Also see Fig.1)
Dear Sir or Madam,
On behalf of Eugene Rome, please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Judy Carter
Judy Carter
Assistant
Rome & Associates, A.P.C.
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1040
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 282-0690
Facsimile: (310) 282-0691
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION:
The information contained in this e-mail message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the receiver of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email message is strictly prohibited and may violate the legal rights of others. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email or telephone and delete it from your system.
Let’s break the letter down, starting with the person who complained:
Here is the email message that prompted the attorney letter:
Hello,
We are in receipt of complaint regarding probable copyright infringement for gintruth.com domain, of which you are the registered owner. As a valued customer and the registered owner of the domain, and per Namecheap Registration Agreement and WhoisGuard Service Agreement, we are forwarding you the above mentioned email so that you can address this matter. We cannot advise you as to what action to take, but we strongly urge you to review the email quoted below and/or attached PDF document and recommend contacting the complainant to resolve this matter.
Email sent to Namecheap.com:
Please note that a site hosted on your servers gintruth.com
is posted copyright material on your servers.
Specifically:
http://www.gintruth.com/gnt/main/Entries/2012/6/15_The_2012_Video_is_=BACK!.html
the actual video file is here http://www.gintruth.com/gnt/Media/Sizab=leSend.com-Upload-06-14-2012-979997---GIN_Mayan.mp4
and
http://www.gintruth.com/gnt/main/Entries/2012/6/14_The_2012_Audio.htm=
the actual file is http://www.gintruth.com/gnt/Media/GIN-Mayan.mp3
This is against our club rules and all copyright laws.
our club site is here https://www.globalinformationnetwork.com/
Regards,
A concerned GIN member
One question that comes to mind is, why,
if the representative of KTRN is clearly stated
as Mark J. Lane, why was the email sent to
Namecheap Inc, signed ‘’A concerned GIN member”?
2)This court document http://www.ftc.gove/os/caselist/0323064/040907stip0323064.pdf clearly states in Part X, that :
“Defendant Trudeau, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, in connection with the labeling, advertising, promotion, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of any product or program in or affecting commerce, shall not create, produce, sell, or disseminate:
A)Any advertisement that misrepresents, directly or by implication, that is it is not a paid advertisement.
B)Any television commercial or other video advertisement fifteen (15) minutes in length or longer or intended to fill a broadcasting or cablecasting time slot of fifteen (15) minutes in length or longer that does not display visually, clearly and prominently, and for a length of time sufficient for an ordinary consumer to read, within the first thirty (30) seconds of the advertisement and immediately before each presentation of ordering instructions or service, the following disclosure:
“THE PROGRAM YOU ARE WATCHING IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT FOR [THE PRODUCT OR SERVICE].”
etc... it goes on to describe how Trudeau MUST comply with the requirements of such an order.
In asking people to upgrade or join the Global Information Network (GIN) in order to receive the video perporting to contain exclusive information on December 21st 2012, when the information for doing so was aired in April 2012, Kevin Trudeau in effect, broke the requirement of Part X of the above court document, by failing to display the required disclosure. In a recent video/audio release, Kevin Trudeau clearly stated that cutbacks were being made to some services, due to the nature of their costs. He mentioned that the setting up of seminars, functions, and Member and Affiliate Updates, both visual and non-visual, all required expenditure. Thus, the afore-mentioned advertisement for the requirement to upgrade and or join GIN as a Member and purchase Level 3 membership, would surely fall under the ‘Paid Advertisement’ ruling.
A further listing of cases against Trudeau for wrongful business practices can be found on the FTC’s website here.
3)The GIN Affiliate Agreement (see Figs2.1-5) many of you are aware of the ridiculous and absurdness of the rules and regulations expected of Members and Affiliates. (The same Agreement applies to both parties).
In Fig2.4 - GIN claims that “digital downloads...is protected by copyright...” yet no copyright is shown in the video or audio aired pertaining to 2012. And, in accordance with an FTC order of 1998, Trudeau is required to apply for ANY copyright 30 days prior to releasing any product or service. (Awaiting documentation for proof).
Further in the Agreement is this little nugget:
Aside from the fact that Mark J.Lane has been representing Trudeau for many years in legal matters neither he nor his firm has made any effort to contact me personally and request any removal of material from my website, nor is his law office in the ‘‘country of Nevis’’!
Then again, as I said earlier, the Agreement is written in such a crude manner that no Affiliate or Member could ever lay claim to wrong doing against GIN or Trudeau or any other representative thereof. I’m pretty sure from my days of studying Company Law in the UK (of which Nevis is a sovereignty and therefore falls under UK law, NOT US law) the rules in the Agreement could be (and should be) deemed unfair and made null and void.
