July 14, 2019 Remember the term "genocide" from last June's indigenous people report? It is a reminder that the law has to do its job more often. Criminal law has come a long way over the past 400 years, but Lord Hale's morbid paranoia keeps infecting civil trials with hostility and suspicion towards female witnesses. Wishful thinking codified in charters is not enough to defeat implicit biases. Only AI can do that.
If I had known that 7 years ago, I wouldn't have filed in Canada for injunctions that were requested under US law. It was at least two law firms' idea to keep me here. If I could go back, I'd sue the distributor in the US and the case would've been settled in less than a week, simply because perv emails that don't convey anything may be fun, but they do not constitute exclusive licences under US law which also expressly provides for legal fees and costs against the infringer.
Legal costs in copyright trials in the US are half a million dollars and over, that's how you dissuade BS copyright defenses. It is the only way.
In Canada, it suffices for a defendant to wave the sexual history flag for it to automatically become a "serious" defense to a copyright infringement claim, and trigger the shiny doctrine of corroboration. Nobody mentioned Lord Hale in law school, but I'm glad I finally found the guy, because for a minute I thought there is some weird sex cult going on in civil proceedings. Lord Hale saved me from such impure thoughts.
Long story short, the defense and counter-claim that were brought against me are an exact replica of Hale's admonitions about women and children in the 17th century portrayed as mentally retarded individuals, organized blackmailers motivated by jealousy and revenge.
Tragically, Hale's pro-defendant bias comes form his deep sympathy for female victims and the fact that back in the day, all crimes were punishable by death. Hale couldn't have imagined that this is what his legacy would be. You say one stupid thing in the 17th century and it turns into a genocide in the 20th.
Commercial Interest Argument by on Scribd
Credibility idol, Overestimating The Scope of Sex
96 minutes of unauthorized recordings of a vocal performance accomplished through intrusion upon the author's seclusion for the purpose of mixing sex samples into a commercial song.
According to Canadian Courts, the author's sexuality is a valid defense to copyright infringement, based on evidence of intimate emails between the parties. Stoyanova c. Les Disques Mile End, 2018 QCCA 1788
How the defense of a gratuitous, implicit license survived summary judgment in 2013. Stoyanova c. Les Disques Mile End, 2013 QCCS 5631
(A) Does the implicit licence defense to a commercial infringement claim, absent any contract, and based on the author's sexuality, constitute sexual harassment in the course of proceedings?
(B) Does a party who defends a co-defendant's infringement in judicial proceedings thereby authorize co-defendant's infringement?
(C) Is the introduction of rape myths into an IP case a valid criteria in the evaluation of infringement and privacy invasion damages?
Other than providing the best defense ever for tech giants’ privacy data commercial deals (since it is easier to "overestimate" the scope of a written contract consented to by a user, than is the scope of silence), this is the first IP case to have successfully imported rape myths as a defense to infringement damages.
There was the famous Cinar case from 2009, in which a male plaintiff alleged having felt like a “raped woman” as a result of copyright infringement and got awarded $400,000 in non-pecuniary damages + half a million in punitive. There was not a shred of evidence the male plaintiff experienced any of the classic non-pecuniary consequences of rape: trauma, humiliation, stigma, oppressive silence, fear of not being believed… not a word on these. At the same time, no raped woman in Quebec has ever been awarded more than a 100,000$ in non-pecuniary damages. In sum, sex references generally boost male credibility and impeach female credibility.
I use the terms "woman" and "female" to include all non-hetero + gender-nonconforming victims, who are subjected to these inequalities in our justice system.
How do rape myths translate into intellectual property (or selling data, if you want) :
(1) The « real rape » stereotype : not filing a complaint immediately is ground for impeachment
Translated into IP: you have to send a “lettre de mise en demeure” in the 30 days of discovery of infringement. Otherwise it is a bar to non-pecuniary damages. If something weird of sexual nature involving you and your work has been brought to your attention, remaining calm while trying to figure out how to deal with it is ground for impeachment. Unless you make a scene right away, get the whole thing on film, and immediately send "mise en demeure", you will be impeached.
In Quebec, the 3 year statute of limitations doesn’t seem to apply to women considered “unchaste”. In comparison, there is no statute of limitations for sexual misconduct, battery or assault in intimate relationships in Ontario Civpro.
(1.2) Silence = joy and consent
Translated into IP damages: you lose all right to compensation if you don’t send mise en demeure in the 30 days of damaging event
(2) Sexualizing survivors, focus on history and character of complainant as part of concerted attempt to discredit her
Translated into IP: if you ever had sex in your life, it means you are immune to pain and suffering. Forget non-pecuniary damages.
(3) Smiling = implicit consent to sex; not smiling = not feminine = hysteric Translated into IP and privacy: A woman who smiles, automatically approves non-consensual recordings that will be brought to her knowledge years later. A woman who doesn’t smile is a “crisse de folle”.
(4) Women make false allegations about rape Translated into IP and privacy: la femme qui dit NON a une « propension de déformer la réalité »
(5) Women who sue in civil suits are “greedy”. If you bring a case, you’re a shameless woman, whence the slut-shaming.
Female performers and authors are expected to work for free. Rape myths trump collective agreements. Mile End Records' case is the living proof of that. Not one judgment acknowledges that the label signed a collective agreement, expressly promising the union to pay artists and to ask for their written consent, not their forgettable ex-boyfriends' consent, but the artist's.
The first thing the Union des artistes did in 2012 when I needed an injunction is to simply throw me out of the union. I still have their ultimatum letter: "you either go back to work, or you're out of the union". I was like, dude I'm in 600 stores around the world and I'm not being paid. You want me to keep working for nothing. To them it wasn't work because their producer didn't sign a recording contract. And since they have no jurisdiction over international commerce and invasion of privacy, they barred me from ever working again in the province of Quebec.
(6) A man can consent for a woman, the burden of proof is on her to show absence of consent to every 3rd party who alleges her consent.
IP: self-explanatory and in total contradiction with s. 13, CRA The less she knows, the more she consents, the less harm she suffers. Forget about balance of probabilities in civil proceedings. Burden of proof is different for women.
Because of pervasive rape myths in civil proceedings, you will always be judged on an inflated burden of proof.
Historique des procédures en deuxième instance:
Tableau de plaido, 24 octob... by on Scribd
Cahier de sources, Cour d... by on Scribd
"mix et remix sont partis en bâteau, mix tombe à l'eau, qui reste?"