Every tax is a pay cut.  Every tax cut is a pay raise.
Citizens for Limited Taxation

Liberal Fascist Uses Copyrights for Censorship
The basis for CopyRight Law can be found in the U. S. Constitution in Article I, Section 8 that itemizes the powers of the Congress.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Ever since the Framingham democratic caucus on March 8 was recorded and an excerpt of it was used to show everyone the stand that state representative Pamela Richardson took on illegals, the person who created the video recording, Norma Shulman has been on a personal jihad to eliminate the video everywhere. Another way of saying this is that this woman is getting her panties up in a tight knot.

The goal of copyright law was to ensure that creative works would continue being produced by providing an incentive to authors and creators.

This video in question has no intrinsic positive value whatsoever and has no creative value whatsover since it was merely a recording of a political caucus.

No one has made any amount of money from the video.

It does however make excellent political fodder and has tremendous negative political value.

Imagine finding a video clip of Adolf Hitler stating that he would exterminate the Jews if he became the German leader but the National Socialists would not allow us to show it because they claimed copyright infringement.

This is a classic case of liberal fascists using copyrights for the purpose of political censorship.

U.S. Copyright Law Title 17, Section 107,
Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall include—

  • the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.

  • the nature of the copyrighted work.

  • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.

  • the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Before any legal actions can be taken, the owners of the alleged copyrighted material must register their work with the Copyright office.

Owners of copyrightable material who choose to register their works with the Copyright Office will find the procedure rather simple. They must send in a properly completed application form, a filing fee, and a deposit of the work being registered - one copy for unpublished works, two for published ones.

Some works do not have to be deposited in their original form to secure registration. Proper identifying material, such as a photograph or drawing, is all that is required for certain items—particularly three-dimensional ones.

To avoid problems with any registration, it is important to send all three items to the Copyright Office at the same time and in the same package, if possible. These packages should be sent with a check or money order to:

The Register of Copyrights
Copyright Office
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C. 20559-6000

There is no requirement that applications be prepared or filed by an attorney. It is important, however, for the applicant to fill out the correct form:

  • TX for non-dramatic texts other than periodicals
  • SE for serials - serials include newspapers, magazines, journals, and other similar publications
  • PA for works of the performing arts such as music, dance, plays, motion pictures, and other audiovisual presentations
  • VA for works of the visual arts - photographs, graphics, and sculptures, to name a few, and for works of architecture
  • SR for sound recordings, and
  • RE for renewals.

Assorted links to copyright law

CopyRight Office

CopyRight Law

CopyRight 101

From: 	Norma Shulman 
To: 	Framingham Neighbors 
Subject: 	Regarding copyright infringement
Date: 	Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:15:57 -0400

For the information of Frambors readers, I would like to provide some
details on this subject, as it has become an ongoing discussion based, to
some extent, on speculation and intuition. I will attempt to respond to the
questions raised with facts learned through extensive research and legal
consultation, as I am the copyright owner of the video being discussed. I
taped the local hearing on the Democratic Platform, and the resulting
program was shown repeatedly on public access cable over a couple of months.
The program included 5 individual presentations on 5 different issues for
consideration in the state party platform that was voted on at the MA
Democratic Convention just held June 6 in Springfield, after which the video
was no longer scheduled for airing. The speakers do not own or control the

The copyright issue is a simple matter of current applicable law. The
producer of a video automatically holds the copyright to his or her work.
The actual content, or the posting of a copyright claim on the program
itself, is irrelevant. A producer of such video has the option to provide
the video for public access cablecast without relinquishing any rights of

Fair Use guidelines allow for limited and specific use of copyrighted
material. Copying an entire segment of a TV program off the air, without
prior permission, and distributing such a lengthy piece (in this case, 6
minutes and 52 seconds), is clearly a violation of copyright law and not
covered by Fair Use. If you read the extensive case law on this question,
you will see that allowed uses are only small samples of the work in
question, not entire segments.

If one believes their copyright has been infringed, there is a published
procedure to follow on all established web sites and media outlets. You
follow their official requirements and submit proper written notification of
copyright infringement. Then the site reviews the evidence and makes a
decision. If infringement is acknowledged, the site removes the
inappropriate material. In this case, every reputable web site and media
outlet (commercial TV and radio) who received an infringement notification,
removed the 6:52 segment and any other videos that contained this segment,
usually within hours of the notification. The most recent situation cited on
Frambors was a web site whose anonymous owner refused to reveal his identity
or remove the illegally distributed video. Therefore the web host
(GoDaddy.com) suspended the site until the material is removed.

