text:
The Room in the Tower and Other Stories/The Bus-Conductor

Y friend, Hugh Grainger, and I had just returned from a two days' visit in the country, where we had been staying in a house of sinister repute which was supposed to be haunted by ghosts of a peculiarly fearsome and truculent sort. The house itself was all that such a house should be, Jacobean and oak-panelled, with long dark passages and high vaulted rooms. It stood, also, very remote, and was encompassed by a wood of sombre pines that muttered and whispered in the dark, and all the time that we were there a south-westerly gale with torrents of scolding rain had prevailed, so that by day and night weird voices moaned and fluted in the chimneys, a company of uneasy spirits held colloquy among the trees, and sudden tattoos and tappings beckoned from the window-panes. But in spite of these surroundings, which were sufficient in themselves, one would almost say, to spontaneously generate occult phenomena, nothing of any description had occurred. I am bound to add, also, that my own state of mind was peculiarly well adapted to receive or even to invent the sights and sounds we had gone to seek, for I was, I confess, during the whole time that we were there, in a state of abject apprehension, and lay awake both nights through hours of terrified unrest, afraid of the dark, yet more afraid of what a lighted candle might show me.

Hugh Grainger, on the evening after our return to town, had dined with me, and after dinner our conversation, as was natural, soon came back to these entrancing topics.

"But why you go ghost-seeking I cannot imagine," he said, "because your teeth were chattering and your eyes starting out of your head all the time you were there, from sheer fright. Or do you like being frightened?"

Hugh, though generally intelligent, is dense in certain ways; this is one of them.

"Why, of course, I like being frightened," I said. "I want to be made to creep and creep and creep. Fear is the most absorbing and luxurious of emotions. One forgets all else if one is afraid."

"Well, the fact that neither of us saw anything," he said, "confirms what I have always believed."

"And what have you always believed?"

"That these phenomena are purely objective, not subjective, and that one's state of mind has nothing to do with the perception that perceives them, nor have circumstances or surroundings anything to do with them either. Look at Osburton. It has had the reputation of being a haunted house for years, and it certainly has all the accessories of one. Look at yourself, too, with all your nerves on edge, afraid to look round or light a candle for fear of seeing something! Surely there was the right man in the right place then, if ghosts are subjective."

He got up and lit a cigarette, and looking at him—Hugh is about six feet high, and as broad as he is long—I felt a retort on my lips, for I could not help my mind going back to a certain period in his life, when, from some cause which, as far as I knew, he had never told anybody, he had become a mere quivering mass of disordered nerves. Oddly enough, at the same moment and for the first time, he began to speak of it himself.

"You may reply that it was not worth my while to go either," he said, "because I was so clearly the wrong man in the wrong place. But I wasn't. You for all your apprehensions and expectancy have never seen a ghost. But I have, though I am the last person in the world you would have thought likely to do so, and, though my nerves are steady enough again now, it knocked me all to bits."

He sat down again in his chair.

"No doubt you remember my going to bits," he said, "and since I believe that I am sound again now, I should rather like to tell you about it. But before I couldn't; I couldn't speak of it at all to anybody. Yet there ought to have been nothing frightening about it; what I saw was certainly a most useful and friendly ghost. But it came from the shaded side of things; it looked suddenly out of the night and the mystery with which life is surrounded."

"I want first to tell you quite shortly my theory about ghost-seeing," he continued, "and I can explain it best by a simile, an image. Imagine then that you and I and everybody in the world are like people whose eye is directly opposite a little tiny hole in a sheet of cardboard which is continually shifting and revolving and moving about. Back to back with that sheet of cardboard is another, which also, by laws of its own, is in perpetual but independent motion. In it too there is another hole, and when, fortuitously it would seem, these two holes, the one through which we are always looking, and the other in the spiritual plane, come opposite one another, we see through, and then only do the sights and sounds of the spiritual world become visible or audible to us. With most people these holes never come opposite each other during their life. But at the hour of death they do, and then they remain stationary. That, I fancy, is how we 'pass over.'

"Now, in some natures, these holes are comparatively large, and are constantly coming into opposition. Clairvoyants, mediums are like that. But, as far as I knew, I had no clairvoyant or mediumistic powers at all. I therefore am the sort of person who long ago made up his mind that he never would see a ghost. It was, so to speak, an incalculable chance that my minute spy-hole should come into opposition with the other. But it did: and it knocked me out of time."

I had heard some such theory before, and though Hugh put it rather picturesquely, there was nothing in the least convincing or practical about it. It might be so, or again it might not.

"I hope your ghost was more original than your theory," said I, in order to bring him to the point.

"Yes, I think it was. You shall judge."

I put on more coal and poked up the fire. Hugh has got, so I have always considered, a great talent for telling stories, and that sense of drama which is so necessary for the narrator. Indeed, before now, I have suggested to him that he should take this up as a profession, sit by the fountain in Piccadilly Circus, when times are, as usual, bad, and tell stories to the passers-by in the street, Arabian fashion, for reward. The most part of mankind, I am aware, do not like long stories, but to the few, among whom I number myself, who really like to listen to lengthy accounts of experiences, Hugh is an ideal narrator. I do not care for his theories, or for his similes, but when it comes to facts, to things that happened, I like him to be lengthy.

"Go on, please, and slowly," I said. "Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it is the ruin of story-telling. I want to hear when and where and how it all was, and what you had for lunch and where you had dined and what"

Hugh began:

"It was the 24th of June, just eighteen months ago," he said. "I had let my flat, you may remember, and came up from the country to stay with you for a week. We had dined alone here"

I could not help interrupting.

"Did you see the ghost here?" I asked. "In this square little box of a house in a modern street?"

"I was in the house when I saw it."

I hugged myself in silence.

"We had dined alone here in Graeme Street," he said, "and after dinner I went out to some party, and you stopped at home. At dinner your man did not wait, and when I asked where he was, you told me he was ill, and, I thought, changed the subject rather abruptly. You gave me your latch-key when I went out, and on coming back, I found you had gone to bed. There were, however, several letters for me, which required answers. I wrote them there and then, and posted them at the pillar-box opposite. So I suppose it was rather late when I went upstairs.

"You had put me in the front room, on the third floor, overlooking the street, a room which I thought you generally occupied yourself. It was a very hot night, and though there had been a moon when I started to my party, on my return the whole sky was cloud-covered, and it both looked and felt as if we might have a thunderstorm before morning. I was feeling very sleepy and heavy, and it was not till after I had got into bed that I noticed by the shadows of the window-frames on the blind that only one of the windows was open. But it did not seem worth while to get out of bed in order to open it, though I felt rather airless and uncomfortable, and I went to sleep.

"What time it was when I awoke I do not know, but it was certainly not yet dawn, and I never remember being conscious of such an extraordinary stillness as prevailed. There was no sound either of foot-passengers or wheeled traffic; the music of life appeared to be absolutely mute. But now, instead of being sleepy and heavy, I felt, though I must have slept an hour or two at most, since it was not yet dawn, perfectly fresh and wide-awake, and the effort which had seemed not worth making before, that of getting out of bed and opening the other window, was quite easy now and I pulled up the blind, threw it wide open, and leaned out, for somehow I parched and pined for air. Even outside the oppression was very noticeable, and though, as you know, I am not easily given to feel the mental effects of climate, I was aware of an awful creepiness coming over me. I tried to analyse it away, but without success; the past day had been pleasant, I looked forward to another pleasant day to-morrow, and yet I was full of some nameless apprehension. I felt, too, dreadfully lonely in this stillness before the dawn.

"Then I heard suddenly and not very far away the sound of some approaching vehicle; I could distinguish the tread of two horses walking at a slow foot's pace. They were, though not yet visible, coming up the street, and yet this indication of life did not abate that dreadful sense of loneliness which I have spoken of. Also in some dim unformulated way that which was coming seemed to me to have something to do with the cause of my oppression.

"Then the vehicle came into sight. At first I could not distinguish what it was. Then I saw that the horses were black and had long tails, and that what they dragged was made of glass, but had a black frame. It was a hearse. Empty.

"It was moving up this side of the street. It stopped at your door.

"Then the obvious solution struck me. You had said at dinner that your man was ill, and you were, I thought, unwilling to speak more about his illness. No doubt, so I imagined now, he was dead, and for some reason, perhaps because you did not want me to know anything about it, you were having the body removed at night. This, I must tell you, passed through my mind quite instantaneously, and it did not occur to me how unlikely it really was, before the next thing happened.

"I was still leaning out of the window, and I remember also wondering, yet only momentarily, how odd it was that I saw things—or rather the one thing I was looking at—so very distinctly. Of course, there was a moon behind the clouds, but it was curious how every detail of the hearse and the horses was visible. There was only one man, the driver, with it, and the street was otherwise absolutely empty. It was at him I was looking now. I could see every detail of his clothes, but from where I was, so high above him, I could not see his face. He had on grey trousers, brown boots, a black coat buttoned all the way up, and a straw hat. Over his shoulder there was a strap, which seemed to support some sort of little bag. He looked exactly like—well, from my description what did he look exactly like?"

"Why—a bus-conductor," I said instantly.