Talking of unfair, let’s take a quick look at common misunderstandings when applying the Fair Use rule:
a)The Audio Home Recording Act (US Law) establishes that it is legal in some circumstances to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use.
b)It's copyrighted, so it can't be fair use. On the contrary, fair use applies only to copyrighted works, describing conditions under which copyrighted material may be used without permission. If a work is not copyrighted, fair use does not come into play, since public-domain works can be used for any purpose without violating copyright law.
■Note: In some countries (including the United States of America), the mere creation of a work establishes copyright over it, and there is no legal requirement to register or declare copyright ownership. (Except in Trudeau’s case where he is legally required to do so according to court documents).
c) Influence internationally
While many other countries recognize similar exceptions to copyright, only the United States and Israel fully recognize the concept of fair use.[33]
While influential in some quarters, other countries often have drastically different fair use criteria to the US, and in some countries there is little or no fair use defense available. Even within Europe, rules vary greatly between countries. Some countries have the concept of fair dealing instead of fair use. However many countries have some reference to an exemption for educational use, although the extent of this exemption may vary widely.
(I live in Japan - I’ll have to have the law translated on Fair Use and Copyright for videos in the public domain and private domain, then get back to you).
(Taken from online sources.)
As much of the law in the US implies copyright on any audio or video produced, and as Fair Use is a very sketchy area at the best of times, we can assume the following:
1)I placed the video on my website under Fair Use rules as no fee for showing it is asked for, implied or wanted.
2)Kevin Trudeau could indeed claim copyright of the video, providing he has done so in accordance with the FTC requirements as discussed.
3)The information given in the video was a) NOT original and b) NOTHING the average person did not already know as common knowledge. Kevin Trudeau implied by his own words that when this video would be released, it would contain pertinent information of ‘‘something that is going to happen” on December 21st 2012. Instead, what we got was already public knowledge and again, by his own words, ‘‘speculative’’ information. This was in complete contrast to what he advertised in April 2012 and several times since.
4)His original video advertising the 2012 informational video, was in the Public Domain on YouTube - whether he or KTRN posted it, I don’t know.
5)KTRN video broadcasts are in the public domain as they are made available to everyone regardless of any affiliation, membership or simple interest in what Kevin Trudeau has to say. To claim that otherwise is false.
4)About Mark J.Lane’s letter (see ‘Notice from KTRN Lawyer’ below):
You have a ‘good faith belief’ that the posting of such is not authorized? I’m confused...either you know it’s authorized or it isn’t? Heck, if we’re going off faith then I claim the same: I have a good-faith belief that the use of these materials is authorized due to the nature of their content being in the public domain and complete bullshit, in direct contrast to Kevin Trudeau claiming to have knowledge of events that “will happen on December 21st 2012”!
Please define ‘‘exclusive rights’’ - because if you’re talking about information in either video, you’re sadly mistaken! Not one iota of the information in the videos is original or exclusive to Kevin Trudeau or GIN. Some of the information has been around over 100 years.
Now, your next piece of drivel, trying to use the Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C.squiggly bit 12(c), a) you cannot ‘demand...expeditiously’ removal or disablement of my website. You can however, all things being equal and my right to Fair Use not being denied, and if I am within my rights (which if I’m not, I will gladly comply), request removal of the videos and audios. You do not have the right to request removal of the website unless it was a copy of the GIN website, it’s entire information or system.
Furthermore, and I will finish on this point, HOW are you able to represent GIN if ALL LEGAL MATTERS ARE TO GO THROUGH THE COUNTRY OF NEVIS?
IF my web host, Namecheap. Inc requests me to remove the videos in order to comply with their Terms of Service, I will gladly do so while looking into my rights and the findings of prior court documents on any entity run by Kevin Trudeau, GIN (Fdn) or your current client KTRN.
The content in the video is appalling!! No secret information, no new information, no investment information as was originally declared there would be, and by his own words, “This information is purely speculative.!” Even a fourth-grader could have put the information Trudeau gave in the video, together, based on lessons at school!
Even if removal of the video and audios is necessary in order to comply with any RESPECTFUL requests to do so, the site of gintruth.com will continue to give the views and experiences of current and ex members of GIN alike. Any removal of the site will simply result in a renaming of it and hosting outside of the United States away from US jurisdiction.
As stated in the GIN Agreement Fig2.3 - the person seeking arbitration (as I do not agree with you on your current requests) must do so in the country of Nevis. YOUR WORDS, YOUR RULES, PLAY BY THEM!
And at around the 34 second mark in the 2012 video, KT makes it clear in his own words “This copyrighted material is protected, only really by your honesty and integrity!”
The ball is in your court - play nicely!
Saturday, June 16, 2012
GIN takes legal action in the US...wait...what happened to only being allowed to take legal action in NEVIS?
Get the latest news and views on what is REALLY happening in the Global Information Network (GIN).
Views expressed are not necessarily true but are made under the Freedom of Speech rights in ALL nations.
Views are those of contributors and not necessarily this site unless stated otherwise in the posting.
The below post has been edited to fit this blog!