Jerry Ramrattan wasn’t happy when Seemona Sumasar, a woman he raped came forward to press charges against him and so he hatched a plan to frame her for robbery, a plan that almost appeared to be ripped right from the plotlines of popular crime show Law & Order: SVU.

The 36-year-old victim told the New York Times that over the three months time Ramrattan convinced three separate shop owners to call in bogus robberies, those bogus calls eventually led police to arrest Sumasar and hold her for seven months while awaiting trial.

She says of her arrest:

“From the beginning, I said he made it up,” while adding, “I never thought my life would become a cop film.”

According to a Queens DA:

“We prosecute tens of thousands of cases each year, but in the collective memory, no one has ever seen anything like this before.”

Ramrattan is now in jail awaiting trial, he claims that Sumasar is framing him, talk about an ironic twist of fate.

Rapist Frames Victim For Robbery, Nearly Pulls Off Real Life Law & Order SVU Plot is a post from: The Inquisitr

Got kids? Then you know the clock is rapidly ticking away on the time left to wrangle slightly decent behavior out of them with the omnipresent threat of a shrinking bag of toys from Santa.

At this time of year, kids respond remarkably well to threats of fewer toys under the tree due to missteps in cleaning their room, doing their homework, or basically not bending to Mommy and Daddy’s will as the promise of Lego, dollies and new gaming consoles draws ever closer. I myself have fallen prey to the temptation on several occasions this year, knowing my kids are probably at the tail end of Santa blackmail range. “Could you get Mommy a Diet Pepsi and feed the cat? I’d hate it if anything were to happen to any of your impending swag…”

That’s why the Portable North Pole site offering a personalized video for your kids is so genius. It allows you to upload pics of your kids, some desired toys, and takes a few personalized details like favorite foods and eye/hair color, and combines them with an effective dangling carrot (if they’ve gotten along with siblings or scored good grades) with praise or a subtle hint that they’re on “naughty watch” to keep them in line for the next few days.

You can put together your kids’ videos here- it takes about fifteen minutes, but it’s definitely worth it in terms of two further days of obedience.

Portable North Pole provides adorable, personalized Santa guilt trip is a post from: The Inquisitr

In order to try and help the American economy there has been a practice in the U.S. of ‘Buy American’ and that has led into more than a few run-ins between American and Canadian bureaucrats. Canadian firms that normally would have had a good shot at securing many of the infrastructure contracts being put out by the U.S. government are being frozen out.

According to Scotty Greenwood, executive director of the Washington based Canadian American Business Council, though this could all change if Canada were to accept all the copyright changes that the U.S. entertainment industry is pushing through as part of the global ACTA trade policy that is being decided on in secret.

Although Ms. Greenwood was speaking in any ‘official’ capacity she was one several trade expert invited to speak at a day-long panel on Parliament Hill.

Ms. Greenwood told the audience that copyright protection has moved to the top of the list in the Obama administration when it comes to relations with Canada. She said the issue is repeatedly raised with Canada by U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Jacobson.

“If Canada would just do it tomorrow… Link it. Say: ‘Okay. We hear you on copyright. We wanted to do it forever. We will do it tomorrow if you a deal on Buy American,’ [Canadian ambassador to Washington] Gary Doer and David Jacobson would be shaking hands in this room tomorrow,” she said.

In April, the United States added Canada to its blacklist of countries with lax laws preventing the piracy of intellectual property.

Source: Globe and Mail

Is Canada being blackmailed into accepting U.S. led copyright reform? is a post from: The Inquisitr

As the news still continues to come out of Iran the government is trying everything it can, short of pulling the country’s Internet plug, of silencing the people. Part of that silencing unfortunately also includes people being killed. It would seem though that the Iranian forces are deciding that this could be a good time to earn some extra cash. For one Iranian family this blackmail meant having to pay a $3,000 ‘bullet fee’ – the fee charged by the Iranian forces for the bullet used to kill their son – before they could claim their son’s body.

In a post that appears on the Wall Street Journal today Farnaz Fassihi relates the story of the Alipour family and how the elder Mr. Alipour had to plead with morgue officials to have his son’s body return.

Mr. Alipour told officials that his entire possessions wouldn’t amount to $3,000, arguing they should waive the fee because he is a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war. According to relatives, morgue officials finally agreed, but demanded that the family do no funeral or burial in Tehran. Kaveh Alipour’s body was quietly transported to the city of Rasht, where there is family.

Yup an enlightened society.

In Iran the bullets killing Iranian citizens is worth $3,000 is a post from: The Inquisitr

The rules relating to copyright in the United States are fairly clear, even if you don’t necessarily agree with them. At the core of US hosted content is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a system the details the use of copyright materials online, and puts in a place a notification system in regards to copyright material. The DMCA though can and is abused, particularly in regards to material that constitutes fair use.

We’ve received a number of takedown notices (may 5-6) in the nearly twelve months since we started The Inquisitr. Some have been fine (one case was a mistake in the images posted), some have been beyond stupid, like a takedown notice we received for an embed of a file hosted on a third party site from the IFPI; we swapped it out for a YouTube embed of the EXACT same thing and never heard a thing again.

The DMCA process is fairly clear cut: the notice must detail your ownership of a work, and a demand to take down said copyright materials along with swearing that the statement is true etc. In roles before starting this site I’ve actually been involved in using the DMCA against other sites, so I’ve seen both sides.

Then there’s content owners that don’t respect fair use, who are seemingly incapable of properly using the DMCA, and instead simply use copyright threats as a sales tool for their photo collection. Like WENN photography.