"So I thought, and even while I was thinking this, he looked up at me. He had a rather long thin face, and on his left cheek there was a mole with a growth of dark hair on it. All this was as distinct as if it had been noonday, and as if I was within a yard of him. But—so instantaneous was all that takes so long in the telling—I had not time to think it strange that the driver of a hearse should be so unfunereally dressed.

"Then he touched his hat to me, and jerked his thumb over his shoulder.

"‘Just room for one inside, sir,' he said.

"There was something so odious, so coarse, so unfeeling about this that I instantly drew my head in, pulled the blind down again, and then, for what reason I do not know, turned on the electric light in order to see what time it was. The hands of my watch pointed to half-past eleven.

"It was then for the first time, I think, that a doubt crossed my mind as to the nature of what I had just seen. But I put out the light again, got into bed, and began to think. We had dined; I had gone to a party, I had come back and written letters, had gone to bed and had slept. So how could it be half-past eleven? Or—what half-past eleven was it?

"Then another easy solution struck me; my watch must have stopped. But it had not; I could hear it ticking.

"There was stillness and silence again. I expected every moment to hear muffled footsteps on the stairs, footsteps moving slowly and smally under the weight of a heavy burden, but from inside the house there was no sound whatever. Outside, too, there was the same dead silence, while the hearse waited at the door. And the minutes ticked on and ticked on, and at length I began to see a difference in the light in the room, and knew that the dawn was beginning to break outside. But how had it happened, then, that if the corpse was to be removed at night it had not gone, and that the hearse still waited, when morning was already coming?

"Presently I got out of bed again, and with the sense of strong physical shrinking I went to the window and pulled back the blind. The dawn was coming fast; the whole street was lit by that silver hueless light of morning. But there was no hearse there.

"Once again I looked at my watch. It was just a quarter-past four. But I would swear that not half an hour had passed since it had told me that it was half-past eleven.

"Then a curious double sense, as if I was living in the present and at the same moment had been living in some other time, came over me. It was dawn on June 25th, and the street, as natural, was empty. But a little while ago the driver of a hearse had spoken to me, and it was half-past eleven. What was that driver, to what plane did he belong? And again what half-past eleven was it that I had seen recorded on the dial of my watch?

"And then I told myself that the whole thing had been a dream. But if you ask me whether I believed what I told myself, I must confess that I did not.

"Your man did not appear at breakfast next morning, nor did I see him again before I left that afternoon. I think if I had, I should have told you about all this, but it was still possible, you see, that what I had seen was a real hearse, driven by a real driver, for all the ghastly gaiety of the face that had looked up to mine, and the levity of his pointing hand. I might possibly have fallen asleep soon after seeing him, and slumbered through the removal of the body and the departure of the hearse. So I did not speak of it to you."

There was something wonderfully straight-forward and prosaic in all this; here were no Jacobean houses oak-panelled and surrounded by weeping pine-trees, and somehow the very absence of suitable surroundings made the story more impressive. But for a moment a doubt assailed me.

"Don't tell me it was all a dream," I said.

"I don't know whether it was or not. I can only say that I believe myself to have been wide awake. In any case the rest of the story is—odd.

"I went out of town again that afternoon," he continued, "and I may say that I don't think that even for a moment did I get the haunting sense of what I had seen or dreamed that night out of my mind. It was present to me always as some vision unfulfilled. It was as if some clock had struck the four quarters, and I was still waiting to hear what the hour would be.

"Exactly a month afterwards I was in London again, but only for the day. I arrived at Victoria about eleven, and took the underground to Sloane Square in order to see if you were in town and would give me lunch. It was a baking hot morning, and I intended to take a bus from the King's Road as far as Graeme Street. There was one standing at the corner just as I came out of the station, but I saw that the top was full, and the inside appeared to be full also. Just as I came up to it the conductor, who, I suppose, had been inside, collecting fares or what not, came out on to the step within a few feet of me. He wore grey trousers, brown boots, a black coat buttoned, a straw hat, and over his shoulder was a strap on which hung his little machine for punching tickets. I saw his face, too; it was the face of the driver of the hearse, with a mole on the left cheek. Then he spoke to me, jerking his thumb over his shoulder.

"‘Just room for one inside, sir,' he said.

"At that a sort of panic-terror took possession of me, and I knew I gesticulated wildly with my arms, and cried, 'No, no!' But at that moment I was living not in the hour that was then passing, but in that hour which had passed a month ago, when I leaned from the window of your bedroom here just before the dawn broke. At this moment too I knew that my spy-hole had been opposite the spy-hole into the spiritual world. What I had seen there had some significance, now being fulfilled, beyond the significance of the trivial happenings of to-day and to-morrow. The Powers of which we know so little were visibly working before me. And I stood there on the pavement shaking and trembling.

"I was opposite the post-office at the corner, and just as the bus started my eye fell on the clock in the window there. I need not tell you what the time was.

"Perhaps I need not tell you the rest, for you probably conjecture it, since you will not have forgotten what happened at the corner of Sloane Square at the end of July, the summer before last. The bus pulled out from the pavement into the street in order to get round a van that was standing in front of it. At the moment there came down the King's Road a big motor going at a hideously dangerous pace. It crashed full into the bus, burrowing into it as a gimlet burrows into a board."

He paused.

"And that's my story," he said.


text:
Page:The story of Jack and the Giants (1851).djvu/25

Rh Early in the morning Jack walked into the Giant’s room to thank him for his lodging. The Giant started when he saw him, and began to stammer out,—

"Pray, how did you sleep last night? Did you hear or see any thing in the dead of the night?"

"Nothing worth speaking of," said Jack, carelessly "a rat, I believe, gave me three or four flaps with its tail, but I soon went to sleep again."

The Giant did not answer a word, but brought in two bowls of hasty-pudding for their breakfasts. Jack wanted

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:The story of Jack and the Giants (1851).djvu/26

24 to make the Giant believe that he could eat as much as himself, so he contrived to button a leathern bag inside his coat, and slipped the pudding into the bag instead of his mouth.

When breakfast was over, he said to the Giant, "I will shew you a fine trick: I could cut my head off one minute, and put it on sound the next. But see here!"

He then took a knife, ripped up the bag, and all the pudding fell on the floor.

"Odds splutter hur nails," cried the Giant, who was ashamed to be outdone by Jack, "hur can do that hurself!"

So he snatched up the knife, plunged it into his stomach, and in a moment dropped down dead.

Jack having thus outwitted the monster, went further on his journey.


text:
Page:The story of Jack and the Giants (1851).djvu/58

56 Jack then went up to the King, and gave his majesty an account of all his fierce battles. Jack's fame had spread through the whole country; and, at the King’s desire, the Duke gave him his daughter in marriage, to the joy of all the kingdom. After this, the King gave Jack a large estate, on which he and his lady lived the rest of their days in joy and content.


text:
Page:The Harvard Classics Vol. 51; Lectures.djvu/153

 SOCRATES, PLATO, AND THE ROMAN STOICS

HEN Socrates grew up in the city of Athens, in the generation just after the Persian Wars, any Athenian citizen, however poor he might be, was at liberty to arrange his own life as he wished. Socrates made up his mind that moneymaking was not worth while, in comparison with the liberty to spend his time in thinking about truth. There was a great deal of lively thinking in the Greek world then, and Athens, under Pericles, not only was winning her empire, but was finding that great thinkers, or at any rate their thoughts, loved to come to her. Pythagorean philosophers were wide awake in those days. They were discovering truth about the art of healing, they spent much successful work on astronomy, they were making progress in music, they studied mathematics, especially geometry. Many philosophers of other schools were studying fire, air, water, and earth, claiming that they changed into each other, as we say solids melt into liquids, and liquids dissolve into gases, and as some thinkers suppose that gas atoms are made up of electric units. Others were impressed by the great expanse of the sky, and said that the only way to find truth was to think of the universe as a great unchanging sphere. Others, again, held a doctrine of atoms, tiny invisible shapes of hard matter, which by combining or separating made the changing world.

Socrates, eagerly studying all these theories, heard at last of a philosopher, Anaxagoras, who said that Thought makes the world; but Anaxagoras did not seem to him to show the rational way in which Thought would work. Rational Thought, as Socrates viewed


text:
Page:The story of Jack and the Giants (1851).djvu/51

Rh drew it over his great head, and by the help of a team of horses, dragged him to the edge of the moat, where he cut off the monster’s head; and before he either ate or drank, he sent it to the court of King Arthur. He then went back to the table with the company, and the rest of the day was spent in mirth and good cheer.


text:
Page:The story of Jack and the Giants (1851).djvu/20

18 Giants coming along arm in arm. This window was right over the gates of the castle.

"Now," thought Jack, "either my death or freedom is at hand."

Now there were two strong cords in the room. Jack made a large noose with a slip-knot at the ends of both these; and as the Giants were coming through the iron gates, he threw the ropes over their heads. He then made the other ends fast to a beam in the ceiling, and pulled with all his might till he had almost strangled them. When he saw that they were both quite black in the face, and had not the least strength left, he drew his sword, and slid down the ropes; he then killed the Giants, and thus saved himself from the cruel death they meant to put him to.

