Welcome to Digital Assets News. Take a top story using cryptocurrency digital assets, and bring them down to bite-sized pieces. Today we've got some pretty interesting stuff. First up, Bitcoin price will bolt higher if Biden wins. Rise slower with Trump, says Max Kaiser. If you don't know Max Kaiser, he's a pretty outgoing type of guy, big Trump supporter, so it's kind of surprising what he's talking about here. But in all honesty, what he's going to say right now, nobody's going to like. Also, Voyager Digital buys European crypto exchange focused on institutional investors. And what this says to me is that Voyager wants to branch out to the European market. And on the heels of the fantastic news of PayPal offering to buy, sell, and trade cryptocurrencies of four projects, which XRP was not one, Ripple executive explains why PayPal is excluding XRP from new crypto business, which is going to lead us into one of the most depressing stories I've seen in a long time. US moves to cast a wider net for catching money launderers, crypto, or otherwise. And even though I think we need a little regulation, this is going way, way, way overboard. Before we get into that, let's take a look at what's going on the market. So today it is Saturday, October 24th, and things are looking pretty good. It is 4 p.m. Texas time, and Bitcoin is still holding strong above 13K. And we're at 13,000. So it's doing its thing. And I'm actually pretty surprised and cautiously optimistic about what could happen in the future. So we're up 1.3% for 24 hours, 15, almost 16% for a one week charge. So that is great news. Ethereum up 0.4%, the 410, hopefully we can get to that 425, maybe even 450, up 12% for seven days. Tether's tether, XRP tied to the quarter, 25 cents, not too bad though. Hey, it's staying strong, it's staying stable. That's great.  Maybe we should call Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, and Litecoin the new PayPal mafia. Anyhow, Chainlink, Chainlink's up almost $13. That is massive, 20% for the week, so pretty darn good. Let's just be honest, everything's up. Everything's great. Great stories, great news. Everybody's happy. Dancing in the streets is fantastic. Let's see if there's any real losers out there. NEM 1.4. Look, if negative 1.4 is the worst we get, still a pretty great day. And that's, well, 2.3 for Ave. Hey, what are you going to do? 0.2, 1.2, this is a great weekend.  Especially on a Saturday, if this holds through Sunday, we're going to see some pretty big numbers because Sunday usually when everything just takes a little bit of it, a little bit or a big of a dip. So we will find out. Anyhow, that's going to market, so I'm pretty happy. Let's jump into today's top stories. So first up, if you don't know Max Kaiser, he is a pretty outgoing guy, big Bitcoin maximalist, everything else is trash, that kind of person, which, you know, hey, good for him. But he sat down with the Cointelegraph and just had a little frank discussion, as he usually does. And some of the things he says are, they're pretty entertaining, I must admit. So he first talks about Paul Tudor Jones. I'm not going to get into that because everybody's talking about how Paul Tudor Jones says Bitcoin's great. It's like investing into Amazon or Apple at the very beginning. No, that's not, that's not a big story. This is interesting. And he's got a great point. So they asked him, were you surprised the news that PayPal is entering the Bitcoin and crypto space? And he says, no, PayPal, like all companies, came to the realization faster than others that Bitcoin is an existential threat to their business and to ignore it would mean going out of business. So I have to think back and really mull that over. Do you think that businesses will go completely out of business if they don't adopt Bitcoin? I don't know if it's that far, but I will say this, any kind of financial institution, any kind of bank, any kind of payment processor, if they don't adopt Bitcoin, I mean, or cryptocurrency assets, they're really risking themselves to really fall by the wayside with innovation happening all around it. Look, nobody wants to be blockbuster. That is amazing. Blockbuster just became a verb because of what had happened to it, as it could have actually bought Netflix when it was coming up. They didn't. And now there's like one blockbuster in Alaska or something. So in all honesty, I think right here, he's totally correct. And we'll see how it all plays out in the future. Moving down, he talks about, and before I talk about this one, let me just preface it with, he didn't talk about Peter Schiff. Peter Schiff is a huge gold bug. He hates Bitcoin. At least he says that.  So why would you say that Bitcoin's awesome if you're selling gold? So the problem with Schiff here is that he did something a little goofy allegedly. Allegedly. He opened up a bank in Costa Rica and he's under investigation by the United States for money laundering and bypassing a bunch of different laws with this bank. So it will remain to be seen what happens, but if he is proving guilty, that would be enormous. And again, it is allegedly, I'm not here to dance on anybody's grave prematurely, but it is what it is. So Max gets asked about this particular topic. They say, in June, you saw that Peter Schiff would buy Bitcoin at 50,000. Is the price still the same? And he writes back or says back, yes, I predict that the combination of his business failing plus his legal fees will force him to finally succumb to reality and will come to Bitcoin with his tail between his legs, begging forgiveness and the timing will be around Bitcoin 50,000. So I mean, no one wants to dance on anybody's grave and kick them while they're down, but Max has no problem with doing that. And again, it's all allegedly, so we'll see how it all plays out. But that was, that was quite the rub. Moving on, he states, the questions asked Goldbug say that gold will win regardless of who wins the US election. Who do you think is best for Bitcoin, Biden or Trump? How do you expect Bitcoin will react the election results next month? So before I read it, I'm just going to tell you right now that nobody, nobody on the left, the right of the middle is going to like this answer because it's just, it's just a loaded answer. And it's actually pretty funny. So Max says, a Biden win means a win for corruption in the deep state. So I would expect Bitcoin's price to bolt higher as people panic by unconfiscatable Bitcoin before Biden's socialist jackbooted thugs start confiscating everything and a replay of 1938 crystal knot.  And then he comes back, it's like, well, he, he might be good for crypto, but he's bad for everything else. And then he says, you know, it goes, but with Trump, the US has a chance at a more orderly tradition. To Bitcoins, the price would move up more slowly. And then, you know, since you're in the space, you're like, well, I don't want that to happen either. So it kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. And again, this, this channel is not political. There's a ton of other channels you can go to, to go find politics. I mean, it's all running rampant. I'm just going to say this, I will probably just vote for Brock Pierce for president as he is running for the president of the United States. The owner of Brock Pierce, he's been involved, Cryptocurrency quite some time.  So I like that. So again, this is just a Cryptocurrency digital asset channel. Let's not go into politics. We know where the space is going, right? It doesn't really matter which president really gets elected, which senator comes in or congressman or judge or whatever else. Cryptocurrency digital assets are going to dominate over the next couple of years. And we are in the right place at the right time. And I think we can all rally around that. So moving on, he states that Michael Saylor, or the question is Michael Saylor said that he bought Bitcoin to protect cash reserves from melting like an ice cube. Do you think Google, Amazon, et cetera, will make similar realizations? And Max gives a pretty thought out answer. It's great. He says, yes, the inflation genius out of the bottle and cash is trash. But the important thing here is that Michael Saylor went against the prevailing wisdom of buying back his own stock, a move that takes advantage of a reckless money printing Fed and instead essentially goes to war with the Fed by embracing Bitcoin, an asset hard-coded to destroy the Fed. And you know, if you really think about that, that is the big thing. So whether you have fiscal policy, monetary policy, the Fed is doing it all. And they have a lot of power that they are wielding right now. And once you have power, it is hard to give that power back. So don't expect this to be a nice smooth transition from the Fed to cryptocurrency assets. Expect this to take a long time. Expect it to be very bumpy. Expect it to be very dirty. But in the end, I think we're on the right side. And I will say this, and this is an article that I had referenced before. It's from a website called Bitcoin Treasuries. And when he talks about that these other publicly traded companies or just corporations or entities in general, are going to look at Bitcoin a little bit differently. I mean, look at what's happening. I mean, Michael Saylor was the first one for Michael's strategy. He really was. And they bought a massive amount of Bitcoin and they bought 425 million. Well, today, that value is 500 million. So they made a cool 75 million. And how long? How long has it been? Three weeks? I can't remember. Three weeks, four weeks? Something like that. So that's pretty good. And all these other companies that are sitting on their fiat, their treasury, they're probably thinking to themselves, hmm, maybe this isn't as unstable as we thought it was. I'm going to tell you right now, Michael Saylor is going to go down as a visionary because he's going to be the first one to do it successfully. Nobody wants to be first, but nobody wants to be last. And you got all the other companies like Galaxy Digital, Mike Novigrad. I