This can't be legal ?

Of course it's illegal. It does not matter where and how the copyrighted materials are found and in which form. They are infringing on the property of the respective owners. It's up to the copyrights owners to enforce their rights as they see fit and take legal action or not to seek royalties.

------------------
wiZd0m

No it's not legal.I think it's BS.

I got a mail back from the site basically telling me to fuck off because the material was obtained from the public domain. I have faxed the info to our lawyer who I am sure will contact their hosting service. I cannot believe these guys are so dumb - they have included material from Playboy.

there is no such thing as public domain,
sue them, all pics must be licenced to be legal, it's simple

Copy that post that Wizzo did here a few weeks ago. That article in it's entirety and email that to them! Might mention that they may end up public domain since the law owns you when you are in prison. lol Oh and their cellmate Bub...

What a bunch of idiots. They may make money off of it but their content is stolen copyrighted material (I'm predicting lots of subpoenas), considering all the cp in newsgroups I'm sure some found it's way onto their cd's (I'm predicting lots of police at their door) and to top it off they are going to piss off all the webmasters they come across for selling their licensed content without a license. Yet, they are e-mailing webmasters? We are not dealing with the sharpest tools in the shed. Thanks for the heads up susan. We should all be keeping an eye on these retards. If you've found your content on there, go after them with a vengence.

Susan,

If you really want to raise some hell for them notify Playboy.com

Playboy is very serious about protecting their copyrights.

Beat Ya'll to it.

Already did that two hours ago Corpsie. lol Hit 4 of their email addies with it to make sure it gets thru.

Instead of sueing them, just contact playboy and they will spend the money for you to shut their sites down...

I highly disagree, whick will win no popularity contests here, but here me out. Yes there truly is such a thing called "public domain" it is defined as any graphic, picture, or story found anywhere online without some form of copyright or watermark. I have checked into this quite a bit due to being a graphic designer by trade and dealing with corporate copyrights. A newsgroup does fall into public domain because it (in most cases) is a world wide voice. So if a picture ends up there with no alteration and visual claim, then yes anyone can use it. If you think about it it makes sense... how is someone supposed to know who posted it? Odds are it may have been the owner of the picture posting his naked girlfriend for all to see. The other option is that a hacker stole it from inside a site, but you still don't know if it has a copyright or not. Why? Because the original the dumb fuck either stole it him/herself or doesn't have enough common sense to put on text or a watermark. The future will change with all this VERY soon, so we should not worry. Law enforcement have partnered with a company and came up with software that can scan ANY picture anywhere online by it's code that makes up the picture, even if it has been morphed! Freeloaders beware! This technology will soon be available to us so to protect images. My advice.... instead of spending thousands of dollars taking someone to court, with about a 90% chance of losing, go down Staples/Business Depot and buy a $300 copy of photoshop and copyright your images! Problem solved!

ASUS, you are wrong. you do not have to explicitly have copyrights written on your work to have it copyrighted. as soon as i write a line of code it's copyrighted even without me writing a copyright statement in the source.

if you find an image in the 'public domain', or the internet, and you are not sure who owns it, then this doesn't allow you to use it. ignorance of a law isn't a defence towards it. i'm sure that any playboy pic without a copyright on it that ends up in newsgroups is STILL under copyright of playboy.

same goes with anyone who owns an image.

------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn

[This message has been edited by HQ (edited 04-01-2001).]

Alrightie Asus! So if we happen across a previously stolen car, it's ours to use since *we* didn't steal it eh???? What a great idea! Always wanted a porsche even for an evening!!

There *IS* such a thing as public domain true. But.... It only applies to photos or content in other forms that have been listed as being made public. You have to have proof of this by obtaining it either in context with the item you are using OR thru a legally approved method of licensing from the owner. In this case a copy of his/her announcing its now free to use!

Get real. Digimarc exists now and we use it on our content. We ALSO pay for their spider which can and does track our content to every site in the world. It doesn't happen much but we have busted some site owners already by simply running the spider and up pops the url's that the pics are on. *EG*

You had better go back and read the post that Wizzo did a few weeks ago as well. Also look on some reputable webmaster sites that have this info. It's 250k fine for each photo you get caught using illegally. This is also the accepted WORLD copyright law. They do NOT have to have the copyright info on them either. Thats the highest fine per pic BUT you could end up paying for allllll your life. And guess what? It's a civil court case and its really easy to win there. A content provider just whacked some one big time for theft and the precedent is there now.

For someone in your job position, you'd think that your company would have supplied you with the true and legal info on this area.

Sorry for the soapbox attitude but I hate thieves. We had a major go around with a so called big time paysite for using our content after we left their site. We won.

[This message has been edited by Gemini (edited 04-01-2001).]

BTW, I run an egroup specifically for hunting down and busting thieves of camgirlie content. We're 100-100 (round numbers) If a site owner doesn't pull the contentm then we tell the provider and THEY pull the whole site. See under the law the provider is ALSO guilty and can be co-sued for the CI offense. And guess who THEY will sue once they are done paying?? The site owner.... You get the double whammy!

Thanks,its nice to see everyone supports killing off the cheats, makes me feel good. I think this guy is in for a shock as I have mailed all the sites where a URL is shown in the pics. I don't mind when people use the odd pic here and there but no to sell them for profit this way.

I found some Playboy legal cases on the net and fuck they don't take any prisoners do they. All were claiming public domain and all lost their case because they were using Playboy material for financial gain.

[This message has been edited by Susan (edited 04-01-2001).]

See told ya I wouldn't win a contest. hehe To add a few things... First of all don't forget one thing, I'm on the sane side as every "ethical" person here. I agree when something clearly belongs to someone or has a copyright than it's completly wrong to use in any form. To answer Gemini: I am real, you are behind in technology, Digimark is old school. Digimark is helpful yes, but what's coming has not been publicly offered yet. For an example, open any picture in a text editor and you'll see what I mean. That code is at a program level is what makes a pic a pic. Digimark works in a similar fashion which can use some or all of this code to "register" the image. Two different ways. Example: If a guy goes and srews some animal takes pictures do you honesly think he's gonna digimark them? Exacly why this new technology is coming, for illegal photos. We can use it too for ourselves and take digital snapshots of own content. As far as my job position, I and other employees do file for "registered copyrights" regularly. Do you? Don't be so quick to judge someones level of intelligence when you don't know their history. I wouldn't have even made a comment here unless I was sure in what I was saying. You are ALL right about one thing... if you scrible on paper anything, drawing, design, anything at all then you DO own the copyrights to that whatever. This includes pictures too!. But, If you haven't registered it good luck proving in court who "actually" owned that picture first. Call your local Copyright agency or go down and read the booklets they provide, I think you'll be surprised. I suggest one thing for everyone here concered, go into a newsgroup (regularly) and actually take a look at the pictures, seems odd how one picture one copyright on it but yet the same picture two later has a different site name on it. The next day nothing at all! Take matters into your own hands make it yours from day one, then we won't have to compete with some freak's scam site selling our pictures!

We understand digi is older but it still works. We *do* file copyrights on everything as well. But we also have attornies that specialize in this field. Since they are in courts every day with this, we tend to listen to them. (also have a family friend that does the very same work that we also verify with on all advice)

And its simple to figure out the different URL's on content. Yuo buy the right to use it and you are allowed to toss your url on it in alot of cases. Depends on the content provider. We sell content the same way. You pay a higher price to do it but it makes it yours to use with no questions asked.

As far as proving in courts... all you have to do is show the shoot records etc and the resulting paper trail. True you may not get paid if the registered copyrights are not processed. Nice touch tho is having architectural degrees in house. Every thing we do is auto regged. From a simple scribble to a complex drawing or photo. All we have to prove is its ours and you would simple not believe the records that my old man has. He trusts no one.

I really think you need to read up on the subject tho. We do regularly so that we understand the attorney. We are licensed by the very content provider that just won that landmark lawsuit for CI and we are allowed to use their stuff unmarked, with their mark *OR* with our marks on it.

Selling ANYone elses copyright, regged or NOT will land you in court paying thru the nose. Don't you think it won't. All you need is the records. Ask Lens what he has on each and every one of those models and shoots. (Look up federal requirements on producing adult material) If you do *NOT* have the proper records you can do serious time for obscenity infractions. Last thing on it is the difference between selling that regged or unregged content for profit versus "sharing" on an egroup or newsgroup. Sell it and you are toast and Susans post is selling it with intent to profit.

Nicely put Gemini. I 100% agree if you have documentation then that person is screwed no matter how you look at it. Ask your friend this though, if you own the copyright, have registered it, making it publicly avalible and choose "not" to put your registered copyright on it you may in someway wave certain claims and/or could lose a case over it. That's what I've understood from what I've read. Anyways, I do have a question for ya. If you find a pic anywhere without a visible copyright or watermark, can you use this on a free section of a site? It's not being sold so what laws are in place then?
P.S. forgot to metion to Susan BURN HIM! hehe

------------------
peace - surf safe

ASUS
no they can't legally use it. Most graphic sites do offer what is called public domain. but in most cases they mention that little phrase for your "own private use".

even thou it may be in a free section they are enticing them to click further into their site. so the photo becomes a tool for advertising

Dp said it all Asus. Private use only. If you are using a supposed pub domain / free pic on ANY other site. Whatcha doing it for?? Usually to drive surfers to a site that will pay you to head em up and move them in to sign for a paysite. If you have ads then you are using things for personal gain. That doesn't always have to be financial gain either.

We have some content that we freely use on sites but we first got in writing a license to use them. Not pics but things like maps or whatever to enhance but no where are we advertising the same sort of thing for profit. Surprisingly some NON adult sites and owners granted us the rights by simply asking and they knew it would be on adult sites.

Howie hates attorneys but is smart enough to use them anytime we don't have something spelled out really plainly. In this case college prepped him on the CI thing. (He had a builder friend 'swipe' a class project floor plan and built a house based on it) lmao Cost the guy 20k and it never went to trial. Get caught, best advice is to grovel and offer your first born if needed, but keep it away from the judges. They will burn you in a heartbeat and you usually have to pay the plaintiffs court costs as well. (Our attorney would cost you 10-25k real quick if you went against him)

Bottom line... Its just NOT worth the effort! Let alone the costs. Lets see what Hef has to say from the mail we sent him today. lmao

[This message has been edited by Gemini (edited 04-01-2001).]

Too funny! The playboy order part is gone. Must be a spy afoot in here listening!

I'm sure their 3rd party CC processor might be interested in the fact they are selling stolen images...
Call toll free:1-877-CCNOW-77
or E-mail:[email protected]

Done (ccnow) and NSI will be looking too since they are the tech admins. lol

[This message has been edited by Gemini (edited 04-02-2001).]

Gemini

Hey thats spooky. Never thought of that. He could be watching us oops

[This message has been edited by Susan (edited 04-02-2001).]

Wow, i got a reply from Playboy:

Dear ~Corpsie~,

We appreciate the information you have sent to us in your e-mail listed
below. This matter will be investigated and we will pursue this
accordingly.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc.


"~Corpsie~" wrote:

> I wasn't sure which address to send this to.
>
> http://www.newsgroupcd.net
> is selling scans from your magazine.
>
> They are also selling copyrighted images from
> other magazines and sites (who don't have the $$
> and power to fully prosecute these people).
>
> Hopefully you found this info to be important.
> (keep me posted on what is happening, if you could)
>
> Thanks
>
> ~Corpsie~.

Bravo, Susan, Gemini & Corpsie

You dudes rock!

Yes it is spooky. We had a spy in a cammies list that was passing our business out to hotlinkers and the like.

Lets see how long it takes for the cc comp and NSI to nail them now. Playboy obviously will be pleased that their stuff is gone.

I've tried finding that Wizzo post everyone mentioned but I can't seem to see it. What was the title, was it by Wizzo?
P.S. you would be surprised at how many ghosts haunt boards like this and all over. On some boards that show hit numbers they get upwards of 20-30 thousand in a couple of days!

------------------
peace - surf safe

I also run a Celeb site but I don't sell pics, I offer a free celeb movie clip "just a small sample" and in my achive there's a huge amount of clip's. Is this also illigal to use or not? I clearly state on my site that if you like the clip you should go and buy/rent the movie! In my opinion i'm giving that movie alittle credit, don't ya think

------------------

that's really pushing the limits mark

But there's so many sites just like mine, giving away a free celeb.porn movie! Thats why I ask if I can get into shit, cause of all the sites doing it! and I mean some of these sites are all over the net, very popular and they havn't been in any shit that I no off

------------------

you guys are retarded. go sue puff daddy.

didn't you see napster's "fix". copyrights are a joke just like 911.

Ok it's nice to see people speculating about "public domain", "copyrights law", "fair use" but anyone can read it from the copyright office: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html


------------------
wiZd0m

[This message has been edited by wiZd0m (edited 04-02-2001).]

HOW LONG COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ENDURES
Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.


Where is the confusion ??

------------------
wiZd0m

Some just don't or choose to not allow others their rights if it interferes with their wallet Wizdom. Cretins and worse. Thieves at best. We should do an all out war on them. Close them down as fast as we find them.

SJ dry up eh? I've always been a pacifast female but you could aggravate murder with your nasty off the wall non allowing anyone else rights comments. Skitz you ain't an never will be.

For those that missed it the 1st time:

Here's interesting read on net copyright,

The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright

by Attorney David L. Amkraut
WARNING: The following is a summary of important information regarding the use and misuse of photos on the Internet. It is not specific legal advice. Copyright is a specialized field of law, and there are sometimes exceptions to the rules. If you have a specific copyright concern, you should consult a lawyer with expertise in copyright issues concerning the use and misuse of photos on the Internet.

AN EXCELLENT RULE OF THUMB: If you do not have specific permission (preferably written!) from the owner of a photo, you cannot legally display it on a website, post it to the Usenet, copy it, send it around by Email or other means, make photos derived from it, sell it, or otherwise exploit it.

MYTH # 1.
"I do not need to register my photos with the copyright office, because I 'automatically' have copyright at the instant I snap the shutter."

This is a serious misunderstanding of the law. Yes, you do own copyright without registration. BUT if you want to protect your photos from theft, you should register them with the Copyright Office, before you publish or distribute them. If you register your photos, you gain powerful remedies against infringers. These can include:

* Civil penalties ("damages"). The pirate is on the hook for up to $150,000 for each misused photo;

* Attorney's fees: the infringer has to pay your attorney's hourly fees and all costs such as copies, postage, filing fees, etc.

* Restraining orders, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions against the infringer, and even seizure of the pirate's computer equipment in some cases.

An important practical point is that if the photos are registered, you might find an attorney to take the case on "contingency," which means he takes the risk of gambling on a win, rather than you paying him by the hour. Faced with a lawsuit over registered images-and an injunction which would likely mean being put out of business forever-many pirates will quickly settle up and pay.

By contrast, if you did not register your photos, it is almost impossible, as a practical matter, to nail an infringer. To get any damages at all, you have to prove how much the pirate made off your particular photos, or exactly how much money the theft cost you. Either is almost impossible to prove. And you do not recover attorney's fees, so the cost of the lawsuit would far outweigh your possible recovery.

So-if you have registered your work, you are in good shape to "convince" an infringer to stop, or to successfully sue him. If you have not registered, you probably cannot do anything about pirates.

MYTH # 2.
"I got the photo off the Usenet (newsgroups) so it is in the 'Public Domain'."

The above shows a misunderstanding of the term "Public Domain." The term has the specific legal meaning that no one controls the photo; anyone can use it as he wishes. There are two ways for a photo to fall into in the public domain.

* the owner clearly gives up his rights, such as by signing a document saying, "I now give up my copyright and irrevocably place this work in the public domain." OR

* 75 Years have passed since the owner died.

When an owner posts a photo to Usenet, he does not lose his rights, any more than publishing the photo in a magazine or on his own website would. When an owner posts to Usenet, the only license he gives is for replication and transmission within the Usenet system. There have been many copyright cases involving websites which got their content from the Usenet-and courts have awarded fines in the millions of dollars against the pirates.