Jack next took a great bunch of keys from the pocket of Blunderbore, and went into the castle again. He made a strict search through all the rooms; and in them found three ladies tied up by the hair of their heads, and almost starved to death. They told him that their husbands had been killed by the Giants, who had then condemned them


text: The story of Jack and the Giants/Part 1

title: The story of Jack and the Giants/Part 1


text:
Page:The story of Jack and the Giants (1851).djvu/21

Rh to be starved to death, because they would not eat the flesh of their own husbands.

"Charming Ladies," said Jack, "I have put an end to the monster and his wicked brother; and I give you this castle, and all riches that it contains, to make you some amends for the dreadful pains you have felt."

He then very politely gave them the keys of the castle, and went further in his journey to Wales.

ARING very little for riches, Jack had not taken any of the Giant’s wealth for himself, and having but little money of his own, he thought it best to travel as fast as he could.

At length he lost his way; and when night came on, he was in a valley between two lofty mountains. He thought himself lucky at last in finding a large and handsome house. He went to it, and knocked at the gate; when, to his surprise, there came forth a Giant with two heads. He spoke to Jack


text: Page:Englishmen in the French Revolution.djvu/1


text: Index:Englishmen in the French Revolution.djvu


text:
Jameson's Ride

Wrong! Is it wrong? well, may be; But I'm going, boys, all the same. Do they think me a Burgher's baby, To be scared by a scolding name? They may argue, and prate, and order; Go, tell them to save their breath: Then, over the Transvaal border, And gallop for life or death! Let lawyers and statesmen addle Their pates over points of law: If sound be our sword, and saddle, And gun-gear, who cares one straw? When men of our own blood pray us To ride to their kinsfolk's aid, Not Heaven itself shall stay us From the rescue they call a raid.

There are girls in the gold-reef city, There are mothers and children too! And they cry, "Hurry up! For pity!" So what can a brave man do? If even we win they'll blame us: If we fail, they will howl and hiss. But there's many a man lives famous For daring a wrong like this!

So we forded and galloped forward As hard as our beasts could pelt, First eastward, then trending nor'ward. Eight over the rolling veldt; Till we came to the Burghers lying In a hollow with hill behind, And their bullets came hissing, flying, Like hail on an Arctic wind.

Right sweet is the marksman's rattle, And sweeter the cannon's roar; But 'tis bitterly bad to battle, Beleaguered, and one to four. I can tell you it wasn't a trifle To swarm over Krugersdorp Glen, As they plied us with round and rifle, And ploughed us again — and again.

Then we made for the gold-reef city, Retreating, but not in rout. They had called to us, "Quick! For pity!" And he said, "They will sally out — They will hear us come. Who doubts it?" But how if they don't — what then? "Well, worry no more about it, But fight to the death like men."

Not a soul had supped or slumbered Since the Borderland stream was cleft; But we fought, even more outnumbered, Till we had not a cartridge left. We're not very soft or tender, Or given to weep for woe, But it breaks one to have to render One's sword to the strongest foe.

I suppose we were wrong, were madmen, Still I think at the Judgment Day, When God sifts the good from the bad men, There'll be something more to say. We were wrong, but we aren't half sorry; And as one of the baffled band, I would rather have had that foray Than the crushing of all the Rand.

—Swinford Old Manor, January 9

title: Jameson's Ride


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Fabell, Peter


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/John XIV (pope)


text: On the Magnet/I-5

title: On the Magnet/I-5


text: On the Magnet/I-6

title: On the Magnet/I-6


text: On the Magnet/I-7

title: On the Magnet/I-7


text: On the Magnet/I-8

title: On the Magnet/I-8


text: On the Magnet/I-9

title: On the Magnet/I-9


text:
Page:Tom Thumb's picture alphabet.djvu/3

 TOM THUMB'S

IN RHYME.

Tom Thumb's picture alphabet pg 1.jpg

NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY J. S. REDFIELD CLINTON HALL.


text: Page:Tom Thumb's picture alphabet.djvu/2


text: Tom Thumb's Picture Alphabet

title: Tom Thumb's Picture Alphabet


text: On the Magnet/I-10

title: On the Magnet/I-10


text:
User talk:Yuna~enwikisource

Login To Change Wikipedia
I think people should have to login to change the wikipedia.

Right now, anyone can change a wikipedia without even logging in. People can delete things, add things, or completely mess up a wikipedia without even being tracked.

People have spent their time contributing to Wiki and that contribution should be protected, I think.

Please consider only allowing people that login to an account to change a Wikipedia.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Yuna. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Yuna~enwikisource that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yuna~enwikisource


text:
Page:The story of Jack and the Giants (1851).djvu/22

20 very civilly, for he was a Welsh Giant, and all the mischief he did was done under a show of friendship. Jack told him he was a benighted traveller, when the monster bade Jack welcome, and led him into a room where he could pass the night. But though he was weary he could not sleep, for he heard the Giant walking backward and forward in the next room, saying,

"Say you so?" quoth Jack; "that is like one of your Welsh tricks."

Then getting out of bed, Jack groped about the room, and at last found a billet of wood; he laid it in his place in the bed, and hid himself in a corner of the room. In the middle of the night the Giant came with his great club, and struck many heavy blows on the bed, in the very place where Jack had laid the billet; and then went to his own room, thinking he had broken all Jack's bones.


text: On the Magnet/I-11

title: On the Magnet/I-11


text:
Page:The story of Jack and the Giants (1851).djvu/27

ACK travelled on until he met with King Arthur's only son, who was seeking all through Wales for a very beautiful lady that was enchanted. Jack asked leave to be the Prince’s attendant, and the Prince granted his request.

After a long day's journey, when night drew on, the Prince was anxious to secure a lodging, but they had no means to hire one, for both the prince and Jack had spent all their money; but Jack said,—

"Never mind, master, we shall do well enough, for I have an uncle who lives within two miles of this place; he is


text:
Translation:Quietly Night is falling

Quietly Night is falling on the mountain tops, Moon is being reflected in the lakes. All stoped.

Above endless steppes in unknown way Clouds is like chains float day by day.

And above wide river, covered by twilight, Enigmatic forest dreams in lovely quiet.

Tinges of light water are shining in the reeds, Sea of golden rye's died down in the fields...

title: Translation:Quietly Night is falling


text:
Page:The story of Jack and the Giants (1851).djvu/29

 "None but your poor cousin Jack," answered he.

"What news with my poor cousin Jack?"

He replied, "Dear uncle, heavy news."

"God wot," quoth the Giant, "prithee what heavy news can come to me? I am a Giant with three heads; and besides, thou knowest I can fight five hundred men in armour, and make them fly like chaff before the wind."

"Oh, but," quoth Jack, "here’s the Prince a-coming, with a thousand men in armour, to kill you, and destroy all that you have!"

"Oh, cousin Jack," said the Giant, "this is heavy news indeed! I will immediately run and hide myself, and thou shalt lock, bolt, and bar me in, and keep the keys till the Prince is gone."

Jack joyfully complied with the Giant’s request; and fetching his master, they feasted and made themselves merry, whilst the poor Giant lay trembling in a vault underground.

In the morning, Jack finished the Prince with a fresh supply of gold and silver, and then sent him three miles


text: On the Magnet/I-12

title: On the Magnet/I-12


text: On the Magnet/I-13

title: On the Magnet/I-13


text:
Page:The story of Jack and the Giants (1851).djvu/28

26 a huge and monstrous Giant, with three heads; he’ll fight five hundred men in armour, and make them flee before him."

"Alas!" quoth the Prince, "what shall we do there? he’ll certainly chop us up at a mouthful. Nay, we are scarce enough to fill his hollow tooth."

"It is no matter for that," quoth Jack; "I myself will go before, and prepare the way for you; therefore tarry and wait till I return."

Jack then rode off full speed, and coming to the gate of the castle, he knocked so loud that the echo from the neighbouring hills resounded like thunder.

The Giant, terribly vexed, roared out, "Who’s there?"


text: On the Magnet/I-14

title: On the Magnet/I-14


text: On the Magnet/I-15

title: On the Magnet/I-15


text: On the Magnet/I-16

title: On the Magnet/I-16


text: On the Magnet/I-17

title: On the Magnet/I-17


text: On the Magnet/II-1

title: On the Magnet/II-1


text:
In re Aimster Copyright Litigation

For RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, ZOMBA RECORDING CORPORATION, CAROLINE RECORDS, INCORPORATED, EMI CHRISTIAN MUSIC GROUP, INCORPORATED, NARADA PRODUCTIONS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiffs - Appellees: Bradley Rochlen, KATTEN, MUCHIN, ZAVIS, ROSEMAN, Chicago, IL USA. Russell Frackman, MITCHELL, SILBERBERG & KNUPP, Los Angeles, CA.

For JOHN DEEP, Defendant - Appellant: William L. Montague, Jr., STOLL, KEENON & PARK, Lexington, KY USA.

Before POSNER, RIPPLE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

title: In re Aimster Copyright Litigation


text: On the Magnet/II-2

title: On the Magnet/II-2


text: On the Magnet/II-3

title: On the Magnet/II-3


text: On the Magnet/II-4

title: On the Magnet/II-4


text:
In re Aimster Copyright Litigation/Opinion of the Court

[p645] POSNER, Circuit Judge.

Owners of copyrighted popular music filed a number of closely related suits, which were consolidated and transferred to the Northern District of Illinois by the Multi-district Litigation Panel, against John Deep and corporations that are controlled by him and need not be discussed separately. The numerous plaintiffs, who among them appear to own most subsisting copyrights on American popular music, claim that Deep's "Aimster" Internet service (recently renamed "Madster") is a contributory and vicarious infringer of these copyrights. The district judge entered a broad preliminary injunction, which had the effect of shutting down the Aimster service until the merits of the suit are finally resolved, from which Deep appeals. Aimster is one of a number of enterprises (the former Napster is the best known) that have been sued for facilitating the swapping of digital copies of popular music, most of it copyrighted, over the Internet. (For an illuminating discussion, see Tim Wu, "When Code Isn't Law," 89 Va. L. Rev. 679 (2003), esp. 723-41; and with special reference to Aimster, see Alec Klein, "Going Napster One Better; Aimster Says Its File-Sharing Software Skirts Legal Quagmire," Wash. Post, Feb. 25, 2001, p. A1.) To simplify exposition, we refer to the appellant as "Aimster" and to the appellees (the plaintiffs) as the recording industry.

Teenagers and young adults who have access to the Internet like to swap computer files containing popular music. If the music is copyrighted, such swapping, which involves making and transmitting a digital copy of the music, infringes copyright. The swappers, who are ignorant or more commonly disdainful of copyright and in any event discount the likelihood of being sued or prosecuted for copyright infringement, are the direct infringers. But firms that facilitate their infringement, even if they are not themselves infringers because they are not making copies of the music that is shared, may be liable to the copyright owners as contributory infringers. Recognizing the impracticability or futility of a copyright owner's suing a multitude of individual infringers ("chasing individual consumers is time consuming and is a teaspoon solution to an ocean problem," Randal C. Picker, "Copyright as Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution," 47 Antitrust Bull. 423, 442 (2002)), the law allows a copyright holder to sue a contributor to the infringement instead, in [p646]  effect as an aider and abettor. Another analogy is to the tort of intentional interference with contract, that is, inducing a breach of contract. See, e.g., Sufrin v. Hosier, 128 F.3d 594, 597 (7th Cir. 1997). If a breach of contract (and a copyright license is just a type of contract) can be prevented most effectively by actions taken by a third party, it makes sense to have a legal mechanism for placing liability for the consequences of the breach on him as well as on the party that broke the contract.

The district judge ruled that the recording industry had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on the merits should the case proceed to trial. He so ruled with respect to vicarious as well as contributory infringement; we begin with the latter, the more familiar charge.

The Aimster system has the following essential components: proprietary software that can be downloaded free of charge from Aimster's Web site; Aimster's server (a server is a computer that provides services to other computers, in this case personal computers owned or accessed by Aimster's users, over a network), which hosts the Web site and collects and organizes information obtained from the users but does not make copies of the swapped files themselves and that also provides the matching service described below; computerized tutorials instructing users of the software on how to use it for swapping computer files; and "Club Aimster," a related Internet service owned by Deep that users of Aimster's software can join for a fee and use to download the "top 40" popular-music files more easily than by using the basic, free service. The "AIM" in "Aimster" stands for AOL instant-messaging service. Aimster is available only to users of such services (of which AOL's is the most popular) because Aimster users can swap files only when both are online and connected in a chat room enabled by an instant-messaging service.

Someone who wants to use Aimster's basic service for the first time to swap files downloads the software from Aimster's Web site and then registers on the system by entering a user name (it doesn't have to be his real name) and a password at the Web site. Having done so, he can designate any other registrant as a "buddy" and can communicate directly with all his buddies when he and they are online, attaching to his communications (which are really just emails) any files that he wants to share with the buddies. All communications back and forth are encrypted by the sender by means of encryption software furnished by Aimster as part of the software package downloadable at no charge from the Web site, and are decrypted by the recipient using the same Aimster-furnished software package. If the user does not designate a buddy or buddies, then all the users of the Aimster system become his buddies; that is, he can send or receive from any of them.

Users list on their computers the computer files they are willing to share. (They needn't list them separately, but can merely designate a folder in their computer that contains the files they are willing to share.) A user who wants to make a copy of a file goes online and types the name of the file he wants in his "Search For" field. Aimster's server searches the computers of those users of its software who are online and so are available to be searched for files they are willing to share, and if it finds the file that has been requested it instructs the computer in which it is housed to transmit the file to the recipient via the Internet for him to download into his computer. Once he has done this he can if he wants make the file available for sharing with other users of the Aimster system by listing it as explained above. In principle, therefore, the purchase of a single CD could be levered into the distribution within days or even hours of millions of identical, near-perfect (depending on the compression format used) copies of the music recorded on the CD--hence the recording industry's anxiety about file-sharing services oriented toward consumers of popular music. But because copies of the songs reside on the computers of the users [p647]  and not on Aimster's own server, Aimster is not a direct infringer of the copyrights on those songs. Its function is similar to that of a stock exchange, which is a facility for matching offers rather than a repository of the things being exchanged (shares of stock). But unlike transactions on a stock exchange, the consummated "transaction" in music files does not take place in the facility, that is, in Aimster's server.

What we have described so far is a type of Internet file-sharing system that might be created for innocuous purposes such as the expeditious exchange of confidential business data among employees of a business firm. See Daniel Nasaw, "Instant Messages Are Popping Up All Over," Wall St. J., June 12, 2003, p. B4; David A. Vise, "AOL Makes Instant-Messaging Deal," Wash. Post, June 12, 2003, p. E5. The fact that copyrighted materials might sometimes be shared between users of such a system without the authorization of the copyright owner or a fair-use privilege would not make the firm a contributory infringer. Otherwise AOL's instant-messaging system, which Aimster piggybacks on, might be deemed a contributory infringer. For there is no doubt that some of the attachments that AOL's multitudinous subscribers transfer are copyrighted, and such distribution is an infringement unless authorized by the owner of the copyright. The Supreme Court made clear in the Sony decision that the producer of a product that has substantial non-infringing uses is not a contributory infringer merely because some of the uses actually made of the product (in that case a machine, the predecessor of today's videocassette recorders, for recording television programs on tape) are infringing. Sony Corp. of America, Inc. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 78 L. Ed. 2d 574, 104 S.C.t. 774 (1984); see also Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 262-67 (5th Cir. 1988). How much more the Court held is the principal issue that divides the parties; and let us try to resolve it, recognizing of course that the Court must have the last word.

Sony's Betamax video recorder was used for three principal purposes, as Sony was well aware (a fourth, playing home movies, involved no copying). The first, which the majority opinion emphasized, was time shifting, that is, recording a television program that was being shown at a time inconvenient for the owner of the Betamax for later watching at a convenient time. The second was "library building," that is, making copies of programs to retain permanently. The third was skipping commercials by taping a program before watching it and then, while watching the tape, using the fast-forward button on the recorder to skip over the commercials. The first use the Court held was a fair use (and hence not infringing) because it enlarged the audience for the program. The copying involved in the second and third uses was unquestionably infringing to the extent that the programs copied were under copyright and the taping of them was not authorized by the copyright owners--but not all fell in either category. Subject to this qualification, building a library of taped programs was infringing because it was the equivalent of borrowing a copyrighted book from a public library, making a copy of it for one's personal library, then returning the original to the public library. The third use, commercial-skipping, amounted to creating an unauthorized derivative work, see WGN Continental Broadcasting Co. v. United Video, Inc., 693 F.2d 622, 625 (7th Cir. 1982); Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Cos., 538 F.2d 14, 17-19, 23 (2d Cir. 1976); ''cf. Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc.'', 132 F.3d 1167, 1173 (7th Cir. 1997), namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner's income from his original program, [p648]  since "free" television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers.

Thus the video recorder was being used for a mixture of infringing and noninfringing uses and the Court thought that Sony could not demix them because once Sony sold the recorder it lost all control over its use. Sony Corp. of America, Inc. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., supra, 464 U.S at 438. The court ruled that "the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses. The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses. In order to resolve that question, we need not explore all the different potential uses of the machine and determine whether or not they would constitute infringement. Rather, we need only consider whether on the basis of the facts as found by the district court a significant number of them would be non-infringing. Moreover, in order to resolve this case we need not give precise content to the question of how much use is commercially significant. For one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home." Id. at 441.

In our case the recording industry, emphasizing the reference to "articles of commerce" in the passage just quoted and elsewhere in the Court's opinion (see id. at 440; cf. 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)), and emphasizing as well the Court's evident concern that the copyright holders were trying to lever their copyright monopolies into a monopoly over video recorders, Sony Corp. of America, Inc. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., supra, 464 U.S at 441-42 and n. 21, and also remarking Sony's helplessness to prevent infringing uses of its recorders once it sold them, argues that Sony is inapplicable to services. With regard to services, the industry argues, the test is merely whether the provider knows it's being used to infringe copyright. The industry points out that the provider of a service, unlike the seller of a product, has a continuing relation with its customers and therefore should be able to prevent, or at least limit, their infringing copyright by monitoring their use of the service and terminating them when it is discovered that they are infringing. Although Sony could have engineered its video recorder in a way that would have reduced the likelihood of infringement, as by eliminating the fast-forward capability, or, as suggested by the dissent, id. at 494, by enabling broadcasters by scrambling their signal to disable the Betamax from recording their programs (for that matter, it could have been engineered to have only a play, not a recording, capability), the majority did not discuss these possibilities and we agree with the recording industry that the ability of a service provider to prevent its customers from infringing is a factor to be considered in determining whether the provider is a contributory infringer. Congress so recognized in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which we discuss later in this opinion.

It is not necessarily a controlling factor, however, as the recording industry believes. If a service facilitates both infringing and noninfringing uses, as in the case of AOL's instant-messaging service, and the detection and prevention of the infringing uses would be highly burdensome, the rule for which the recording industry is contending could result in the shutting down of the service or its annexation by the copyright owners (contrary to the clear [p649]  import of the Sony decision), because the provider might find it impossible to estimate its potential damages liability to the copyright holders and would anyway face the risk of being enjoined. The fact that the recording industry's argument if accepted might endanger AOL's instant-messaging service (though the service might find shelter under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act--a question complicated, however, by AOL's intention, of which more later, of offering an encryption option to the visitors to its chat rooms) is not only alarming; it is paradoxical, since subsidiaries of AOL's parent company (AOL Time Warner), such as Warner Brothers Records and Atlantic Recording Corporation, are among the plaintiffs in this case and music chat rooms are among the facilities offered by AOL's instant-messaging service.

We also reject the industry's argument that Sony provides no defense to a charge of contributory infringement when, in the words of the industry's brief, there is anything "more than a mere showing that a product may be used for infringing purposes." Although the fact was downplayed in the majority opinion, it was apparent that the Betamax was being used for infringing as well as noninfringing purposes--even the majority acknowledged that 25 percent of Betamax users were fast forwarding through commercials, id. at 452 n. 36--yet Sony was held not to be a contributory infringer. The Court was unwilling to allow copyright holders to prevent infringement effectuated by means of a new technology at the price of possibly denying noninfringing consumers the benefit of the technology. We therefore agree with Professor Goldstein that the Ninth Circuit erred in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001), in suggesting that actual knowledge of specific infringing uses is a sufficient condition for deeming a facilitator a contributory infringer. 2 Paul Goldstein, Copyright § 6.1.2, p. 6:12-1 (2d ed. 2003)

The recording industry's hostility to the Sony decision is both understandable, given the amount of Internet-enabled infringement of music copyrights, and manifest--the industry in its brief offers five reasons for confining its holding to its specific facts. But it is being articulated in the wrong forum.

Equally, however, we reject Aimster's argument that to prevail the recording industry must prove it has actually lost money as a result of the copying that its service facilitates. It is true that the Court in Sony emphasized that the plaintiffs had failed to show that they had sustained substantial harm from the Betamax. Id. at 450-54, 456. But the Court did so in the context of assessing the argument that time shifting of television programs was fair use rather than infringement. One reason time shifting was fair use, the Court believed, was that it wasn't hurting the copyright owners because it was enlarging the audience for their programs. But a copyright owner who can prove infringement need not show that the infringement caused him a financial loss. Granted, without such a showing he cannot obtain compensatory damages; but he can obtain statutory damages, or an injunction, just as the owner of physical property can obtain an injunction against a trespasser without proving that the trespass has caused him a financial loss.

What is true is that when a supplier is offering a product or service that has noninfringing as well as infringing uses, some estimate of the respective magnitudes of these uses is necessary for a finding of contributory infringement. The Court's action in striking the cost-benefit trade-off in favor of Sony came to seem prescient [p650]  when it later turned out that the principal use of video recorders was to allow people to watch at home movies that they bought or rented rather than to tape television programs. (In 1984, when Sony was decided, the industry was unsure how great the demand would be for prerecorded tapes compared to time shifting. The original Betamax played one-hour tapes, long enough for most television broadcasts but too short for a feature film. Sony's competitors used the VHS format, which came to market later but with a longer playing time; this contributed to VHS's eventual displacement of Betamax.) An enormous new market thus opened for the movie industry--which by the way gives point to the Court's emphasis on potential as well as actual noninfringing uses. But the balancing of costs and benefits is necessary only in a case in which substantial noninfringing uses, present or prospective, are demonstrated.

We also reject Aimster's argument that because the Court said in Sony that mere "constructive knowledge" of infringing uses is not enough for contributory infringement, 464 U.S. at 439, and the encryption feature of Aimster's service prevented Deep from knowing what songs were being copied by the users of his system, he lacked the knowledge of infringing uses that liability for contributory infringement requires. Willful blindness is knowledge, in copyright law (where indeed it may be enough that the defendant should have known of the direct infringement, Casella v. Morris, 820 F.2d 362, 365 (11th Cir. 1987); 2 Goldstein, supra, § 6.1, p. 6:6), as it is in the law generally. See, e.g., Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Lee, 875 F.2d 584, 590 (7th Cir. 1989) (contributory trademark infringement). One who, knowing or strongly suspecting that he is involved in shady dealings, takes steps to make sure that he does not acquire full or exact knowledge of the nature and extent of those dealings is held to have a criminal intent, United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1228 (7th Cir. 1990), because a deliberate effort to avoid guilty knowledge is all that the law requires to establish a guilty state of mind. United States v. Josefik, 753 F.2d 585, 589 (7th Cir. 1985); AMPAT/Midwest, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works Inc., 896 F.2d 1035, 1042 (7th Cir. 1990) ("to know, and to want not to know because one suspects, may be, if not the same state of mind, the same degree of fault)." In United States v. Diaz, 864 F.2d 544, 550 (7th Cir. 1988), the defendant, a drug trafficker, sought "to insulate himself from the actual drug transaction so that he could deny knowledge of it," which he did sometimes by absenting himself from the scene of the actual delivery and sometimes by pretending to be fussing under the hood of his car. He did not escape liability by this maneuver; no more can Deep by using encryption software to prevent himself from learning what surely he strongly suspects to be the case: that the users of his service--maybe all the users of his service--are copyright infringers.

This is not to say that the provider of an encrypted instant-messaging service or encryption software is ipso factor a contributory infringer should his buyers use the service to infringe copyright, merely because encryption, like secrecy generally, facilitates unlawful transactions. ("Encryption" comes from the Greek word for concealment.) Encryption fosters privacy, and privacy is a social benefit though also a source of social costs. "AOL has begun testing an encrypted version of AIM [AOL Instant Messaging]. Encryption is considered critical for widespread adoption of IM in some industries and federal agencies." Vise, supra. Our point is only that a service provider that would otherwise be [p651]  a contributory infringer does not obtain immunity by using encryption to shield itself from actual knowledge of the unlawful purposes for which the service is being used.

We also do not buy Aimster's argument that since the Supreme Court distinguished, in the long passage from the Sony opinion that we quoted earlier, between actual and potential noninfringing uses, all Aimster has to show in order to escape liability for contributory infringement is that its file-sharing system could be used in noninfringing ways, which obviously it could be. Were that the law, the seller of a product or service used solely to facilitate copyright infringement, though it was capable in principle of noninfringing uses, would be immune from liability for contributory infringement. That would be an extreme result, and one not envisaged by the Sony majority. Otherwise its opinion would have had no occasion to emphasize the fact (at least the majority thought it a fact--the dissent disagreed, 464 U.S. at 458-59) that Sony had not in its advertising encouraged the use of the Betamax to infringe copyright. Id. at 438. Nor would the Court have thought it important to say that the Betamax was used "principally" for time shifting, id. at 421; see also id. at 423, which as we recall the Court deemed a fair use, or to remark that the plaintiffs owned only a small percentage of the total amount of copyrighted television programming and it was unclear how many of the other owners objected to home taping. Id. at 443; see also id. at 446.

There are analogies in the law of aiding and abetting, the criminal counterpart to contributory infringement. A retailer of slinky dresses is not guilty of aiding and abetting prostitution even if he knows that some of his customers are prostitutes--he may even know which ones are. See United States v. Giovannetti, supra, 919 F.2d at 1227; People v. Lauria, 251 Cal. App. 2d 471, 59 Cal.Rptr. 628 (App. 1967); Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law 746-47 (3d ed. 1982). The extent to which his activities and those of similar sellers actually promote prostitution is likely to be slight relative to the social costs of imposing a risk of prosecution on him. But the owner of a massage parlor who employs women who are capable of giving massages, but in fact as he knows sell only sex and never massages to their customers, is an aider and abettor of prostitution (as well as being guilty of pimping or operating a brothel). See United States v. Sigalow, 812 F.2d 783, 784, 785 (2d Cir. 1987); State v. Carpenter, 122 Ohio App. 3d 16, 701 N.E.2d 10, 13, 18-19 (Ohio App. 1997); cf. United States v. Luciano-Mosquera, 63 F.3d 1142, 1149-50 (1st Cir. 1995). The slinky-dress case corresponds to Sony, and, like Sony, is not inconsistent with imposing liability on the seller of a product or service that, as in the massage-parlor case, is capable of noninfringing uses but in fact is used only to infringe. To the recording industry, a single known infringing use brands the facilitator as a contributory infringer. To the Aimsters of this world, a single noninfringing use provides complete immunity from liability. Neither is correct.