mean, they bought at 134. And now it's worth 217 square. They made a cool 11 million over what, a couple of weeks. And everybody's up. So congratulations to all those guys. I mean, fantastic. This is actually, you know, showing the light to everybody else. Stone Ridge, the latest one, they put 115 million in and well, they have 27, 28 somewhere. They're up a lot. They're up like 27 million dollars. And that's in like two weeks. So you can't beat those kinds of returns. Good luck finding that in the traditional market. So these companies are looking from the outside end and they're going to say, you know what, we need to get in on that. Anyhow, let me know what you think of the comment section. Let's move on. Next up, this was huge. Voyager Digital buys European crypto exchange focused on institutional investors. And this is what a company needs to do, make big moves. And I am very happy Voyager is doing these types of things. So what's going on? Well, crypto asset broker Voyager Digital is buying LGO markets, a French crypto exchange focused on corporate investors. The two firms will merge under one brand Voyager and the two separate tokens, VGX and LGO will also merge. The deal grants Voyager, a Canadian securities exchange listed firm. I didn't know they were in Canada. That's interesting. Access to the European retail market through LGO's virtual asset service provider license held with the French financial regulator. So they are converging North America and European. And what this says to me is that Voyager wants to reach out to a lot of new customers. And this is the best way they could do it. Just like with PayPal when they bought Bitco or excuse me, they haven't bought Bitco yet, but they're under heavy negotiations. I think it'll happen. They need the custodian services. We talked about this yesterday. And instead of them just creating it from scratch, they're like, you know what, a lot of money be made. We need to start moving quickly because we were dragging our feet before let's just buy a company. That's what they're going to do. And the same thing's happening over here with Voyager. So congratulations to them as this goes through. This is going to be massive, massive just to reach out to a whole new spectrum of customers. Anyhow, to complete the acquisition, Voyager will issue one million shares, whose value in part determine the ultimate deal price. So are they going to issue these shares and whatever that price comes to, it's going to probably balloon up the actual price of what is being transacted. The other part will depend on the value of the merged in house crypto token. Because remember, they're going to combine LGO and VGX to their governance token. Now this, according to reports, will feature decentralized finance functions. Let me say that again, DeFi functions such as community governance and staking at initial interest rate of 7%. So can you imagine they have a pretty stable coin like Voyager and then get 7% on top of that just to hold it. So I don't know. Well, here, let's just take a look real quick. So Voyager, it's at 16 cents right now. It's up eight, which makes total sense, right? It's up 8.4%. So you can buy, I don't know, maybe you want to buy 10 of them. Maybe you're feeling lucky. You're like, you know what, I got a buck 60. I'm going to put it, you know what I mean. Let's say you put in 10,000. I don't know how much you got. And then just, it goes up, I don't know, 2X, 5X, 10X. I have no idea because the bull runs coming. And then you're going to get 7% on top of that APY. So that's a pretty good deal. I must tell you. And it makes me take a real hard look at Voyager token to see back to the story. And this is where it gets a little wonky. It states that shares of Voyager fell 2.3% to 0.56 Canadian dollars or 43 cents in CSE trading Friday. The stock is down. It doesn't make sense. The stock is down more than 16% since the news, the acquisition broke out on October 21st. Voyager has a market value of 36 million. So I didn't take a look at it. I'm like, why would the stock price go down during a merger and acquisition? That doesn't make any sense. So I take a look at it. And here is Voyager Digital. Here's their marker. And looking at October 19th, 19th. Here's the 20th. It was at 43 cents for some reason. Then a spiked up to 53, October 20th. And it was pretty flat, a little bit of a dip here to 48. But then as time has gone on, 57, now 60. And then the closing was at 62 cents. So this makes more sense. So maybe initially there was something else going on, but right now it looks pretty pretty strong.  So that's just one thing. And then later on, in the next sentence, it states, Voyager CEO Hugo Renaden was quoted as saying, I was like, wait, what? The CEO? Steve. And I had him on this week on Digital Asset News. So I don't know who Hugo in. I had to look him up. So Voyager CEO Hugo Renaden, I took a look. And now it makes more sense. They just kind of flipped it around. We all make mistakes, right? Even me. Even me. I make a ton of mistakes. Hugo Renaden is the co-founder and CEO at LGO Group. Okay. So got that. So I don't know who wrote this article. Maybe Danish. Danish. I'm just getting Danish. But this is what the LGO CEO states. He states, European clients will be able to access the Voyager app using the LGO regulatory setup. In Europe, and both LGO and VGX tokens will be merged into a new token. So that's massive. I don't know if that's going to affect VGX. It was going to be like VGX new, like Ave is, or how it's all going to work. But I'm going to be giving everybody updates as this comes about. So this should be good. He added that the new token will have more utility to the benefit of token holders in US, Europe and elsewhere. So when I took a look at this, the one thing I could think of was like, this is kind of like Binance. I mean, Binance does all these things, right? They start to do mergers and acquisitions. They start to give out there, or put out the Binance coin, get into decentralized finance, do a lot of different things, even leverage trading, which I'm not a big fan of. So when I see Voyager making moves like this, I'm like, that's what a company is supposed to do.  And I gotta tell you, that makes me pretty bullish on Voyager. So let me know what you think in the comment section. Let's move on to our last stories. Next up, this is good. This is a good one because this is a question that I had myself, which was Ripple Executive, Brad, explains why PayPal is excluding XRP from new crypto business. And this was the question, when I took a look at PayPal and they said, hey, we're going to do Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum and Litecoin. Like, why not XRP? Seriously, it's pretty good. It's super fast. I don't know if you've ever used it, but it is really fast. It's way faster than Bitcoin is. I'll tell you that right now. So this kind of breaks into what the heck happened. This first sentence is what I talked about. PayPal is going for those four cryptos. But then Brad tells Bloomberg, he thinks PayPal probably made the decision because the payments giant felt safest with those assets from a regulatory perspective. And he elaborates. PayPal, I think, has said they plan to go live with Bitcoin and Ether. And part of that goes back to the regulatory clarity. If you're a company looking at investing, investing in or building upon a technology like XRP or like other digital assets, if there's not regulatory clarity, then you're likely to go with the other ones that are clear. And he goes on and says others in the marketplace say, I'm going to start with Bitcoin and Ether because they have good housekeeping seal of approval in the US. But that made me think about it. I was like, well, Bitcoin, yes, Ethereum, yes, the CFTC and the SEC kind of alluded to that, that we're not going to classify these as securities because of the decentralized nature. I'm not going to get into that. We've done that a hundred times on this channel. And it really all comes down to decentralization. So you have Bitcoin and Ethereum, so Bitcoin cash, okay, kind of under the umbrella, but Litecoin, has anybody said anything about Litecoin that it's not a security that they wouldn't classify as a security? If you know something, please put it in the comment section. And because I haven't seen anything about that anywhere. So the question then is, what Brad is saying is because they pick these, well, why they pick Litecoin? And why didn't they pick XRP? I think there is another reason for it. I'd love to hear your opinions. I'd love to hear your opinions. Everybody's got an opinion on XRP. That is for sure. So just to elaborate a little bit, the whole thing with decentralization, that was the crackdown part for EOS getting cracked down on by the SEC. This was in 2019. And it's kind of interesting because EOS went through a one-year ICO. Essentially, that's what it was. I know because I bought EOS during that time. And they weren't on the main net. Once they got on the main net, then everything switched over and it wasn't really like an ICO. But the thing was is that the SEC said, hey, during that time, when you guys weren't decentralized and you were doing that ICO, you owe us money. And they busted them hard. They said, hey, pay us 24 million. And of course, EOS was like, well, we made 4.1 billion. So all right, here's your money. And that's pretty much what happened. And then now that it's on the main net and it's considered decentralized, even though blockchain producers, there's like 20 or 21 or something crazy low like that, they say it's still decentralized. So sure. So really, it all comes down to is are you or do you have a decentralized main net? And how is that working out for you so we don't bust you as a security? Anyhow, moving on. And of course, that is just one factor. I'm sure there's others I don't know come on in the government on the SEC. Later on it states, in addition, Garlinghouse says he thinks the fact that PayPal won't allow users to move their crypto assets to other wallets is a misstep. And that's true. Everybody, everybody in the crypto sphere says the same thing. This is awful. They can't do that. This is just the worst thing ever. And of course, they are right. I mean, it is true. It is pretty bad that you can't take it off PayPal. But me personally, and I'm the only one I think I could care less because here's the thing. Yes, people like us, you listening to this video, you know the whole story behind crypto and digital assets and why it's important to have your personal private keys, not your keys, not your coins, right? However, the people that are coming in, they don't care about that. They don't know about that. They look at Bitcoin, Bitcoin, cash, Ethereum and Litecoin as like another stock to buy because they know it's going to go up and it's going to go up massively. So they don't care about the keys. Now later on, they're going to figure it all out, right? But right now to get mass adoption, this is what we need to really get the ball rolling. I know it's not a popular opinion, and I'm sure in the comment section people will crucify me, but it is what it is. And me and you aren't going to go to PayPal to get our crypto. We're going to stick at the same exchanges. We're going to put on an anal ledger and we're going to keep our private keys private. However, for the other people, the parents, the grandparents, the new people haven't really gotten into it, which is like most everybody in the world. They need something like this just to get their feet wet and because they need a gateway exchange to really figure it all out. Like I said, Bitcoin to me is just gateway crypto. Like it's a gateway drug to the other side of cryptocurrency assets, but only time will tell. Now later on, they'll, some of them will figure out. They'll come to this channel or other channels like this. They'll go to websites. They'll really research and understand. They'll get the whole point of censorship, resistance, quantitative easing versus quantitative hardening, the decentralized nature, the transparency and how it all works together in the global economy. They'll get that later, but not all of them. And they don't have to. The ones that want to figure it out will figure it out. Anyhow, finishing up. Ripple has floated the idea of moving its headquarters out of the US to what Garling House sees as a guessing game of regulations in the US that creates an uneven playing field and two things. First of all, they've already talked about Great Britain or London, because they said that they've already given them regulatory clarity over there, at least they've hinted at it. So it looks like they're going to move over to London. And second of all, all this things about regulations, this leads me to our last article, which is really awful. So the US moving to cast a wider net for launderers, crypto, same thing, right? But this is bad. The Federal Reserve, the US central bank published a proposed, it's a proposed rule, change Friday, asking about the recording requirements for money transfers involving virtual currencies and fiat. So what's going on? According to the rule change proposal, which I'm pretty sure is going to go through, the Fed and the Finance Crimes Enforcement Network or FinCEN proposed modifying the thresholds at which banks must collect and store fund transfer information. Check this out, reducing it from 3000 to 250. Let me say that again, they're going to reduce the amount that the banks must collect and pretty much report suspicious activity from 3000 to 250. I always thought it was 10,000. Now I'm reading this on my 3000. That's pretty low. Now I'm looking at this like, what, 250? So $250, they're going to flag it. Really, that's what's going to happen. And this is for any transfers that go outside the US. The proposal would also widen the agency's definition of money to explicitly include cryptocurrency. So again, if you're new to the channel, I will just tell you my whole thing and that is that I believe that we should have some regulation. I am not a chaos guy. I'm not just like, let it all hang out and just see what happens. That's just not what I meant. A lot of it comes to working with the elderly. I was in the healthcare for 15 years. I've seen a lot of the elderly population get ripped off from different scams. I mean, everything under the sun, that's why I was so big about getting rid of these scams and scam the day and things like that. When I see people getting scammed, especially the elderly, they're not, they don't have time to work that all back. If they lose their entire life savings, this shouldn't have happened. Of course, we can do education and everything else, but it's great to have somebody to be that type of protector. Now, here's the flip side. Sometimes you have regulation. It's like a slice of cake. Rooks out great. Have a couple bites. Everybody's happy. I feel full going to bed. The problem with regulation is you get too much regulation because you just go overboard. That's the person that eats the whole pie or the whole cake and it just messes up everything, destroys your whole night too. For regulation, this is the essential example of eating two cakes in one helping.  There's no reason why this should be done. However, I could be wrong. Let me know what you think in the comment section. That is it for today's video. First, I want to say thanks for sticking with me all the way to the end. I really appreciate it. Also, if you didn't know, I've got a second channel. It's called Dan Clips. I did it for two reasons. First of all, time is money. Some of these videos go a little bit too long, so I break them up into clips. If you're having a very shortened day, got too much going on, head over to Dan Clips because everything we talk about here is going to be segmented into bite-sized clips. The second reason I did it was because, hey, YouTube could shut down this channel anytime. They seem to have done it and they do it a lot. I just think that they back up, essentially. You can always find the second channel in the description of all my videos. Link looks just like this. If you check that out, that would help me out tremendously. I really appreciate it. Again, that's it. Thanks for watching. If you like these videos, there'll be two more that's going to pop up on your left and right. I'll let PayPal do their magic. That is all. Enjoy your weekend. See you on the next one.


Today, one in every seven of us is a migrant. People migrate for different reasons. Some move in search of better opportunities. Others may flee from conflict, natural disaster, or violence. Similarly, one may feel the need to return home, triggered by a desire to reunite with family, by change conditions in either host and transit countries or countries of origin, or by the lack of legal status or work opportunities. Going back home can be a difficult decision. Returning often means finding a job, adjusting to a new lifestyle, reconnecting with family and friends, and making plans for the future. Since 1979, IOM, the UN Migration Agency, has helped over one and a half million people return to their countries of origin through its assisted voluntary return and reintegration programs, commonly known as AVRR. In the last decade, the number of people benefiting from AVRR has increased due to growing global migration flows. AVRR is an essential component of migration governance, as the aspirations of migrants, the needs of communities, and the concerns of governments are all at stake. But how does this translate into practice? AVRR programs provide administrative, logistical, and financial support to migrants who decide to return home, but lack the means to do so. This includes individualized counseling with IOM or its partners, and is often complemented by reintegration assistance to help beneficiaries rebuild their lives within the communities to which they return. Tailored assistance is provided to migrants in vulnerable situations throughout their return and reintegration process. Such assistance may include family tracing for unaccompanied migrant children, risk assessment for victims of trafficking, or planning for health-related needs during the journey. Voluntaryness is key for the preparation of the return, thereby contributing to the sustainability of reintegration. It is important for migrants to understand how AVRR works and know their options to make an informed decision. IOM's counselors and qualified partners accompany migrants throughout this process, and beneficiaries can change their mind at any time until departure. Depending on the parameters of each AVRR program, IOM can take care of travel preparations from arranging all necessary documents and booking tickets to helping migrants embark on the scheduled day of departure. Returnees usually travel on regular commercial flights or buses just like any other passenger and can be assisted while in transit. Whenever needed, operational or medical escorts may also be organized. Reintegration assistance is paramount to support returnees' economic self-sufficiency, social stability within their communities, and psychosocial well-being. However, there is no one-size-fits-all model. Reintegration assistance depends on the needs of beneficiaries, the specificity of each program, and the available resources, among other factors. Returnees can receive support to set up income-generating activities, access basic services, or reestablish ties with their families and friends. Continued follow-up with migrants plays an important role in assessing both successes and challenges, which in turn helps IOM and its partners adjust future AVRR interventions. Today, IOM's vast network of offices implement AVRR programs in over 170 countries and territories through the mobilization of committed personnel. To maximize the impact of AVRR programs, IOM cooperates and facilitates dialogue with a wide range of actors worldwide, including governmental stakeholders, international organizations, migrant associations, NGOs, and the private sector to promote rights-based and dignified solutions for the benefit of all.