In addition, photos are often posted to Usenet against the owner's wishes. Eg., the many infringing copies of work owned by Playboy, Penthouse, and top photographers. Such posts are themselves violations of copyright. Obviously if the original post to Usenet was illegal-as many are-subsequent copying and misuse is equally illegal.

In short, taking photos from Usenet and using them elsewhere such as on a website is copyright infringement, and you risk the severe penalties of piracy.

MYTH # 3.
"My [website use, posting, whatever] is 'Fair Use' so I haven't violated copyright"

"Fair use" is a legal "defense" to copyright. It was created to allow use of copyright material for socially valuable purposes such as commentary, parody, news reporting, education and the like, without permission of the copyright holder. A typical instance would be a brief quotation from a book as part of a book review. Uses allowed by "Fair Use" are normally a small part of a work and include an author credit and attribution. Fair uses are generally for non-profit purposes.

Fair use is rarely allowed where the use competes directly with the work or harms its commercial value.

Most fair use situations involve text. It is difficult to imagine any situation involving the Internet where someone copying a photo could claim the fair use defense. In typical infringement activities, such as unauthorized posting to Usenet, stocking websites from Usenet trolling, scanning from Playboy magazine, or simply copying from other websites-the fair use doctrine does not apply. Because the pirate is taking 100% of the work, not acknowledging the creator, hurting the work's market value, competing directly with the creator or licensed users of the work, and for other reasons.

So if you are a photo pirate, do not even think about the fair use doctrine. In your context it is a myth. Your lawyer will laugh at you, and the judge might not have a sense of humor where thievery is concerned.

MYTH # 4.
"If it does not have a copyright notice on it, it is not copyrighted-so I can use it freely."

This myth results from past law, and misunderstandings of past law being passed along. In virtually all cases, photo copyright is valid whether or not there is a copyright notice.

A copyright notice has two main functions. First, it warns off at least a few would-be pirates that the work is not to be stolen. Second, it has some useful legal effects, because it prevents the infringer from claiming he was making an "innocent" mistake.

The copyright notice may be omitted because the owner or legitimate user does not want to deface the photo, or even because an intermediary infringer has deliberately removed the notice. (Removing a copyright notice is itself a serious legal violation.) And of course, if someone has illegally scanned and posted Playboy pictures or the like, there will not be a notice. However, the absence of a copyright notice does not change the fact that a work is copyrighted.

We are reminded of an anecdote about a thief who stole a bicycle from a public place. When caught by the owner, the thief protested, "I didn't know that it was your bike." Replied the owner, "You sure as blazes knew that it wasn't yours!"

A proper notice has the ? mark, or word "Copyright" or abbreviation "Copr."; the year, and the name of the owner. For example, if this author took and published a photo in 2000, it might be marked "? 2000 David L. Amkraut" or "Copyright 2000 David L. Amkraut" or "Copr. 2000 David L. Amkraut." You can add "All Rights Reserved" if you want-it has no real significance in the U.S. and most countries but has a bit in several 3rd world countries.

The commonly-seen parenthesis "(c)" instead of the proper copyright mark "?" has no legal significance and may invalidate the notice. So, if you do not see a copyright notice, do not assume the photo is yours to use; someone owns copyright and you have to get his permission before using it.

MYTH # 5.
"If I am not making money off the photos, I am not violating copyright."

Copyright infringement is not excused if you are doing it for some reason other than profit, such as malice or the collectivist notion that an individual's creative work "should be free for all to share." These are the typical motives of some people who post thousands of Playboy photos to newsgroups. The court may fine you more or treat you more harshly if you have a profit motive. But you can still get punished-badly-if your actions are harming the commercial value of the infringed pictures. Or if you infringed "knowingly" or "willfully." Or if the judge thinks it appropriate to "send a warning" to discourage other would-be infringers.

Violating copyright is illegal whether you do it for money, love, competitive advantage, malice, or any other reason.

MYTH # 6.
"I'll win. I have a lot of rights in court. And they can not do much to me anyhow."

Very wrong. A pirate is far more likely to be sued in civil court than to be arrested and criminally charged. As a civil defendant you have far fewer rights than in a criminal case. The Plaintiff only has to convince the judge that he is more right than you. He does not have the heavy burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in a criminal case.