To situate Aimster's service between these unacceptable poles, we need to say just a bit more about it. In explaining how to use the Aimster software, the tutorial gives as its only examples of file sharing the sharing of copyrighted music, including copyrighted music that the recording industry had notified Aimster was being infringed by Aimster's users. The tutorial is the invitation to infringement that the Supreme Court found was missing in Sony. In addition, membership in Club [p652]  Aimster enables the member for a fee of $ 4.95 a month to download with a single click the music most often shared by Aimster users, which turns out to be music copyrighted by the plaintiffs. Because Aimster's software is made available free of charge and Aimster does not sell paid advertising on its Web site, Club Aimster's monthly fee is the only means by which Aimster is financed and so the club cannot be separated from the provision of the free software. When a member of the club clicks on "play" next to the name of a song on the club's Web site, Aimster's server searches through the computers of the Aimster users who are online until it finds one who has listed the song as available for sharing, and it then effects the transmission of the file to the computer of the club member who selected it. Club Aimster lists only the 40 songs that are currently most popular among its members; invariably these are under copyright.

The evidence that we have summarized does not exclude the possibility of substantial noninfringing uses of the Aimster system, but the evidence is sufficient, especially in a preliminary-injunction proceeding, which is summary in character, to shift the burden of production to Aimster to demonstrate that its service has substantial noninfringing uses. (On burden-shifting in preliminary injunction proceedings, see FTC v. University Health, Inc., 938 F.2d 1206, 1218-19 (11th Cir. 1991); cf. Johnson v. Cambridge Industries, Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 897 (7th Cir. 2003); SEC v. Lipson, 278 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir. 2002); Liu v. T & H Machine, Inc., 191 F.3d 790, 795 (7th Cir. 1999).) As it might:

 * 1) Not all popular music is copyrighted. Apart from music on which the copyright has expired (not much of which, however, is of interest to the teenagers and young adults interested in swapping music), startup bands and performers may waive copyright in the hope that it will encourage the playing of their music and create a following that they can convert to customers of their subsequent works.
 * 2) A music file-swapping service might increase the value of a recording by enabling it to be used as currency in the music-sharing community, since someone who only downloads and never uploads, thus acting as a pure free rider, will not be very popular.
 * 3) Users of Aimster's software might form select (as distinct from all-comers) "buddy" groups to exchange non-copyrighted information about popular music, or for that matter to exchange ideas and opinions about wholly unrelated matters as the buddies became friendlier. Some of the chat-room messages that accompany the listing of music files offered or requested contain information or opinions concerning the music; to that extent, though unremarked by the parties, some noninfringing use is made of Aimster's service, though it is incidental to the infringement.
 * 4) Aimster's users might appreciate the encryption feature because as their friendship deepened they might decide that they wanted to exchange off-color, but not copyrighted, photographs, or dirty jokes, or other forms of expression that people like to keep private, rather than just copyrighted music.
 * 5) Someone might own a popular-music CD that he was particularly fond of, but he had not downloaded it into his computer and now he finds himself out of town but with his laptop and he wants to listen to the CD, so he uses Aimster's service to download a copy. This might be a fair use rather than a copyright infringement, by analogy to the time shifting approved as fair use in the Sony case. Recording Industry Ass'n of  [p653]  America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999); cf. Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., supra, 847 F.2d at 266-67. The analogy was sidestepped in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., supra, 239 F.3d at 1019, because Napster's system did not limit downloading to music on CDs owned by the downloader. The analogy was rejected in UMG Recordings v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp.2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), on the ground that the copy on the defendant's server was an unauthorized derivative work; a solider ground, in light of Sony's rejection of the parallel argument with respect to time shifting, would have been that the defendant's method for requiring that its customers "prove" that they owned the CDs containing the music they wanted to download was too lax.

All five of our examples of actually or arguably noninfringing uses of Aimster's service are possibilities, but as should be evident from our earlier discussion the question is how probable they are. It is not enough, as we have said, that a product or service be physically capable, as it were, of a noninfringing use. Aimster has failed to produce any evidence that its service has ever been used for a noninfringing use, let alone evidence concerning the frequency of such uses. In the words of the district judge, "defendants here have provided no evidence whatsoever (besides the unsupported declaration of Deep) that Aimster is actually used for any of the stated non-infringing purposes. Absent is any indication from real-life Aimster users that their primary use of the system is to transfer non-copyrighted files to their friends or identify users of similar interests and share information. Absent is any indication that even a single business without a network administrator uses Aimster to exchange business records as Deep suggests." In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 252 F. Supp.2d 634, 653 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (emphasis in original). We have to assume for purposes of deciding this appeal that no such evidence exists; its absence, in combination with the evidence presented by the recording industry, justified the district judge in concluding that the industry would be likely to prevail in a full trial on the issue of contributory infringement. Because Aimster failed to show that its service is ever used for any purpose other than to infringe the plaintiffs' copyrights, the question (as yet unsettled, see Wu, supra, at 708 and nn. 95 and 98) of the net effect of Napster-like services on the music industry's income is irrelevant to this case. If the only effect of a service challenged as contributory infringement is to enable copyrights to be infringed, the magnitude of the resulting loss, even whether there is a net loss, becomes irrelevant to liability.

Even when there are noninfringing uses of an Internet file-sharing service, moreover, if the infringing uses are substantial then to avoid liability as a contributory infringer the provider of the service must show that it would have been disproportionately costly for him to eliminate or at least reduce substantially the infringing uses. Aimster failed to make that showing too, by failing to present evidence that the provision of an encryption capability effective against the service provider itself added important value to the service or saved significant cost. Aimster blinded itself in the hope that by doing so it might come within the rule of the Sony decision.

It complains about the district judge's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing. But his refusal was consistent with our decision in Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc., supra, 132 F.3d at 1171 (citations omitted), where we explained that "if genuine issues of material fact are created by [p654]  the response to a motion for a preliminary injunction, an evidentiary hearing is indeed required. But as in any case in which a party seeks an  evidentiary hearing, he must be able to persuade the court that the issue is indeed genuine and material and so a hearing would be productive--he must show in other words that he has and intends to introduce evidence that if believed will so weaken the moving party's case as to affect the judge's decision on whether to issue an injunction." Aimster hampered its search for evidence by providing encryption. It must take responsibility for that self-inflicted wound.

Turning to the second issue presented by the appeal, we are less confident than the district judge was that the recording industry would also be likely to prevail on the issue of vicarious infringement should the case be tried, though we shall not have to resolve our doubts in order to decide the appeal. "Vicarious liability" generally refers to the liability of a principal, such as an employer, for the torts committed by his agent, an employee for example, in the course of the agent's employment. The teenagers and young adults who use Aimster's system to infringe copyright are of course not Aimster's agents. But one of the principal rationales of vicarious liability, namely the difficulty of obtaining effective relief against an agent, who is likely to be impecunious, Alan O. Sykes, "The Economics of Vicarious Liability," 93 Yale L.J. 1231, 1241-42, 1272 (1984), has been extended in the copyright area to cases in which the only effective relief is obtainable from someone who bears a relation to the direct infringers that is analogous to the relation of a principal to an agent. See 2 Goldstein, supra, § 6.2, pp. 6:17 to 6:18. The canonical illustration is the owner of a dance hall who hires dance bands that sometimes play copyrighted music without authorization. The bands are not the dance hall's agents, but it may be impossible as a practical matter for the copyright holders to identify and obtain a legal remedy against the infringing bands yet quite feasible for the dance hall to prevent or at least limit infringing performances. And so the dance hall that fails to make reasonable efforts to do this is liable as a vicarious infringer. Dreamland Ball Room v. Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., 36 F.2d 354, 355 (7th Cir. 1929), and other cases cited in Sony Corp. of America, Inc. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., supra, 464 U.S. at 437 n. 18; 2 Goldstein, supra, § 6.2, pp. 6:18 to 6:20. The dance hall could perhaps be described as a contributory infringer. But one thinks of a contributory infringer as someone who benefits directly from the infringement that he encourages, and that does not seem an apt description of the dance hall, though it does benefit to the extent that competition will force the dance band to charge the dance hall a smaller fee for performing if the band doesn't pay copyright royalties and so has lower costs than it would otherwise have.

How far the doctrine of vicarious liability extends is uncertain. It could conceivably have been applied in the Sony case itself, on the theory that while it was infeasible for the producers of copyrighted television fare to sue the viewers who used the fast-forward button on Sony's video recorder to delete the commercials and thus reduce the copyright holders' income, Sony could have reduced the likelihood of infringement, as we noted earlier, by a design change. But the Court, treating vicarious and contributory infringement interchangeably, see id. at 435 and n. 17, held that Sony was not a vicarious infringer either. By eliminating the encryption feature and monitoring the use being made of its system, Aimster could like Sony have limited the amount of infringement. [p655] Whether failure to do so made it a vicarious infringer notwithstanding the outcome in Sony is academic, however; its ostrich-like refusal to discover the extent to which its system was being used to infringe copyright is merely another piece of evidence that it was a contributory infringer.