How many numbers are there? How about strings or images? All of the types of data you've seen so far have infinite variations, which allows for a lot of variety in your programs. But sometimes you just need a simple yes or no, true or false, and there's actually a type just for that. A boolean is a type of data that can only have one of two possible values, true or false. That makes them really well suited to answer simple true or false questions for our program, such as 3 is less than 4, which we could speak as is 3 less than 4. The value that returns is true since 3 is less than 4. Booleans are useful for comparing things. We can ask if one number is less than another, if two strings are equal, and so on. Equal functions like less than, greater than, and equal all take two numbers as their domain and produce a boolean as their range by comparing the two numbers. Sometimes we want to compare values in more complex ways. For example, asking if a player's x coordinate is greater than zero and less than 100, or if a string equals up or down. And even if a number is not 42, these blocks and or and not allow us to modify and combine booleans to answer more complex and interesting logical questions. In this stage, you'll need to write boolean functions to make sure that the sprites in a game follow the rules that you set out for them, such as not going off the side of the screen. Thanks for watching. Bye.


It counts every single particle present in the air sample using a highly accurate laser beam. It is capable of monitoring particulates of various sizes, ranging from 1 micron to 100 microns.


How can learners sign up to my courses? For learners who access your courses and study in them, they must first have an account on your Moodle site. See our videos on authentication for more information on how to set this up. This video explains how learners can enroll themselves into your courses. For details on how they can be automatically enrolled into courses, watch our other videos on course enrolment. Go into the course where you want learners to self-enroll. Click the Participants link on the left in what Moodle calls the Navigation or NavDraw. Click the gear icon top right across from the word Participants. Then click Enrollment methods. Open the eye of self-enrollment. If you don't see self-enrollment, find Manage Enrolled Plugins from Site Administration and check it has its eye opened there. Learners will now be able to click onto this course and enroll themselves. However, there are more options if you click the gear icon next to this enrolment method. An enrolment key means they will have to add a special word or phrase before they can access the course. You'll need to tell them this in advance. You can also use group enrolment keys so learners can enroll themselves into specific groups with the appropriate key. You'll still need a course enrolment key, but it doesn't matter what you use. See the documentation on group enrolment keys for how to do this. Amongst the other settings, it's worth noting that you can set a maximum number of users who can self-enroll. This can keep your class numbers down if you have a limit. You can also add a special welcome message for learners who enroll themselves into your course. When a learner accesses your course for the first time, this is what they'll see. And note, this course also has an enrolment key so it's restricted to those who know the key. To summarise, for learners to access your courses, they need to have an account on the site. Enabling self-enrolment in the course will allow them to enroll themselves into your course. You can also set enrolment keys, a personalised welcome message and other options.


creating specifications for the phone so that they cannot be used on any other network and that's not before us here. I understand that but it does show a tendency or practice of the largest carriers to exclude competitive opportunities from all of the carriers. Unlocking of handsets of the iconic devices that carriers, the largest carriers have exclusive rights to continues to be a difficulty to create a difficulty for small carriers getting access to those devices even if they weren't to purchase them from the OEMs. So at least we know that that is not a policy of AT&T to unlock their exclusive handsets that I'm aware of. There's also some iPads that you could say that are locked and cannot operate on another network. I think the reason for that may be more howler design technically on purpose than just this mere unlocking process but again the largest carriers have shown a great propensity to ensure that their unique devices are in fact not available to other for other competitive carriers to utilize. And on T-Mobile itself I understand T-Mobile does value the benefit I think there's over 1.2 million unlocked devices on the T-Mobile network now. And as of the time that we filed our appointment, even if you purchased an unlocked iPhone 4S directly from Apple, it still would only be unlocked for GSM networks and not for. So I mean unless that's changed in the past few months, although the phone has the hardware capability to connect to both GSM networks and CME networks, it's my understanding that if you purchase a phone unlocked from the Apple Store, it's not fully unlocked. Alright, let's move on to another topic. One of the basic things one has to address in this rulemaking is whether the use in question is a non-intriging use. I may have, Mr. Bruce, but I don't think I identified anything in your comments pointing out to any of the desired uses that the proponents are suggesting are the driving force behind this request for an exemption. And any of the uses are infringing, but I may have missed it, so here's your opportunity to tell me how what they want to do with results in accident infringement. Sure. When you turn on a cell phone, you typically need to copy significant chunks, not all of the operating system into RAM, and that is making a copy. And the making of that copy, putting aside the issue over section 117, which we cannot discuss separately, but the making of that copy has uniformly been held within the scope of the rights of the copyright owner. And the agreements that are in the record typically limit, and I can expand on those with respect to those that aren't in the record, typically limit the authorization that's granted by the licenses to the use of the software human connection with the carrier's service so that making a reproduction of that software is infringing. Did we argue that explicitly in our comments? No, because none of the proponents in their opening case made the argument that that wasn't infringing. I saw other arguments made with responding to the arguments where they haven't heard the proof. We can certainly, and I'm making that point now, and it's consistent with what we have in our comments where we take the position that the uses are infringing uses, but it does come from the reproduction of the operating system into the RAM of the phone. Okay, let's turn to that bit. 117 is obviously another issue, and it was just one of you on how it works probably different from yours, but without getting into that and making it into it later, Is it your position that apart from section 117, the act of turning on your cell phone and loading the operating system when you are using it with a network other than the network that your license permits you to use it on? Is there is not an infringing act? It's our position that that is a not infringing act, in large part because we believe that the terms of the software license agreement that would prohibit a user from turning on the cell phone that he or she has purchased has lawfully purchased with the software already installed on it after connecting to the other network would be an unenforcable term due to the fact that it's a non-competitive term in stymles competition, and really I can't imagine. Okay, so, and I assume you're, I believe you're also relying on section 117, correct? Okay, so 117 copyright misuse, are those the only two reasons why you would say that that use is not infringing? Well, we also, so my understanding is that you're, you're discussing now after the software has already been altered just from our own. I don't think Bruce is talking about alteration, although we certainly understand that's one scenario. Well, sorry, we're talking over each other, so why don't you, why don't you repeat what you said so the reporter gets it all and then I'll, I'll respond. Sorry, so the other, the other portion of our argument about why unlocking a phone and using it to connect to an infringing abuse is because the, the re-flashing a phone and injecting a particular, I'm sorry, I'm not a technologist and it's difficult for me to talk about these issues. But overwriting some of the variables that the software uses to connect to a carrier's network with different variables to enable it to connect to another carrier's network are alterations if you'd like to comment on that, but do not rise to the level of constituting a derivative work. So the derivative, we believe that the derivative work right is not, is not infringed and we believe that the reaction right is not infringed higher. So you're saying when you flash, you clear out all those variables in the blank slate and then you impose your own variables by when you switch to the network with a new kind of system to use that phone. Yes, and that those variables themselves are unprotectable elements. Okay, we've gotten into the question of derivative works. Bruce, do you want to, do you want to speak to that issue? I do, I should have gotten that. Remember, in my testimony at the chief, I spoke about both the error of focusing and the fact that you need to be non-infringing as you respect. First, you need to be non-infringing in the context of the act of certain invention. And I identified two situations where there, it's my understanding that there are modifications that are infringing on modifications. The typical means by which iPhones, which involves changing the loader software, the operating system software in ways they go. In terms of their authentication functionality in ways that go beyond a mere addition of variables. Secondly, I believe that's also the case with respect to the traffic on the proprietary engine. But when you get beyond the question of active certain invention, the second important question is whether the use of the software after it has been unlocked, in other words, after these variables have been changed is infringing. And I don't think Ms. Moye addresses that issue when she argues that simply changing variables or reflashing those variables is not infringing. It may be that in certain circumstances the act of circumvention is not infringing. But again, that's not morally the right question. The right question is whether the use of copyrighted work after it has been unlocked is infringing. And that doesn't go for that point. The right you're referring to in that latter case is, again, the reproduction right, I assume. Is that correct? In the latter case, yes. And in the former case. Any more comments on reproduction right, derivative work right from anyone? You know, I'm not an expert on it, but I... No one in this room is, I suspect. I don't believe that we're talking about it and they're infringing. And in my mind, you unlock the handset, which is under the exemption, and you utilize the device on another network. It's fairly focused, it's very narrow, and you use the device as you had used it earlier. There can be additional data that you may have to use in the process of unlocking the device. You know, does everyone get smarter on how they protect their device and keep it from being unlocked? Which we talked a little about technological innovation. The main purpose and the main focus of the exemption is very narrow and very specific. I don't know that you get to that point of full utilization of the 117 derivative work. Sorry, I have a quick question here. So then, Mr. Joseph, am I clear in thinking that it's your position that if a user of a mobile device has an unlocked device and is using that device currently to connect to a network it has not been ventured? It will depend on the terms of the license governing the software that the consumer is using. Whether the consumer is a licensee and is here assisted with the license. But, unfortunately, we're not here to consider... Well, let me withdraw that. So I think the answer would be depending on the state of the license and what the consumer is on the right to do. Yes? So for a carrier that unlocks a phone from one of the consumers, are they engaging? Since the carrier is the party that granted the license, it is not infringing. The carrier unlocks the phone for its licensee for use on other networks. That's, if not explicitly authorized, explicitly authorized. Okay, let's talk about the licenses. Rushi has given us examples of four customer agreements, one from each of the major carriers. It's not clear to me whether those four provisions you've given us are standard provisions in all contracts for all four of the major carriers. Or are these just examples of certain contracts when there may be all sorts of variations that go up in different directions? I believe those are the standard terms of service that we apply generally. And we can expand those also since we received the information regarding the purchase. And some of the additional provisions that are cited in the terms of service in our comments. It's my understanding those are standard terms of service that generally apply. And isn't it true that in the absence of such provisions in license agreements, someone who bought a cell phone which had the software on it, would in fact own the copy of that software that was on the cell phone? The answer to that question, the trade and the industry, including a specific document, but here where we have specific documents. Yeah, good. Just with regard to that, what if there is the term of the contract is fulfilled? Or for instance, the purchaser of the phone, the purchaser of the phone gives the phone away so there's no longer any privity for that contract. Then you're confusing, I would respectfully say, the copyright infringement with the region of contract. The claim of software is distributed subject to a license. The licensee has no greater authority to give rights in the licensed software to a third party than the copyright owner. And the licensee has acquired that fundamental copyright law. And with respect to the standard terms of service, those are not the same as the term contract provision. Their term persists for the time you have to come. They don't expire at the end. If you have a two-year contract, we're paying a given fee for two years. The standard, the terms of service that govern your use and the license to the software don't expire with the term contract. So I think they're confusing a couple of issues embedded in your question. Well, so who would be the infringer in that case? If the phone's given away, you're saying the person who then turns the phone off who was not subject to any license is infringing the copyright. They would be the infringer, yes. Can I just follow up on this line of questions, Bruce, for this? So this is a hypothetical. I have a phone and I throw it away with the owner of the copyright work or the licensee. Have any sued against me for destroying his property if you believe that it's because the license is rather a ownership of that particular phone? As a general rule, we know because, typically, there's destruction of the phone. One of the condoms, the outcome is the end of the night. And by the way, I was to amend. I think my answer was right vis-à-vis the acquirer of the phone, even in the absence of binding terms of service. Okay, so question for everyone then. Do we have any evidence in the record before us that any significant number of purchasers of locked cell phones actually do own the copies of the software on them? Another way of putting that is, do we have any evidence that any significant number of people who purchase cell phones do so without the subject to license terms, the terms that were decided in the CTIA comment? My quick answer, no. So I am unaware of any evidence that we would be happy to respond to it in writing, post sharing. However, I also, I do believe that for the thousands of consumers who purchase their mobile devices from the second-hand market such as from eBay, many of them probably are not subject to terms of a service contract term that governs, but typically comes governing the software and solve the problem. But does it follow that when they wanted that phone, presumably from someone who did obtain a pursuant to license, that they obtained the right to reproduce that copy every time they turned on their cell phone? I think the record sort of identifies, I mean it's not enough, but if you get a phone you know not where it came from, what it was restricted to. This is a sort of a servitude or a chattel theory of what right do you have to something that you have in your hand and if it works, it works. I mean I don't know if anyone knows, even the carriers clearly understand if they have a right to that hardware, software together when you turn it on works. I'm not so sure that there's an easy answer. I don't know of anything in the record that speaks to that for now. I think that there's also the first sale doctrine, the owner of a device to sell it to, under this theory, the person. But if the initial owner of the device obtained a pursuant to a license agreement which made it quite clear that the owner of that device did not own the copy of the software that was on the device, when that person sold that device to a third party, how could the third party suddenly get more rights than the original person, original owner had. I had a contract with Verizon, I sell that phone to you. I didn't own the copy of the software on the phone. So how is it that you own the copy of the software on the phone after I sold the phone to you?  No, I don't. I think your question captures it. We're only a million precisely, but I will then simply amplify more of the first sale doctrine also on your flies to owners of copies that doesn't apply to licensees of copies. So the first sale doctrine suffers from the same defect as the section 1.7. One issue that I'm surprised I didn't see a whole lot of discussion on in the comments, given the amount of time we spent on it last time around, and the changes that have occurred since that time has to do with case law in the Ninth Circuit. My recollection of what we said two years ago was essentially that the law is pretty unclear with respect to what the status is of whether one owns the copy of software when one obtains it pursuing to a license, and that issue was in fact before the Ninth Circuit. One of our problems was we couldn't predict how the Ninth Circuit was going to rule. So we were dealing with a relative paucity of cases, but also cases that went in both directions. Like it or not, and some may, some may not, the Ninth Circuit has now spoken, but I don't know that any of you have really spoken clearly as to what the implications are of the rulings in the Ninth Circuit. And since we spent so much time worrying about them last time around, it would be nice to have some help on what lessons we should draw from the Ninth Circuit rulings, if any. Bruce? I thought we actually did address that issue in our written comments, which is of course where most of our position is laid out. And it's argued that the Ninth Circuit, which in particular case found the copies that issue to have been licensed rather than sold, that the holding of the Ninth Circuit is consistent with our position that software on global funds typically is licensed. The examples of the agreements that we cite, we think, support that. Now, to be fair, the Ninth Circuit didn't go into an added characteristic that is common in the wireless terminal service, which is the right to modify at will by the character of the software, which I think is a further addition of its license rather than the ownership of the licensee. So would anyone on that side of the table like to address for us what implications we should draw from the Ninth Circuit rulings, Werner? I've had some help here to point to page 16 of the Metro's robotic science, and we can certainly supplement that particular section more fulsome. But I think it's also fairly well, well, I'd say it's addressed, but I would like to supplement that for the record. Anyone? Sure. So I have some questions for both sides here. We'll start with you, Laura, to tell me why Enwin would be able to use a tablet on another network. I'm trying to wrap my head around the expansion that you have requested. I see it's clear that you wanted to use a mobile carrier for voice services for all sorts of reasons, but I'm still unclear as to why someone would want to switch anything but their mobile phone device to another network. So please let me know what the reasons would be and why we should entertain your exemption as written. I think that there are a number of reasons that people switch service carriers, not just for voice services but also for data, and it may have to do with coverage of the network or the customer service, maybe just a personal relationship that an individual consumer has with a particular carrier that is either positive or negative. These are the sorts of things that influence consumer decisions to sign up with one carrier and then on the first place, they are the same sorts of considerations that can be considered by the consumer. Are there any terms of service that we should be aware of, as there were, for voice services that apply to the switching of tablets for data services that should be part of the record or what you know about? Well, I'm sort of struck by your distinction between voice and data when we're moving into a 3G and 4G world where voice is data and many of the devices that you currently have are voice of internet protocol signals. So it's a bit sort of concept, whether it's voice, whether it's data, whether it's video, it's all bits of data. So in that respect, a wireless tablet is a wireless device. That's why we suggest that you should identify wireless devices. And many of the suggestions are correct. If you have a device, you get transferred from Washington, D.C. area to the Texas area and you want a different carrier because they have better coverage in that area. Most tablets right now, you're already switching to hotspots or Wi-Fi offload type of situation. So if your host carrier, if you want to change, then you should have that same right. It is a wireless device that transmits data, whether it's turned into voice or whether it's, you know, a video or whether it's something else. That's why we suggest that you expand the understanding. It means a lot in the telecom world, whether it's a telecommunication service or information service. I'm not sure that those distinctions are relevant particularly in the copyright world, but I think it certainly is easier to understand the types of devices we're talking about if you say wireless devices. Well, I just want to note, I think the burden is on the proponents here to show why there should be an expansion because at least as I understood it, the current exemption has been traditionally understood to apply to what we know as voice service. The whole reason for switching is making a service that the current carrier has, but it was really in the context of what we knew in 2006 and 2010. So if you're looking to see a revision of it, then you have to show us exactly why we should entertain that at least as I was asking those questions. Well, let me jump in on that because one of the questions I wanted to ask was what evidence do we have in the records that access controls are in fact used to lock tablets, notebook computers, e-readers, any mobile devices other than what have typically been understood to be cell phones? Well, as we point out in our report by comments, that when you purchase, for example, an iPad in the Apple Store, you're required to select a carrier before checking it out. And the consumer is informed during the checkout process that your iPad will work only with the carrier you choose. So we know that they are being sold locked. Well, wait a minute. Hold on. How do we know that? What you just told us doesn't tell me that they're locked. Do we know what kind of access control, if any, is put on the iPad? Hi, I'm sorry, I was referring to any kind of access control that restricts your point of particular carrier. But what you decided a moment ago did not in any respect say there was an access control on it. It said you won't be able to use it somewhere else. I don't know why you can't use it somewhere else. Maybe it's just totally incompatible software. I just don't know. But my specific question is what evidence do we have that access controls are used on these other devices? Because we have no evidence. I think that game's over on that front. Related to that, I think it's contractual. I don't see anything that locks you down. I think it's just a matter of deciding an agreement. I know. And that's why I was asking this one question in regard to everything but what we know of today. And I know that Samsung Notebook, some of the Xbox, some of the other devices are locked. And we can provide you information in that regard. I think it's referred to. But we can provide you additional information. But again, I'm still sort of struck with your question that you're talking about califying a voice only when in the wireless world there literally is no distinction between a analog voice, traditional analog voice connection and a data connection. Especially when you're already in the voice of internet protocol, we'll be in the 4GLT, which is all data. And the wireless devices, the tablets and the other devices are falling along the same traditional path that carriers have looked to lock devices in order to access their network. It's the same, I won't say it's the same protocol, but it's the same type of network access regime. And that's what we're suggesting should be covered on the exemption. And the language should be modified so that it's clear that we're talking about wireless devices. Many of the phones that you refer to now are actually smartphones that are much more than voice. As a matter of fact, most people will say a smartphone spends 70% of its life in some other data consumption form other than a voice conversation. But is there any evidence that anyone is confused by the reference in the current exemption to... What is the word, half set, does that make sense? Is there any evidence that anyone believes that smartphones are not within the scope of that? I certainly don't, but I also look at the wireless device world maybe a little different than you do. You can make telephone calls, you can have video, Skype, face-to-face phone calls over a wireless iPad or a tablet, just like you have a phone call. And so the difference I think is, at least for me, sort of escapes me as a major difference between a telephone, i.e. wireless phone, as it's matured and developed and the functionality continues to grow as technology develops. I mean, just for you to recognize, you can see the harm that's been in the record with regard to anything but what we know of today. And even though you were to expand the scope and you said with some rationales why it should be, I didn't see how it's currently affecting consumers now. I mean, we've seen in other contexts, like for a jailbreaking that over 25,000 people signed a petition, how jailbreaking your mobile device helps them, but I didn't see anything here from any kind of consumers that say, I need to unlock my tablet to use it on another network for some other reason. I agree with that. I'm not aware of any evidence in the record addressing this and that's one of the main points we've made. And I'm also not aware, I answered Mr. Carson's question that there is any confusion about the scope of the current invention and I think here the intent is that an iPad is not a home handset. And along those lines, have you seen any activity in both the selling context that people want to unlock their tablets or eat meat or anything else to be used in other countries for purposes that you are concerned about in terms of the voice devices, etc.? I don't know the answer to that. Mr. Berry, which of the comments did you say there was a book about some Samsung tablets? Yeah, we couldn't figure out if it was a PCS or not, but we'll find a clue. I just wanted to add that many tablet devices also have telephone numbers assigned to them by different areas of the world. It's not as clear as Mr. Carson just indicated. Can you make a phone call? Of our implications, for sure. Yeah, but I think David has. Is the device designed for me, apart from the addition, possibly? Yeah, it strikes me what is a telephone, what is a telephone call? The exchange of data right now is a telephone call. Whether it's voice or it's text or it's data, it's a picture or whatever. That's essentially a telephone call. That's what your telephones, wireless telephones do today. It strikes me that the progression of technology in the March forward is happening at a rapid pace. The fact that you have a tablet that can do all those things and also do a lot more doesn't necessarily disqualify it as a non-telephone device. I think you're getting telephone communications law and the definitions under Title II or Title I or Title III confused a little with some copyright law. I think this narrow extension is fairly focused in very narrow and we're talking about devices that can be wireless devices that communicate with each other through a wireless network. And whatever the device is, given the technology that we're moving to, they make telephone calls in a whole different variety of versions and flavors. And I think qualify similarly as your description of a voice call. It bothers me that you focus on that when in fact it's more the technology that is going to use data to turn that into whatever you want to call as a communication to another person. I think what we're learning here is that if we recommend an extension this time around, we're going to have to very carefully look at the records, see what the evidence is with respect to current locking practices, see if there is any evidence of what is likely to happen in the next three years. And our jurisprudence pretty clearly says that means more likely than not. And shape the class with what the record tells us in mind and we'll see what the record tells us on that. Good. So for you, Bruce, I read in the Wall Street Journal I had it right here from May 7th. There was an article in the Marketplace section called Carriers Chip Away at Phone Subsidies. And it seems to indicate that one of the trends for the next three years at least is that more and more carriers are taking back the control of the device from others in chains such as Apple. And using the cost of the device as a means by which to retain the customer because of your spending $700 for an iPhone for as it is unlocked, that would be more of an incentive for you to stay with that particular carrier. So I'm trying to gather some information from you about where this whole argument about subsidies is going and whether or not this article is in fact indicative of the trend that there will be less and less subsidies going forward in the next couple of years. Okay, that seems to be your basis upon which you're concerned about in regard to the clients at CTIA. I have to admit to being at something with discretion and wisdom would say that we respond to that question in writing as I sit here. I don't think I have an answer. In fact, I'm pretty sure I don't have an answer. No, that's quite all right. I just want to see what the trend is in terms of the business practices and the models going forward with regard to what subsidies are for the wireless market place. This really piqued my interest. I understand you don't have something to respond to at times. I thought maybe you had some general idea based on what you're speaking to with your clients of where things may well be going. I don't have any knowledge that consumers... Again, this is a consumer choice. Some other questions with regard to what is in the record and that has to do with the use of precedent. I'm seemingly confused by CTIA's comments because in one point you say we should not rely on what the register has done in the past but in terms of reselling and used phones, you say we should definitely use that as a model to go forward if we do have an exemption for this particular class. So give me an idea of what we should be doing in terms of how we view precedent in the 1201 momentary proceedings. Sure. On issues like that they know will proceed and with respect to issues of law construction, prior decisions of the register presumably have persuasive effect but not binding effect to the extent they are believed that the reversal of the presumption on Section 117 we have demonstrated, now I hope, persuasively that the register's reversal of that toward the... as a result of the presumption or fluid in the face of the register's own recognition of prevailing practice was incorrect as a matter of law and that you would not do that again till the nation is binding to be persuasive. I do believe that to the extent again is in this proceeding and it rests firmly on the other side and to the extent they have failed to provide sufficient evidence that goes beyond what they did last time I would expect you to do certainly no more than you did last time. We will deal with the evidence that was insufficient last time that once again that would not justify an exemption. Finally, as an administrative body, I think there are a number of questions for Laura. I didn't see any comments in your replies about CTIA's proposed exemption. What would you say is that the CTIA's proposed exemption is not the only one that is not applied to the CTIA's proposed exemption. What would you think of the fact that we decided to adopt a language that was proposed? How would you respond to that? Before Bruce interjects, we understand that not really proposing that we adopt it but it's what they might be willing to live with if it went anywhere. Well, I'll go beyond that. I say that we would be willing to live with it if it went anywhere. I saw that difference. So, what's the response in the component side? I'm sorry, I don't have a comment on that. Well, in general, I think someone behind you has it to share. It was not just the specific language, but the general compositions that were laid out. Given that there's a component that's willing to concede particular language for an exemption for individuals such as what you described when you were traveling, why would you seemingly object to something like that if it provides you the relief that you would seek? So, forgive me. This is just off the cuff right now. I'm looking at this. I think one of the concerns that I would have is undertaking my individual customer as a wireless service provider. So that means if I'm not already a customer as a wireless provider, I can't unlock my phone. I don't know how that would work. So, if Laura gives me a phone and I haven't decided what provider I want, if I want a phone, this wouldn't apply to me. Now, commercial purposes, I can go on about what does that really mean and what if I use my, I mean, I work for consumer. Being in my phone, my personal phone is also my work phone. Right. What happens in that case? They will give me a, you know, I don't, because the regime doesn't provide me with my services. That certainly don't mean to impose upon you at this time your, your learned advice here. But I just wanted to get that general feeling as to how you would feel about something that's something a person could look with. Well, don't let her off so easy. This was in the initial comment. It's a fair game to get their reaction to it now. And then they can't react to it, then we'll react to it on our own. There's just something, you know, by reading the record, seeing some of the gaps, and that's why I'm asking you these questions today in trying to reconcile any contradictions or omissions is one of our omissions here in this hearing so we can make the record even better than it is today. Yes, and I definitely appreciate that opportunity. So, you know, this is, and I'm not going to chance the fully review, but I would say that those would be two of my concerns looking at this. At the moment I do appreciate Mr. Joseph suggesting language, but I do think there are some. Mr. Barry, do you have any comments here? Yes, as you know, it's not exactly what we have suggested. I think there's at least three or four different versions out there. I would like to respond to this in writing, if you would. I think there's a couple issues that are raised by this, some of which we discussed previously in our discussion on 1-17. I think race is serious concerns about their definition here. I would prefer obviously the recommendation we made to you. I think the way it's drafted right now, for me, especially the conversation we had this morning, I believe that there are potential hidden traps there that would maybe confuse and provide easy efforts to frustrate the implementation of the exemption. So I'd like to respond to that in detail. I just have one more question for both of you here. That's in regard to your copyrightability argument that you made in your opening brief. Explain to me exactly what you mean by that. Are you talking about the copyrightability of the firmware that is the lock itself? And for you, Bruce, you didn't seem to suggest that their argument was entirely wrong, but you said something like, leave it to the courts to decide whether or not the firmware that locks the phone is copyrightable. So with that in mind, please present your arguments on that particular reference as to why this would be a non-infringing use. We were saying that these elements are not copyrighted. We were referring to a particular element. So those are just the particular elements that limit the connection, some limit it to format networks, and that changing those particular elements of the firmware, therefore, is a non-infringing use. Now, you're talking about, is this a code we're talking about in the firmware? Is it the firmware in a computer program which is trying to wrap my head around what it means when you're saying it's not copyrightable? I'm sorry, what was your distinction? We're talking about lines of code or we're talking about a computer program that is in fact the firmware itself that locks the phone to a particular network. We're talking about lines of code that in order to alter the firmware to enable it to do a different network, the person re-flashing the device has to replace some of those elements in code with different elements, and if those elements themselves just those newer elements are copyrighted. My understanding from past Blue Lakers and I just want to make sure my understanding is correct is that what you're really talking about is simply changing some data, which is the data that says go to this network or this network alone. Instead, you can change it to say go to that network. Is that what we're talking about or are we talking about something different? Right, that's basically what we're talking about. I mean for me that the register in the past register at the time, register Peter's used the analogy to the Happy Birthday song where you can imagine that the Happy Birthday song is a piece of code and that just the name is a variable but can be replaced with a different name. I think that response of understanding the correct distinction between the use of the operating systems is certain that there are certain locks and means of circumventing locks for which you do not need to do something that is infringing to accomplish the unlock and there are other type variations of software where the way unlocking is commonly accomplished does the creation of an infringing modification but that begs the question the use of the operating system software that is there upon used is copyrightable nothing in the record to suggest that it isn't so the short answer is it is given the absence of proof to the contrary and the loading of that software that is not to the extent it is not authorized by license would be a very responsive statement. I'll call up on that. I understand you argue about the reproduction but let's say that the only changes you're making are literally there's a change in a code that directs you to instead of going to Verizon you're going to spectacular. Under those circumstances is it your argument that there is an additional there is an infringement of an additional exclusive right beyond the reproduction right when all that is altered is a bit of data like that? I'm not arguing that there is in that case as you have described I'm not arguing that. You seem to be suggesting that there might with respect to some of the operating system software and some of the cell phones you might have to do actually more which might rise to that level is that correct? That is my understanding for example it's my understanding that the most common meaning of unlocking an iPhone is modifying a bootloader software so that it doesn't engage and that modification is more than substituting a symbol indicator of where would Okay, anyone on the other side have any views to offer on that latter point about at least with respect to the iPhone you would in fact be creating an unauthorized subject perhaps to 117 that's an issue on which we have disagreement Right, and that's probably my answer is that you need the exemption to unlock the degree of what you have to do to unlock varies by device may vary by the process that either the manufacturer or the carrier that reflected the device so that it could be more complicated than just a set of data that unlocks it and it's good to go it may actually also have other series of data that needs to be replaced in order to not only put it on the network but actually let it work and authenticate on