The zios are still crying about their video being taken down…. they tried so hard to ‘con the world’ and it backfired as are all of their efforts to discredit the Humanitarian Flotillas that have been heading to Gaza.

They have been crying that their video was not an infringement of Copyright Law as it was a parody. Now, the same group, Latma, is literally daring YouTube with another ‘parody’, just as vile as the one that was removed.

There ARE legal ways to upload a video on YouTube…. BUT we all know by now that zionism operates by its own set of rules…. most of which are illegal.

Warner Bros. holds the Copyright on the music used in ‘We Con The World’…. please note, anyone (Warner) submitting a DMCA takedown can only do so LEGALLY or they get in trouble!

Likewise, anyone doing a counter notification better damn well be willing to stand by their “parody”!

Latma has attorneys telling them it was parody.  Why didn’t those friggin attorneys do the LEGAL thing and file a counter notification?!!!!!!!

Why???? Because it didn’t go against THEIR set of rules.

In the new ‘Parody’ we have President Obama singing to the tune of ‘Where Do I Begin’ (from Love Story), again a song that is protected by Copyright.

So, the new game is now called Dare….. hopefully they will lose this one as well……
Here is the new ‘comedy masterpiece’ from psycho untouchable Caroline Glick…. it’s in Hebrew with English subtitles….. the song starts at 2:25, but the whole video is worth a view.


  1. Robin said,

    June 17, 2010 at 20:30

    Ms Glick is also claiming exemption because they are a non-profit. NOTE what copyright law says concerning non-profit use of copyrighted material: Performances as part of FACE to FACE teaching activity at a non-profit educational institutions are also exempt. What is a public performance? The INTERNET is included!

    1. Why should I pay for playing music in public?

    We often use the expression “they’re playing my song,” not always remembering that while we may have emotionally adopted the song, it still legally belongs to the songwriter who created it, and the music publisher who markets it. When you use other people’s property, you need to ask permission.

    2. What is a public performance?

    A public performance is one that occurs either in a public place or any place where people gather (other than a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances.) A public performance is also one that is transmitted to the public; for example, radio or television broadcasts, music-on-hold, cable television, and by the internet. Generally, those who publicly perform music obtain permission from the owner of the music or his representative. However, there are a few limited exceptions, (called “exemptions”) to this rule. Permission is not required for music played or sung as part of a worship service unless that service is transmitted beyond where it takes place (for example, a radio or television broadcast). Performances as part of face to face teaching activity at a non-profit educational institutions are also exempt.
    And how do you “pay”? You obtain a mechanical license to play the music for a PUBLIC performance be it non-profit or NOT!

    AND HERE IS THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER CONCERNING USING COPYRIGHTED MUSIC FOR A NON-PROFIT (her de-bunked defense of parody and non-profit use are her two defenses)


  2. Robin said,

    June 17, 2010 at 23:24

    An important ruling in a case claiming fair use was issued on Monday-the case of Chuck Devore who was running for office taking Don Henley’s music and putting entirely different words to it for his political campaign. Try as he might he wasn’t able to convince the court his remake was a parody of Don Henley’s two songs.

    DeVore LOST

  3. June 18, 2010 at 09:03

    […] desertpeace.wordpress.com June 17, 2010 […]

  4. June 18, 2010 at 09:47

    In Arabic, “Latma” means “hard slap on the face” 🙂

  5. Nadia said,

    June 18, 2010 at 10:58

    It is rather a very poor performance. Neither cluey nor funny.
    Can’t they come up with their own tune? Has the intellectual property also to be stolen?

  6. Lokis said,

    June 18, 2010 at 15:29

    how about a song like the “I won’t play Sun City” for this part of the world ?- very effective in helping bring down one aparthied regime.

  7. Robin said,

    June 18, 2010 at 19:12

    The Net Act

    Changes to the copyright act extended to include those not profiting from copyright infringement:

    Let’s break it down:

    DOJ logo The No Electronic Theft (“NET”) Act *Summary of Changes to the Criminal Copyright and Trademark Laws* ———————————————————————— On Tuesday, December 16, 1997, the President signed into law H.R. 2265, the “No Electronic Theft (NET)” Act. The Act was passed unanimously by both houses of Congress (143 Cong. Rec. S12689 and 143 Cong. Rec. H9883-01). The NET Act strengthens the copyright and trademark laws, providing enhanced protection in the digital age in a careful and balanced manner. The criminal copyright and trademark provisions in titles 17 and 18 of the U.S. Code are amended to: * Permit the Department to prosecute individuals under misdemeanor or felony provisions^(1) in cases involving large-scale illegal reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works where the infringers act willfully but without a discernible profit motive, bridging the gap in statutory protection discussed in _U.S. v. LaMacchia_, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994);

    (Me: rather than filing the counter notification to the DMCA take down notice, Carolyn Glick rallied the troops to re-upload it, stating “they don’t know what kind of Jews they are messing with”)

    * Exempt from criminal prosecution reproduction or distribution that is not done “willfully” or that constitutes small-scale non-commercial copying (copyrighted works with a total retail value of less than $1,000); * Clarify that “willful” infringement must consist of evidence of more than the mere intentional reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works; *

    (Me: Carolyn Glick encouraged as many people as possible to up-load it, and it had already been seen over 2 million times)

    Define “financial gain” in the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) to include the “receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works,” to ensure that persons who illegally traffic in copyrighted works by using barter rather than cash are covered by the statute; *

    Clarify that “reproduction or distribution” includes by electronic as well as tangible means; * Extend the statute of limitations from three to five years, making the criminal copyright statute consistent with most other criminal statutes; * Establish a recidivist provision which raises penalties for second or subsequent felony copyright offenses;

    (ME) See that? Punishable by prison time. Also up to $250,000 in fines.

    This is her definitive ILLEGAL act, Latma did not follow LEGAL procedure upon receipt of the DMCA take down. She then committed further willful acts in rallying the troops to upload it as much as possible.

%d bloggers like this: