New World Order The End Has Come Movie Download Torrent

The reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States (1776). The Latin phrase 'novus ordo seclorum', appearing on the reverse side of the Great Seal since 1782 and on the back of the U.S. one-dollar bill since 1935, translates to 'New Order of the Ages'^[1] and alludes to the beginning of an era where the United States of America is an independent nation-state; conspiracy theorists claim this is an allusion to the 'New World Order'.^[2]

The New World Order or NWO is claimed to be an emerging clandestine totalitarianworld government by various conspiracy theories.^{[3][4][5][6][7]}

Is New World Order COMING? Illuminati ‘goes PUBLIC with global elite website' AS ONE of the world's biggest conspiracy theories, the Illuminati is alleged to be a secretive global elite which.

New World Order: The End Has Come is a movie starring Rob Edwards, Erin Runbeck, and Melissa Farley. The end has come, and a New World Order has arisen. Demi and Christen find themselves living in the apocalyptic era, foretold in. New World Order is a 2009 American documentary film directed by Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel. It explores conspiracy theorists who are committed to vigorously opposing what they believe to be an emerging ' New World Order '. Watch DNA Filmworks New World Order: The End Has Come Teaser Trailer.

The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretivepower elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government—which will replace sovereignnation-states—and an all-encompassing propaganda whose ideology hails the establishment of the New World Order as the culmination of history's progress. Many influential historical and contemporary figures have therefore been purported to be part of a cabal that operates through many front organizations to orchestrate significant political and financial events, ranging from causing systemic crises to pushing through controversial policies, at both national and international levels, as steps in an ongoing plot to achieve world domination.^{[3][4][5][6][7]}

Before the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two American countercultures, primarily the militantly anti-government right and secondarily that part of fundamentalist Christianity concerned with the end-time emergence of the Antichrist.^[8] Skeptics such as Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet observed that right-wing populist conspiracy theories about a New World Order had not only been embraced by many seekers of stigmatized knowledge but had seeped into popular culture, thereby inaugurating a period during the late 20th and early 21st centuries in the United States where people are actively preparing for apocalypticmillenarian scenarios.^[4][6] Those political scientists are concerned that mass hysteria over New World Order conspiracy theories could eventually have devastating effects on American political life, ranging from escalating lone-wolf terrorism to the rise to power of authoritarian ultranationalist demagogues.^[4][6][9]

• 1History of the term
• 2Conspiracy theories
• 3Postulated implementations

History of the term

General usage (Pre-Cold War)

During the 20th century, political figures such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill used the term 'new world order' to refer to a new period of history characterised by a dramatic change in world political thought and in the global balance of power after World War I and World War II.^[10] The interwar and post-World War II period were seen as opportunities to implement idealistic proposals for global governance by collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to resolve, while nevertheless respecting the right of nations to self-determination. Such collective initiatives manifested in the formation of intergovernmental organizations such as the League of Nations in 1920, the United Nations (UN) in 1945, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949, along with international regimes such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), implemented to maintain a cooperative balance of power and facilitate reconciliation between nations to prevent the prospect of another global conflict. These cosmopolitan efforts to instill liberal internationalism were regularly criticized and opposed by American paleoconservativebusiness nationalists from the 1930s on.^{[11][need quotation to verify]}

Progressives welcomed international organizations and regimes such as the United Nations in the aftermath of the two World Wars, but argued that these initiatives suffered from a democratic deficit and were therefore inadequate not only to prevent another world war but to foster global justice, as the UN was chartered to be a free association of sovereign nation-states rather than a transition to democratic world government. Thus, cosmopolitan activists around the globe, perceiving the IGOs as too ineffectual for global change, formed a world federalist movement.^[12]

British writer and futurist H. G. Wells went further than progressives in the 1940s, by appropriating and redefining the term 'new world order' as a synonym for the establishment of a technocratic world state and of a planned economy, garnering popularity in state socialist circles.^[13][14]

Usage as reference to a conspiracy (Cold War era)