A copyright Plaintiff does not have to prove much to win. He just needs to show two things: (1) Ownership of the copied work; and (2) Copying or other misuse by the Defendant. He proves the first by showing his Certificate of Registration from the copyright office. He proves the second by showing his photos and your infringing copy side-by-side. End of story.

And a copyright suit, in federal court, moves surprisingly quickly. You could be slapped with a restraining order immediately after the suit is filed, meaning an end to your infringements under threat of arrest for contempt of court. For technical reasons having to do with the copyright law and federal rules of procedure, final judgments may be reached within a few months.

Perhaps you think you can charm or fool a jury? If the facts and issues are clear-and they generally are in such cases-the judge will decide the case. You will never see a jury.

Think you can fight it? Talk to a copyright specialist attorney and think of paying by the hour for what will probably be a hopeless defense. And do not forget, Mr. Pirate, that when you lose you will also be stuck for the Plaintiff's legal fees.

Can they "do much" to you? Copyright penalties have been called "nuclear." Penalties of up to $150,000 per photo are permitted. And an injunction which, depending on your business method, may put you out of business forever, is likely.

Do not assume you can successfully defend a legitimate copyright case, especially when registered photos are concerned. As a rule of thumb, if you get caught, better try to settle cheap and quickly.

MYTH # 7.
"Copyright violation is not a crime-it is just a quarrel between two businessmen."

Wrong. Copyright violation is a crime as well as a civil wrong. Read the splash screen disclaimer at the start of any video you rent if you think otherwise. Or talk with an FBI agent. Most of the copyright cases we see are federal felonies, as well as civil law violations.

In addition to the severe civil and criminal penalties of copyright violations, the same acts leave the pirate open to additional civil and criminal charges, for wrongdoing like "unfair competition," and violation of the "No Electronic Theft" law and other statutes.

We are not saying that a pirate can expect to be arrested by FBI agents for his theft of photos. But it is a possibility, especially if the FBI responds to demands for action against Internet pirates and begins pursuing such cases more actively. And especially if the pirate is infringing on a large scale or infringing work owned by a large corporation.

------
SUMMARY

Unless you have specific permission, you can not distribute, copy, publicly display, sell, or otherwise exploit or commercially use someone else's photos.

Photos posted on newsgroups are not yours to use. They are not in the "public domain." In fact, with extremely rare exceptions, no recently-created photo is in the public domain.

The "Fair Use" doctrine almost never excuses infringement of a photograph, particularly where the infringing use is commercial or where it hurts the market for the photo.

Copyright is normally valid with or without a copyright notice.

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement regardless of the infringer's motive.

People who infringe photographs are likely to be crushed in Court, and even have their businesses closed down.

Copyright violation may be treated as a serious crime, as well as a civil wrong.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David L. Amkraut is a Los Angeles-based Attorney at law. His practice emphasizes cutting-edge Internet-related copyright matters, especially cases involving photographs. He was attorney for the Plaintiffs in Louder v. CompuServe, a class-action case involving publication of 930 photographs of models by the 2nd-largest Internet Service Provider in the world. Recently he served as counsel in KNB v. Matthews, an important case about the relationship between copyright and the "Right of Publicity." He has repeatedly obtained judgments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and represents some of the best-known glamour photographers against web sites which infringe their work.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Email: [email protected]
Fax: (818) 637-7809

Mail: Law Offices of David L. Amkraut
2272 Colorado Blvd., #1228
Los Angeles, CA 90041

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

? 2000 David L. Amkraut - All rights reserved. Permission granted to reproduce this document provided the document is reproduced in its entirety, including the information about the author and his contact information, and this copyright notice. Quotations for review, reportage, etc. are permitted as long as there is proper attribution and full contact information as follows:

"From The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright, by Los Angeles Attorney David L. Amkraut

Email: [email protected]
Fax: (818) 637-7809

Law Offices of David L. Amkraut
2272 Colorado Blvd., #1228
Los Angeles, CA 90041"



------------------
GFY RULES!