We turn now to Aimster's defenses under the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512; see 2 Goldstein, supra, § 6.3. The DMCA is an attempt to deal with special problems created by the so-called digital revolution. One of these is the vulnerability of Internet service providers such as AOL to liability for copyright infringement as a result of file swapping among their subscribers. Although the Act was not passed with Napster-type services in mind, the definition of Internet service provider is broad ("a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor," 17 U.S.C. § 512(k)(1)(B)), and, as the district judge ruled, Aimster fits it. See 2 Goldstein, supra, § 6.3.1, p. 6:27. The Act provides a series of safe harbors for Internet service providers and related entities, but none in which Aimster can moor. The Act does not abolish contributory infringement. The common element of its safe harbors is that the service provider must do what it can reasonably be asked to do to prevent the use of its service by "repeat infringers." 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(A). Far from doing anything to discourage repeat infringers of the plaintiffs' copyrights, Aimster invited them to do so, showed them how they could do so with ease using its system, and by teaching its users how to encrypt their unlawful distribution of copyrighted materials disabled itself from doing anything to prevent infringement.

This completes our discussion of the merits of Aimster's appeal. But the fact that the recording industry is likely to win this case if it is ever tried is not by itself a sufficient basis for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. A court asked to issue such an injunction must also consider which party will suffer the greater harm as a result of a ruling for or against issuance. Aimster points out that the preliminary injunction has put it out of business; the recording industry ripostes that until it was put out of business Aimster, with an estimated 2 to 3 million users, undoubtedly was facilitating a substantial infringement of music copyrights--and remember that Aimster has presented no evidence of offsetting noninfringing uses. On this record, therefore, the harm to Aimster from the grant of the injunction must be reckoned comparable to the harm that the recording industry would suffer from denial of the preliminary injunction.

The only harm that is relevant to the decision to grant a preliminary injunction is irreparable harm, since if it is reparable by an award of damages at the end of trial there is no need for preliminary relief. The recording industry's harm should the preliminary injunction be dissolved would undoubtedly be irreparable. The industry's damages from Aimster's contributory infringement cannot be reliably estimated and Aimster would in any event be unlikely ever to have the resources to pay them. Aimster's irreparable harm from the grant of the injunction is, if anything, less, because of the injunction bond of $ 500,000 that the industry was required to post and that Aimster does not contend is inadequate. (Even without the bond, the recording industry would undoubtedly be good for any damages that Aimster may have sustained from being temporarily shut down, though, bond or no bond, there is still the measurement [p656]  problem.) Even if the irreparable harms are deemed the same, since the plaintiffs have a stronger case on the merits than Aimster does the judge was right to grant the injunction.

Aimster objects to the injunction's breadth. But having failed to suggest alternative language either in the district court or in this court, it has waived the objection. We cannot find a case that makes this point expressly, but it is implicit in the general principle that arguments made but not developed do not preserve issues for appellate review. E.g., Jones Motor Co. v. Holtkamp, Liese, 197 F.3d 1190, 1192 (7th Cir. 1999). We are not impressed by Aimster's argument that the district court had an independent duty, rooted in the free-speech clause of the First Amendment, to make sure that the impact of the injunction on communications over the Internet is no greater than is absolutely necessary to provide the recording industry with the legal protection to which it is entitled while the case wends its way to a conclusion. Copyright law and the principles of equitable relief are quite complicated enough without the superimposition of First Amendment case law on them; and we have been told recently by the Supreme Court not only that "copyright law contains built-in First Amendment accommodations" but also that, in any event, the First Amendment "bears less heavily when speakers assert the right to make other people's speeches." Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 123 S.C.t. 769, 788-89, 154 L. Ed. 2d 683 (2003). Or, we add, to copy, or enable the copying of, other people's music.

AFFIRMED.


text: Talk:In re Aimster Copyright Litigation

title: Talk:In re Aimster Copyright Litigation


text: On the Magnet/II-5

title: On the Magnet/II-5


text:
User talk:Yungabdi

--Xxagile (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Test
--Xxagile (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yungabdi


text: On the Magnet/II-6

title: On the Magnet/II-6


text: On the Magnet/II-7

title: On the Magnet/II-7


text: Portal talk:Platylobium formosum

title: Portal talk:Platylobium formosum


text: Portal talk:Pultenaea stipularis

title: Portal talk:Pultenaea stipularis


text: Portal talk:Styphelia tubiflora

title: Portal talk:Styphelia tubiflora


text: On the Magnet/II-8

title: On the Magnet/II-8


text: Portal talk:Telopea speciosissima

title: Portal talk:Telopea speciosissima


text: Portal talk:Tetratheca juncea

title: Portal talk:Tetratheca juncea


text: Portal talk:Cephalotus follicularis

title: Portal talk:Cephalotus follicularis


text: On the Magnet/II-9

title: On the Magnet/II-9


text: On the Magnet/II-10

title: On the Magnet/II-10


text: On the Magnet/II-11

title: On the Magnet/II-11


text: On the Magnet/II-12

title: On the Magnet/II-12


text: On the Magnet/II-13

title: On the Magnet/II-13


text: On the Magnet/II-14

title: On the Magnet/II-14


text:
Page:Best Russian Short Stories.djvu/135

Rh youth walked toward the light, and cried: 'It is you, my father, it is you!'"

"And was it his father's house?"

"No, it was merely a night lodging of wild nomads. So for many years he led the miserable life of a captive slave, and only in his dreams saw the distant home and rested on his father's bosom. Sometimes with weak hand he endeavoured to lure from dead clay or wood or stone the face and form that ever hovered before him. There even came moments when he grew weary and embraced his own handiwork and prayed to it and wet it with his tears. But the stone remained cold stone. And as he waxed in years the youth destroyed his creations, which already seemed to him a vile defamation of his ever-present dreams. At last fate brought him to a good barbarian, who asked him for the cause of his constant mourning. When the youth confided to him the hopes and longings of his soul, the barbarian, a wise man, said:

"'The world would be better did such a man and such a country exist as that of which you speak. But by what mark would you recognise your father?'

"'In my country,' answered the youth, 'they reverenced wisdom and virtue and looked up to my father as to the master.'

"'Well and good,' answered the barbarian. 'I must assume that a kernel of your father's teaching resides in you. Therefore take up the wanderer's staff, and proceed on your way. Seek perfect wisdom and truth, and when you have found them, cast aside your staff—there will be your home and your father.'

"And the youth went on his way at break of day"

"Did he find the one whom he sought?"

"He is still seeking. Many countries, cities and men has he seen. He has come to know all the ways by land; he has traversed the stormy seas; he has searched the courses of the stars in heaven by which a pilgrim can direct his course in the limitless deserts. And each time that on his wearisome way an inviting fire lighted up the darkness before his eyes his heart beat faster and hope crept into his soul. 'That is my father's hospitable house,' he thought.


text:
Portal talk:Banned books

1928 or earlier works from the wikipedia List of books banned by governments

 * Areopagitica by John Milton
 * Candide by Voltaire
 * The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer
 * The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio
 * Droll Stories by Honore de Balzac
 * Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis
 * Fanny Hill by John Cleland
 * Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
 * He Himself by Edward Cangas
 * The Jungle by Sinclair Lewis first book edition, 1906:
 * Lady Chatterley's Lover by D. H. Lawrence (1928)
 * Les Moeurs by Francois-Vincent Toussaint
 * Little Black Sambo (1899) by Helen Bannerman
 * Lysistrata by Aristophanes
 * Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
 * Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
 * The Meritorious Price of Our Redemption by William Pynchon
 * Mirror of the Polish Crown by Sebastian Miczynski
 * Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe
 * The Mountain Wreath by Peter II Petrovic-Njegos
 * The Nickel-Plated Feet Gang During the Occupation by the Successors of Louis Forton
 * On the Origins and Perpetual Use of the Legislative Powers of the Apostolic Kings of Hungary in Matters Ecclesiastical by Adam F. Kollar
 * The 120 Days of Sodom by Marquis de Sade
 * The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1903)
 * The Quran
 * Rangila Rasul by Pt. Chamupati
 * Rights of Man by Thomas Paine
 * Thalia by Arius
 * Ulysses by James Joyce
 * Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe
 * United States - Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense aka Pentagon Papers (1971 PD government document)
 * The Well of Loneliness by Radclyffe Hall

burned books as per List of book-burning incidents
The following is a list of books specifically, intentionally burned over the years, specifically not including situations where whole libraries, towns, etc., were burned, as per the article mentioned in the section title.