another network and to that extent my view would be to the extent that you have to do that and we're only talking about accessing and putting it on another network so it can actually function in the same way it function on the other network it would be covered by 117 so I understand the dancing on the head of the pin on the extent of the unlocking requirement and I suspect that if you do not extend the exemption that we have here we will have even more complicated you know versions of software and efforts to frustrate this opportunity for consumers and I just want to add that we're still talking about a mere segment of the operating system that is essentially functional in nature and in which there are very limited modes of expression so I think that this still may not may not be the type of alteration that would rise to the level of creativity or expression necessary to constitute a perfect work and I don't think there's anything in the record to support the argument that would be the case might sound like a broken record let me ask you a couple questions about the narrower alternative that you put forward first of all you talk about this being permitted when circumvention is undertaken by an individual customer of a wireless service provider and I read that to mean a current customer so if I was a Verizon subscriber and my contract expired and I'm no longer connected to Verizon I would not be privileged to take advantage of this exemption was that an intended an intended component of what you're putting forward? Can I get back to you after? No. It's a fair question and I don't believe I believe that a prior customer and indeed if you look at the carrier and locking policies they typically do also apply to a prior qualified customer and I think it's fair to include that within the term customer and not limited to current customer. Next question. Reading on you talk about a customer who owns the copy of the computer program now if I understand the customer is never going to own the copy of the computer program so don't we really have an old set here? Given that the entire basis on which the argument is being made and I realize that there's an argument of misuse but I believe the argument that the prohibition that determines that if you have infringement with it is simply not copyright misuse and not finitely so based on section 1 of 17 that actually carries forward a limitation that the copyright office that the register and librarian included in the prior it is possible that there will be owners I'm not aware of them I believe that what we have are licensees it is consistent with the exemption as the register recommended in the library and adopted it last time. And one reason we recommended it last time around was we couldn't figure out who the owner is and the law was in such disarray that we decided fine we'll put that language in there and if it turns out you were the owner of the copy you get the benefit of it and if it turns out you weren't then you don't. Well with respect I don't think that's why you included it last time the reason you included it last time was the only not infringing use on which the register relied was section 117 and an absolute prerequisite of the applicability of section 117 is the ownership of the copy of the copyrighted work I understand that but I'm saying as we crafted the language one thing that was in our mind was we don't really know what falls within this because the law is so unclear but notwithstanding that what I think I'm taking away from this is if we were to adopt this particular language it would be the position of your clients that none of your subscribers could ever fall within this is that correct I don't know that that would be their position remember they have not sued individual consumers would be their position that this exemption didn't apply doesn't mean that there would be a risk of liability to the extent that the terms of service remain as they are set forth in our contract in our comments we don't know where the terms of service might come in the future and it may be that that a court would find that certain companies terms of service actually do transfer ownership again it's tied into the section we need to find a non-affringing use in order for this proceeding to proceed at all and the one on which last time in section 117 this is an absolute requirement in section 117 I want to get back to talking about scope of the exemption and switch for a second to the other side in terms of expanding the scope of the current exemption and if I'm understanding the argument that the difficulty is that defining or the concept that when we're talking about a telephone now seems to be broadened but some of the examples


Parasitic organisms can cause significant harm to their hosts, leading to reduced fitness. Insects have evolved various behaviors to defend themselves from these parasites, including avoidance of infected individuals, reduction of parasite growth, and alleviation of disease symptoms. These behaviors provide strong protection against parasites and parasitoids and can be used to understand how host-parasite interactions shape evolutionary trajectories. Behaviors can also influence the evolution of non-behavioral physiological immune systems as well as local adaptation and co-evolution between hosts and parasites. This article was authored by Thierry Lefebvre and Jacobus C. Derude.


Stocks taking a hit as tensions rise with North Korea. Mary Ann Bartels of Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, when President Trump says that North Korea is going to be met with fire and fury. I mean, even for this resilient market, you have to take that seriously. Well, it's certainly not a positive, and the market is certainly not looking at it as a positive. But we've had conditions where we've been expecting volatility, with the VIX index volatility so low. It could be anything that really kind of rocked the market. And from a seasonal standpoint, it's really interesting. August tends to be the month where markets get some type of peak. You go into a corrective phase going into September, September being one of the most volatile periods for the market, and then creating an important low in October to follow by very strong year-end rallies into November and December. And maybe we're going to have that traditional type of pattern for the market. Well, what is the investing playbook for North Korea? As you have a $2,600 price target on the S&P 500, and I know you're bullish long-term. We are. But this is obviously very unusual risk for the markets. Well, there's been a lot going on with North Korea. This is not a new event. There's been a lot of words that have been going around between the Trump administration, between North Korea, and of course, we're trying to get China involved. Right now, it's just a war of words. War of words doesn't mean anything. Most things start flying in the air. That's going to mean something maybe potentially a little different. But I think we need to put Guam into perspective from a global macro standpoint. You think the debt ceiling debate is more important than Guam? I do. I do. Guam is not an important component for GDP. We're going to be facing a debt ceiling in September, and I think that is a much higher risk for the markets than what's happening right now. Now, does the debt ceiling along with North Korea keep the Fed on pause for the rest of the year, not just from a rate hike standpoint, but also from the balance sheet point of view, which the Fed says is going to happen, quote, relatively soon? I think that's a great point that you bring up, and I think the answer is yes. The Fed is facing two interesting points. They already have full employment. In fact, they may have passed the part of employment, but they're not getting inflation. They have very, very low inflation. The last time we saw this was actually in the late 1990s, and we did see during the late 1990s an ebb and flow of Fed policy. So it is very possible that the Fed is not that aggressive as we move into September and year end. But they won't be that aggressive because of low inflation or because of the tail risk from North Korea or the debt ceiling? I think it's all of it. I think all of it could create a soup pot where the Fed says, hey, we may back off a little bit here. And in the long run, I think that's positive. I think what you really want to watch here is the 10-year Treasury yield. The 10-year Treasury yield right now, as we speak, is trading about 2.2. You start trading below 2.2. You're going to start getting technical signals that the yield will actually go lower. What does that mean for stocks? Well, here's the thing, nobody's been talking about what's the possibility of the 10-year hitting a one handle again. And I even mean like 1.9, 1.8. I think it's extraordinarily high. And if we keep rates in a very, very low rate environment, I think the long run bodes extremely well for equities, particularly income-producing equities that could raise dividends because the one thing that we've stopped talking about are baby boomers and the income demand that they face as they move into retirement. So then you would perhaps disagree with former Fed Chair Allen Greenspan, rather, who claims that the bond market might be in a bubble. Well, I don't know if the bond market is in a bubble, but I can tell you the trend for rates still remains down, and that the risk still is is that you see a one handle on the 10-year. And that's going to surprise a lot of people, and a lot of head scratch, and we'll go on if that happens. We have a lot of risks to watch as we head into these volatile months. Mary and Bartels, thanks for joining us. Thank you.


Happy Valentine's Day guys and welcome back to my channel.  It's very simple and I'm not an expert whatsoever So let's go ahead and jump right into it Clues this video guys. I hope you enjoy watching me get ready and unready for this Valentine's Day I could not wait to get this makeup off my face Did I try my best to Get the heart-shaped part as best as I could so I did pretty decent, you know So if you enjoyed this video guys, don't forget to like comment and subscribe Also, check out my Amazon store browse around the link will be in the description box as well as in the comment section below So I hope you guys have a nice Valentine's Day and spin it with the one that you love or just buy yourself If you want to just have some me time buy yourself not wrong with that. It's just Janine. I'm signing out I will see you guys on the next video. Bye guys