We used one photo in a post recently that was said to have been taken by a tourist at the Berlin Zoo of a woman being attacked by a Polar Bear. There was zero indication of rights ownership, and was part of a larger set of shots; the same photos also circulated through the mainstream media and blogosphere, again mostly without attribution.

Then we got this delightful email from WENN threatening us with half truths…before encouraging us to become a customer:

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOTICE – WOMAN MAULED BY POLAR BEAR.

Dear ALL @ inquisitir.com

It’s been noted that inquisitir.com is has posted WENN’s photo of a Woman being Mauled by Polar Bear taken in Berlin Germany.

If you are a client – please advise – and forgive this email.
However, we haven’t been able to find you in our database.

We take Copyright Infringement VERY seriously.

Unfortunately – you cannot just take photos from other sites on the internet – especially as it has WENN.com’s credit every place you look. Companies pay for photos.

That photo is being sold for thousands of dollars.
Would you like to purchase it? You can have it for $1,500.

Please immediately respond to this email.
If you do not wish to pay for the photo – if you do not take it down immediately – and it absolutely must be down within 24 hours – our attorneys will contact you.

Rather than this terse discussion – we’d really like you to be a WENN subscriber – where you can purchase “x” number of photos monthly and/or news feeds.

Finally – if you ARE a WENN client – again apologies…and remember – we protect your interests as well with other companies who may be poaching photos after YOU pay to post them.

Please contact me.
Thank you.

Joan Teitelman
Business Development Manager
WENN-NY
646-723-0780
www.wenn.com
joan.teitelman@wenn.com

The important parts to note:
1: it wasn’t credited to WENN everywhere.
2: Actually, fair use “provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work.” This idea that one image from a set of images can’t be taken under any circumstances is wrong, and it’s WENN’s effort to deceive recipients who simply may not understand the legalities of the issue.
3: under the DMCA, a takedown notice must come in a particular form. “Our attorneys will contact you” sounds like a threat, when there can be ZERO legal action until such time the DMCA notice is issued, and even then I’d need to file a counter-notice and not take the image down before this went to court. Safe Harbor provisions in the DMCA allow that image to be removed given that we didn’t know it belonged to WENN, even if we ignore the strong potential that it was used under fair use.

I took the image down (one image of a polar bear is not worth the fight) and instead replaced it with a still from German TV footage of the exact same incident.

I responded, noting the same concerns as I’ve just ran through, and also referenced the Wikipedia page on Fair Use. Notably I also told them that this idea that I had taken the photos “especially as it has WENN.com’s credit every place you look” was false and that if she wished to state this publicly she would be hearing from my lawyers (that point is important given the response.) My response was no more terse than the threat they issued me.

Their response:

Thank you for removing WENN’s photo.
Whether a photo is taken from a WENN set or not – it is still WENN’s copyrighted property.
That a WENN photo posted on your site – unknowingly or not – without paying for it – is not a falsehood.

Furthermore – website publishers pay for those photos.
Photographers get paid when the photos get sold.
WENN protects its clients and photographers’ rights.
How would you feel if you paid for photographs and someone came along and felt they could just take them for free?

This is a business – not a free for all.
Copyright Infringement: A serious matter.

Wikipedia: Not a legal resource on Copyright Infringement.
Are you aware that Wikipedia is made up of people posting things?

Read the Copyright Infringement Law: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. U.S. Copyright Office Summary (DMCA).

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

I’m certain you weren’t unhappy your site probably enjoyed a great deal of traffic from that photo.
Needless to say on our end – there are many – many – publishers who have become WENN subscribers after they receive our note.

I thought you’d also like to know I’ve had communications with many people who also took the Polar Bear photo; nice exchanges I might add. They immediately took them down.
No need to be rude.

Trust me – we’re way too busy – working with our clients – to be running around telling people that the Inquisitor illegally posted our photo.
Fact – too busy to write this note.

Any further correspondence on this issue will immediately be sent to our attorney.

Guess they’re so use to people rolling over to their threats and becoming customers that they were taken by surprise

The most delightful part is the schooling over Wikipedia: “Are you aware that Wikipedia is made up of people posting things?” and quoting the DMCA when they never sent a DMCA notice, instead a menacing letter than finished with a sales pitch. Also note they constantly refer to photographs (plural) when we’re talking about one image.

But here’s the kicker: they admit in the response that legal threats are a standard sales tactic for WENN: “Needless to say on our end – there are many – many – publishers who have become WENN subscribers after they receive our note.”

If anyone out there is a lawyer, one thing I’d love to know: is it illegal in the United States to use coercion in this form for the sale of a good? That is: we’ll hold a gun to your head, but if you sign up as a customer, you’ll be ok? Would love to know. I also wonder if they have an office here in Australia; the site is published in the United States, but the attempt was made against me in Australia. Very tempted to head down to the local police station to ask the question.

How WENN uses copyright threats as a sales tool is a post from: The Inquisitr

Amy’s estranged husband previously told the News of the World that he didn’t want money from Amy, but a friend has revealed that he might have another agenda, claiming:

“That’s all pretence — Blake has asked Amy’s manager for £1MILLION to walk away from their marriage and not write a tell-all book about it. He’s so two-faced. He just wants a pay-off. Money’s his driving force.”

I can’t imagine what Amy could have done that would shock us, expect be really tame and enjoy embroidery while relaxing in her spotless home. Let him write it, Amy!

Amy Winehouse: Blackmailed? is a post from: The Inquisitr