Ironically, the violators of this particular copyright have chosen to
knowingly post illegally-gained video. And have refused to respond to
requests to cease this behavior for over 5 weeks. Recently, there have been
many news reports of extensive costs imposed for using other people's
copyrighted material without following fair use guidelines or gaining proper
permission. This is indicative of the seriousness of such a violation. And
yet one would think people concerned with others "illegal" behavior would
want to set an example.

The "theft" of copyrighted material has nothing to do with the first
amendment. In fact, it is the obligation of someone whose copyright has been
infringed to provide notification so that the illegal behavior does not
continue unimpeded.

I am providing this information in response to the several emails posted on
Frambors. Some of these were based on misunderstanding of copyright laws;
others used the copyright issue to promote personal political opinions and
agendas. I do hope many of you will read the information here and sort out
these differing issues.

Norma Shulman

From: 	Robert Snider 
To: 	frambors@syslang.net
Subject: 	Re: Pam Richardson and immigrants in Framingham
Date: 	Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:43:51 -0400
I am not a copyright lawyer but I  am familiar with issues of privacy. It
seems to me that if there is a video of Pam Richardson of her speaking in a
public place there is no right of privacy to the tape or to Ms. Richardson's
speaking. For instance, when you are driving down the road you have no right
of privacy to the exterior of your automobile. When it is parked at the Stop
& Shop there is no right of privacy to the interior of the automobile that
can be seen in plain view through the window. Of course, you still; have a
right of privacy in your glove compartment contents and to your trunk. If
you say something in public it is out for all purposes. If you tell
something to a friend on the telephone and it is meant just for the two of
you, an interception of that private call is a felony. In other words there
is an element of privacy that deals with your expectation of what you want
to keep private and whether or not society is willing to recognize that
expectation. For instance, you may have a right to privacy and expect to
keep your suitcase contents private but you lose that if you go to Logan and
expect to get on an airplane. I believe that neither Ms. Richardson, who ran
for office and therefore put out to the public domain all of her political
opinions, nor the person who took the video have a right to suppress the
tape on privacy grounds. The videographer did not create a movie or art; she
merely recorded a public event. The tape should be made public. If not,
everyone is free to infer that Ms. Richardson has something to hide. It is a
long established rule of law that a person who has control of evidence has a
duty to produce all of the evidence, not just part of it or suffer the
instruction and inference that the withheld evidence is damaging. 
Robert Snider, Attorney
11 Cahill Park Drive
Framingham, Ma.  01702
for telephone and fax

The copyright owner cannot collect damages for copyright infringement merely because she placed a copyright notice on a work. Copyright registration is a prerequisite to bringing a lawsuit in federal court to protect owners' rights. Registering the work with the Copyright Office also makes it easier for people to find out who owns the work and where they can reach the owner to obtain permission to use it.

To register a work one must fill out the proper form, which can be obtained from the Information and Publications Section, LM-455, Copyright Office, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20599. Send the completed registration form, the applicable fee and two complete copies of the work to the Register of Copyrights at the Library of Congress. It is also a good idea to record any transfer of ownership of the copyright with the Register of Copyrights. Registration forms and extensive copyright information are available online from the Library of Congress Web site at lcweb.loc.gov/copyright.

  1. The show with Pam Richardson at the local Democratic Caucus stating her needs to give illegals the vote has been shown cablecast exclusively on the Framingham Public Access Channel (FPAC) or webcast on www.fpac.tv. Clearly, no money has been made by the witch Norma Shulman.

  2. It is presumed that there is no attempt whatsover to use the concept of copyrights to impede free speech.

    No good standing member of FPAC would want to violate individual free speech. That would be really bad. Is this correct?

  3. How much money did Norma Shulman lose because she claimed that Harold J. Wolfe showed the video?

  4. How much money did Harold J. Wolfe make because Norma Shulman claimed Harold J. Wolfe showed the video?

  5. How many viewers viewed the video being questioned on abetterframingham.org

  6. Was Norma Shulman assigned by FPAC to make that video of Pam Richardson?

  7. Did Norma Shulman film this on behalf of FPAC?

  8. Does FPAC maintain a copy of the video of Pam Richardson speaking at the Democratic caucus hearing?

  9. What camera was used to record the video?

    Was the camera and tripod owned by FPAC or Norma Shulman?

    May I see a receipt?

  10. Where is the artistic value in your video of Pam Richardson speaking in front of the camera?

  11. Did you get a signed release consent from each member before the camera?

    May I see them?

  12. Was the democratic caucus hearing limited to invited guests?

    May I see the invitation?

    Were there any written rules or guidelines as to who was permitted in the democratic caucus hearing room?

    Could an unenrolled voter walk in and listen in?

    Could such a voter film the proceedings?

Send comments to: hjw2001@gmail.com