During the Second Red Scare, both secular and religious right American agitators, largely influenced by the work of Canadian conspiracy theorist William Guy Carr, increasingly embraced and spread dubious fears of Freemasons, Illuminati and Jews as the alleged driving forces behind an 'international communist conspiracy'. The threat of 'Godless communism', in the form of an atheistic, bureaucratic collectivist world government, demonized as the 'Red Menace', became the focus of apocalypticmillenarianconspiracism. The Red Scare came to shape one of the core ideas of the political right in the United States, which is that liberals and progressives, with their welfare-state policies and international cooperation programs such as foreign aid and open borders, supposedly contribute to a gradual process of global collectivism that will inevitably lead to nations being replaced with a communistic/collectivist one-world government.^[15]

Right-wing populist advocacy groups with a paleoconservative world-view, such as the John Birch Society, disseminated a multitude of conspiracy theories in the 1960s claiming that the governments of both the United States and the Soviet Union were controlled by a cabal of corporate internationalists, 'greedy' bankers and corrupt politicians who were intent on using the UN as the vehicle to create a 'One World Government'. This anti-globalist conspiracism fueled the campaign for U.S. withdrawal from the UN. American writer Mary M. Davison, in her 1966 booklet The Profound Revolution, traced the alleged New World Order conspiracy to the establishment of the U.S. Federal Reserve in 1913 by international bankers, whom she claimed later formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 as a shadow government. At the time the booklet was published, many readers would have interpreted 'international bankers' as a reference to a postulated 'international Jewish banking conspiracy' masterminded by the Rothschild family.^[15]

Arguing that the term 'New World Order' is used by a secretive global elite dedicated to the eradication of the sovereignty of the world's nations, American writer Gary Allen — in his books None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1971), Rockefeller: Campaigning for the New World Order (1974), and Say 'No!' to the New World Order (1987) — articulated the anti-globalist theme of contemporary right-wing conspiracism in the U.S. After the fall of communism in the early 1990s, the de facto subject of New World Order conspiracism shifted from crypto-communists, perceived to be plotting to establish an atheistic world communist government, to globalists, perceived to be plotting to generally implement a collectivist, unified world government ultimately controlled by an untouchable oligarchy of international bankers, corrupt politicians, and corporatists, or alternatively, the United Nations itself. The shift in perception was inspired by growing opposition to corporate internationalism on the American right in the 1990s.^[15]

In his speech, Toward a New World Order, delivered on 11 September 1990 during a joint session of the US Congress, President George H. W. Bush described his objectives for post-Cold War global governance in cooperation with post-Soviet states. He stated:

Until now, the world we've known has been a world divided—a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a 'world order' in which 'the principles of justice and fair play .. protect the weak against the strong ..' A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.^[16]

The New York Times observed that progressives were denouncing this new world order as a rationalization of American imperial ambitions in the Middle East at the time, while conservatives rejected any new security arrangements altogether and fulminated about any possibility of a UN revival.^[17]Chip Berlet, an American investigative reporter specializing in the study of right-wing movements in the U.S., wrote that the Christian and secular far right were especially terrified by Bush's speech. Fundamentalist Christian groups interpreted Bush's words as signaling the End Times, while more secular theorists approached it from an anti-communist and anti-collectivist standpoint and feared for a hegemony over all countries by the United Nations.^[4]

Post-Cold War usage

American televangelist Pat Robertson wrote the 1991 best-selling book The New World Order

American televangelist Pat Robertson, with his 1991 best-selling book The New World Order, became the most prominent Christian disseminator of conspiracy theories about recent American history. He describes a scenario where Wall Street, the Federal Reserve System, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission control the flow of events from behind the scenes, nudging people constantly and covertly in the direction of world government for the Antichrist.^[6]