 * On the Gods by Protagoras (no known copies extant)
 * Shi Jing, Classic of History, and writings of the hundred schools of thought, including apparently I Ching, Classic of Poetry, Rites of Zhou, Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial, Classic of Rites, Spring and Autumn Annals, Zuo Zuhan], [[Commentary of Gongyang, Commentary of Guliang, Classic of Filial Piety, Mencius, Analects of Confucius, Doctrine of the Mean, The Great Learning, Erya, Bamboo Annals, Yi Zhou Shu, Discourses of the States, Strategies of the Warring States, Yanzi chunqiu, Kongzi Jiayu, Xunzi, Six Secret Teachings, The Art of War, Wuzi, The Methods of the Sima, Wei Liaozi, Three Strategies of Huang Shigong, Thirty-Six Strategems, Guanzi, Deng Xizi, The Book of Lord Shang, Hanfeizi, Shenzi, Canons of law, Huangdi Neijing, Nan Jing, Yuzi, Mozi, Yinwenzi, Shenzi, Heguanzi, Gongsun longzi, Guiguzi, Lushi Chunqiu, Shizi, Classic of Mountains and Seas, Tale of King Mu, Son of Heaven, Dao De Jing, Guan Yinzi, Liezi, Zhuangzi, Wenzi, Chu Ci (all as per Chinese classics
 * Jewish Bible and related books, multiple times
 * Aeneid
 * History by Aulus Cremutius Cordus
 * New Testament, more than once
 * Manichean scriptures, presumably including Shabuhragan, Manichean Book of Giants, and other lost works
 * Thalia of Arius and other Arian works
 * Sibylline Books, more than once
 * Works of Priscillian
 * Writings of Nestorius, including The Bazaar of Heraclides
 * Lost book by Eutychius
 * Early variant editions of the Quran
 * Mozarabic Rite and Roman Rite books
 * Theologia Summi Boni by Peter Abelard
 * Cathar texts, including the Rituel Cathare de Lyon and The Book of Two Principles
 * Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides
 * Works of John Wycliffe
 * Nomoi by Gemistus Pletho
 * Decameron of Boccacio and all works of Ovid
 * Exsurge Domine, Code of Canon Law (as of 1520), Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas and Summa Angelica by Angelo Carletti di Chivasso
 * Works of Martin Luther and Lutherans
 * New Testament by William Tyndale
 * Christianismi Restitutio and all other works by Michael Serverus
 * Florentine Codex
 * An Examination of the Traditions of the Pharisees by Uriel da Costa
 * Works of Marco Antonio de Dominos
 * Bescherming der Waerheyt Godts by Foeke Floris, Bibliotheca fratrum Polonorum, and other works
 * The Meritorious Price of Our Redemption by William Pynchon
 * Pansophiae Prodromus and other works by John Amos Comenius
 * Tikkunim Hadashim by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto
 * Amalasunta by Carlo Goldoni
 * Works of Johann Christian Edelmann
 * Tiangong Kaiwu, Siku Quanshu
 * Dictionnaire philosophique, and Man of Forty Crowns by Voltaire
 * Libro d'Oro
 * The Bonnie Blue Flag
 * Comparison of the material and moral levels in the Western Great-Russian and Polish Regions by Ivan Bloch
 * Dubliners by James Joyce
 * Valley of the Squinting Windows by Brinsley MacNamara
 * Gott mit Uns by George Gross
 * Works by Theodore Dreiser
 * Works by Goethe, Shaw, Freud, and others
 * Our Lady of the Flowers by Jean Genet
 * Works of Knut Hamsun
 * The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie
 * Selected works by Abu Nuwas
 * Books included in Nazi book burnings, including works by Isaac Babel, Henri Barbusse, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Bertholt Brecht, Max Brod, Joseph Conrad, Otto Dix, Alfred Doblin,, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and.
 * Books burned during Book burnings in Chile, including Clandestine in China by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

title: Portal talk:Banned books


text: Portal talk:US Army Lineage Series

title: Portal talk:US Army Lineage Series


text: Page:Tom Thumb's picture alphabet.djvu/1


text:
Page:Examiner, Journal of Political Economy, v2n13.djvu/2

 some years—and instead thereof applied several times in vain to the Legislature to grant his claim.

On the 31st January, 1803, Governor McKean sent a Message to the Legislature, in regard to this decree of Judge Peters, (which he also transmitted,) reprobating severely these proceedings as violating the Law of the State, and the verdict of a jury, and as being wholly irregular.

In consequence of this message, an Act was passed 2d April, 1802, authorizing the Governor to direct the Attorney General to demand the money from the Executrices, or to bring suit against them in case of their refusal—and directing the Governor to "protect the just rights of the State," in respect of the premises by any further means or measures that he may deem necessary for the purpose, and also to protect the persons and properties of Elizabeth Sergeant and Esther Waters from any process whatever issued out of any Federal Court, in consequence of their obedience to the requisition made by the Attorney General,"—and, in the name of the Commonwealth, to give them a sufficient instrument of indemnification.

On the 29th May, 1807, Mrs. Sergeant and Mrs. Waters, (Executrices of Rittenhouse) filed a suggestion in the U. S. District Court, reciting the act, and showing that under that Act they had paid the money into the State Treasury, and that the decree of that Court, which had been made (by Judge Peters) in favour of Olmstead, was, as respected the rights of the State, without jurisdiction, and ex-parte.

Olmstead then demanded compulsory process of the Court—but Judge Peters, "fearful of embroiling the Government of the U. S. and that of Pennsylvania, and wishing his decision corroborated by the U. S. Supreme Court, refused to grant the process, and alleged these, and other reasons, in his return to a mandamus issued from that Court.

At the February Sessions, 1809, of the U. S. Supreme Court, this Return was argued, and a peremptory mandamus was ordered.

On the 27th February, 1809, Governor Snyder sent a message to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, informing them of the peremptory Mandamus, and that he was making preparations to call out a portion of the Militia to protect the persons and property of the Executrices against any process that might be issued under the Mandamus.

"On the same day he issued his orders to Michael Bright, a Militia General, directing him to call out a portion of the Militia.

The Senate and Lower House immediately passed Resolutions sustaining the Governor, "the tendency of which," (to use the words of Hall, an ultra Federalist) "was to inflame the minds of the people, and strengthen the seeds of rebellion which had been sowed by Governor McKean, and were now nurtured by his successor." (See Hall's Law Journal, vol. 3, p. 203.)

On the 24th March, 1809, the U. S. Marshal received the attachment process against the persons of the Executrices, and on the 25th was prevented from serving it by the soldiers of Bright.

On the 15th April, the U. S. Marshal eluded the vigilance of the Militia, by skulking secretly through a back way, and climbing a back fence, and thus served Mrs. Sergeant surreptitiously with the Federal process.

On the 17th, a Write of Habeas Corpus was issued from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, upon petition of Mrs. Sergeant, directed to the Marshal, ordering him to show cause why Mrs. Sergeant should not be released from custody under the arrest. The Marshal returned, for cause, the Writ of Attachment issued by the U. S. District Court—and the Judge, (C. J. Tilghman) after hearing argument—decided that it was not absolutely clear that the U. S. Court had no jurisdiction, and he therefore seemed to think it better to decide in their favour, than to endanger the peace of the community. He accordingly so decided, and Mrs. Sergeant was allowed by the State, in consequence of this decision by her own Chief Justice, to pay the money to Olmstead, and she was released.

To show that the great object with C. J. Tilghman in inclining his evident doubt and hesitation finally in favour of the United States, was to prevent the great mischief of embroiling the two Governments, we will quote his concluding words—they are these: "But although I say nothing concerning the policy of the Government, I may be allowed, without impropriety, to express my anxious hope that this long continued controversy will be brought to a termination without any material interruption to that harmony between this State and the United States, so essential to the prosperity of both. On the whole case, I cannot say that it clearly appears to me that the District Court of the United States made its decree in a cause of which it had no jurisdiction—I must therefore order that Mrs. Sergeant remain in the custody of the Marshal."

Gen. Bright was, soon after the conclusion of the case, prosecuted by the United States for the resistance, by his soldiers, of the execution of this process—of which he was found guilty, and afterwards pardoned by the President. But this prosecution forms no part of Olmstead's case, though it was consequent thereon and arose out of a part of the proceedings in that case—and yet we find it cunningly attempted to direct the attention of the public mind from the great civil case of Olmstead, (where Nullification was completely effectuated, and continued in force until the State herself consented to withdraw its operation and to pay over the prize money as decreed against her,) so as to direct that attention to the small criminal prosecution of Michael Bright for the part he took in executing the orders of his Sovereign State—which Sovereign State should have been the party proceeded against—(as was the real criminal) if the U. States Government, or its courts, had dared to usurp the right of doing so—and indeed it is a wonder they did not venture it—unless perhaps their recent lesson had better instructed them, and restrained them from prosecuting, and affixing heavy penalties upon the  for Treason and Rebellion.

The statement above given of these proceedings is taken from the full and lengthy account of the case in the Law Journal of J. E. Hall, (of Baltimore) omitting only his very abusive remarks, as a Federalist, against this "Rebellion" (as he terms it) of the State of Pennsylvania and its two Governors. In one part of his observations he says, "Not only the Legislative Body (of Pennsylvania,) but the great mass of the people have nourished a spirit of hatred toward the wholesome provisions of the Common Law, generally, and of the Federal Judiciary in particular, which has justly excited the fears of all well disposed men. We have shown in the preceding narration, that the honour of this Rebellion belongs to Governor McKean—but he had an able coadjutor in the person of his successor who, being an honest, pains taking Mechanic, was elevated to the Gubernatorial Chair: Reasonable men, those who regarded the Union of the States as the anchor of political safety, and the supremacy of the Laws as the trident by which every thing dear was to be protected, shuddered at the sight of a powerful State arrayed in arms, under the sanction of the


text: Index:Register of debates in congress, v6.djvu