It was observed that, throughout the 1990s, the galvanizing language used by conspiracy theorists such as Linda Thompson, Mark Koernke and Robert K. Spear led to militancy and the rise of the militia movement.^[18] The militia movement's anti-government ideology was (and is) spread through speeches at rallies and meetings, books and videotapes sold at gun shows, shortwave and satellite radio, fax networks and computer bulletin boards.^[15] It has been argued that it was overnight AM radio shows and propagandistic viral content on the internet that most effectively contributed to more extremist responses to the perceived threat of the New World Order. This led to the substantial growth of New World Order conspiracism, with it retroactively finding its way into the previously apolitical literature of numerous Kennedy assassinologists, ufologists, lost land theorists and – partially inspired by fears surrounding the 'Satanic panic' – occultists. From the mid–1990s onward, the amorphous appeal of those subcultures transmitted New World Order conspiracism to a larger audience of seekers of stigmatized knowledge, with the common characteristic of disillusionment of political efficacy.^[6]

From the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, Hollywood conspiracy-thriller television shows and films also played a role in introducing a general audience to various fringe and esoteric theories related to New World Order conspiracism – which by that point had developed to include black helicopters, FEMA 'concentration camps', etc. – theories which for decades previously were confined to largely right-wing subcultures. The 1993–2002 television series The X-Files, the 1997 film Conspiracy Theory and the 1998 film The X-Files: Fight the Future are often cited as notable examples.^[6]

Following the start of the 21st century, and specifically during the late-2000s financial crisis, many politicians and pundits, such as Gordon Brown^[19] and Henry Kissinger,^[20] used the term 'new world order' in their advocacy for a comprehensive reform of the global financial system and their calls for a 'New Bretton Woods' taking into account emerging markets such as China and India. These public declarations reinvigorated New World Order conspiracism, culminating in talk-show host Sean Hannity stating on his Fox News Channel program Hannity that the 'conspiracy theorists were right'.^[21] Progressive media-watchdog groups have repeatedly criticized Fox News in general, and its now-defunct opinion show Glenn Beck in particular, for not only disseminating New World Order conspiracy theories to mainstream audiences, but possibly agitating so-called 'lone wolf' extremism, particular from the radical right.^[22][23]

In 2009, American film directors Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel released New World Order, a critically acclaimed documentary film which explores the world of conspiracy theorists — such as American radio host Alex Jones — who consistently expose and vigorously oppose what they perceive as an emerging New World Order.^[24] The growing dissemination and popularity of conspiracy theories has also created an alliance between right-wing agitators and hip hop music's left-wing rappers (such as KRS-One, Professor Griff of Public Enemy and Immortal Technique), illustrating how anti-elitist conspiracism can create unlikely political allies in efforts to oppose a political system.^[25]

Conspiracy theories

There are numerous systemic conspiracy theories through which the concept of a New World Order is viewed. The following is a list of the major ones in roughly chronological order:^[26]

End time

Since the 19th century, many apocalypticmillennialChristian eschatologists, starting with John Nelson Darby, have predicted a globalist conspiracy to impose a tyrannical New World Order governing structure as the fulfillment of prophecies about the 'end time' in the Bible, specifically in the Book of Ezekiel, the Book of Daniel, the Olivet discourse found in the Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Revelation.^[27] They claim that people who have made a deal with the Devil to gain wealth and power have become pawns in a supernatural chess game to move humanity into accepting a utopian world government that rests on the spiritual foundations of a syncretic-messianic world religion, which will later reveal itself to be a dystopian world empire that imposes the imperial cult of an “Unholy Trinity” of Satan, the Antichrist and the False Prophet. In many contemporary Christian conspiracy theories, the False Prophet will be either the last pope of the Catholic Church (groomed and installed by an Alta Vendita or Jesuit conspiracy), a guru from the New Age movement, or even the leader of an elite fundamentalist Christian organization like the Fellowship, while the Antichrist will be either the President of the European Union, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, or even the Caliph of a pan-Islamic state.^[6][27]

Some of the most vocal critics of end-time conspiracy theories come from within Christianity.^[15] In 1993, historian Bruce Barron wrote a stern rebuke of apocalyptic Christian conspiracism in the Christian Research Journal, when reviewing Robertson's 1991 book The New World Order.^[28] Another critique can be found in historian Gregory S. Camp's 1997 book Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia.^[3] Religious studies scholar Richard T. Hughes argues that 'New World Order' rhetoric libels the Christian faith, since the 'New World Order' as defined by Christian conspiracy theorists has no basis in the Bible whatsoever. Furthermore, he argues that not only is this idea unbiblical, it is positively anti-biblical and fundamentally anti-Christian, because by misinterpreting key passages in the Book of Revelation, it turns a comforting message about the coming kingdom of God into one of fear, panic and despair in the face of an allegedly approaching one-world government.^[27]Progressive Christians, such as preacher-theologian Peter J. Gomes, caution Christian fundamentalists that a 'spirit of fear' can distort scripture and history through dangerously combining biblical literalism, apocalyptic timetables, demonization and oppressive prejudices,^[29][30] while Camp warns of the 'very real danger that Christians could pick up some extra spiritual baggage' by credulously embracing conspiracy theories.^[3] They therefore call on Christians who indulge in conspiracism to repent.^[31][32]

Freemasonry

Freemasonry is one of the world's oldest secular fraternal organizations and arose during late 16th–early 17th century Britain. Over the years a number of allegations and conspiracy theories have been directed towards Freemasonry, including the allegation that Freemasons have a hidden political agenda and are conspiring to bring about a New World Order, a world government organized according to Masonic principles or governed only by Freemasons.^[15]

The esoteric nature of Masonic symbolism and rites led to Freemasons first being accused of secretly practising Satanism in the late 18th century.^[15] The original allegation of a conspiracy within Freemasonry to subvert religions and governments in order to take over the world traces back to Scottish author John Robison, whose reactionary conspiracy theories crossed the Atlantic and influenced outbreaks of Protestant anti-Masonry in the United States during the 19th century.^[15] In the 1890s, French writer Léo Taxil wrote a series of pamphlets and books denouncing Freemasonry and charging their lodges with worshiping Lucifer as the Supreme Being and Great Architect of the Universe. Despite the fact that Taxil admitted that his claims were all a hoax, they were and still are believed and repeated by numerous conspiracy theorists and had a huge influence on subsequent anti-Masonic claims about Freemasonry.^[33]

The End Has Come Lyrics

Some conspiracy theorists eventually speculated that some Founding Fathers of the United States, such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, were having Masonic sacred geometric designs interwoven into American society, particularly in the Great Seal of the United States, the United States one-dollar bill, the architecture of National Mall landmarks and the streets and highways of Washington, D.C., as part of a master plan to create the first 'Masonic government' as a model for the coming New World Order.^[6]

A Masonic Lodge room

Freemasons rebut these claims of a Masonic conspiracy. Freemasonry, which promotes rationalism, places no power in occult symbols themselves, and it is not a part of its principles to view the drawing of symbols, no matter how large, as an act of consolidating or controlling power.^[34] Furthermore, there is no published information establishing the Masonic membership of the men responsible for the design of the Great Seal.^[34][35] While conspiracy theorists assert that there are elements of Masonic influence on the Great Seal of the United States, and that these elements were intentionally or unintentionally used because the creators were familiar with the symbols,^[36] in fact, the all-seeing Eye of Providence and the unfinished pyramid were symbols used as much outside Masonic lodges as within them in the late 18th century, therefore the designers were drawing from common esoteric symbols.^[37] The Latin phrase 'novus ordo seclorum', appearing on the reverse side of the Great Seal since 1782 and on the back of the one-dollar bill since 1935, translates to 'New Order of the Ages',^[1] and alludes to the beginning of an era where the United States of America is an independent nation-state; it is often mistranslated by conspiracy theorists as 'New World Order'.^[2]

Although the European continental branch of Freemasonry has organizations that allow political discussion within their Masonic Lodges, Masonic researcher Trevor W. McKeown argues that the accusations ignore several facts. Firstly, the many Grand Lodges are independent and sovereign, meaning they act on their own and do not have a common agenda. The points of belief of the various lodges often differ. Secondly, famous individual Freemasons have always held views that span the political spectrum and show no particular pattern or preference. As such, the term 'Masonic government' is erroneous; there is no consensus among Freemasons about what an ideal government would look like.^[38]

Illuminati

Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati, an 18th-century Bavarian liberal and secular secret society

The Order of the Illuminati was an Enlightenment-age secret society founded by university professor Adam Weishaupt on 1 May 1776, in Upper Bavaria, Germany. The movement consisted of advocates of freethought, secularism, liberalism, republicanism, and gender equality, recruited from the German Masonic Lodges, who sought to teach rationalism through mystery schools. In 1785, the order was infiltrated, broken up and suppressed by the government agents of Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, in his preemptive campaign to neutralize the threat of secret societies ever becoming hotbeds of conspiracies to overthrow the Bavarian monarchy and its state religion, Roman Catholicism.^[39] There is no evidence that the Bavarian Illuminati survived its suppression in 1785.^[40]

In the late 18th century, reactionary conspiracy theorists, such as Scottish physicist John Robison and French Jesuit priest Augustin Barruel, began speculating that the Illuminati had survived their suppression and become the masterminds behind the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. The Illuminati were accused of being subversives who were attempting to secretly orchestrate a revolutionary wave in Europe and the rest of the world in order to spread the most radical ideas and movements of the Enlightenment—anti-clericalism, anti-monarchism, and anti-patriarchalism—and to create a world noocracy and cult of reason. During the 19th century, fear of an Illuminati conspiracy was a real concern of the European ruling classes, and their oppressive reactions to this unfounded fear provoked in 1848 the very revolutions they sought to prevent.^[40]

During the interwar period of the 20th century, fascist propagandists, such as British revisionist historian Nesta Helen Webster and American socialite Edith Starr Miller, not only popularized the myth of an Illuminati conspiracy but claimed that it was a subversive secret society which served the Jewish elites that supposedly propped up both finance capitalism and Soviet communism in order to divide and rule the world. American evangelist Gerald Burton Winrod and other conspiracy theorists within the fundamentalist Christian movement in the United States—which emerged in the 1910s as a backlash against the principles of Enlightenment secular humanism, modernism, and liberalism—became the main channel of dissemination of Illuminati conspiracy theories in the U.S. Right-wing populists, such as members of the John Birch Society, subsequently began speculating that some collegiate fraternities (Skull and Bones), gentlemen's clubs (Bohemian Club), and think tanks (Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission) of the American upper class are front organizations of the Illuminati, which they accuse of plotting to create a New World Order through a one-world government.^[6]

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an antisemitic canard, originally published in Russian in 1903, alleging a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy to achieve world domination. The text purports to be the minutes of the secret meetings of a cabal of Jewish masterminds, which has co-opted Freemasonry and is plotting to rule the world on behalf of all Jews because they believe themselves to be the chosen people of God.^[41]The Protocols incorporate many of the core conspiracist themes outlined in the Robison and Barruel attacks on the Freemasons, and overlay them with antisemitic allegations about anti-Tsarist movements in Russia. The Protocols reflect themes similar to more general critiques of Enlightenment liberalism by conservative aristocrats who support monarchies and state religions. The interpretation intended by the publication of The Protocols is that if one peels away the layers of the Masonic conspiracy, past the Illuminati, one finds the rotten Jewish core.^[15]

Cover of a 1920 copy of The Jewish Peril

Numerous polemicists, such as Irish journalist Philip Graves in a 1921 article in The Times, and British academic Norman Cohn in his 1967 book Warrant for Genocide, have proven The Protocols to be both a hoax and a clear case of plagiarism. There is general agreement that Russian-French writer and political activist Matvei Golovinski fabricated the text for Okhrana, the secret police of the Russian Empire, as a work of counter-revolutionarypropaganda prior to the 1905 Russian Revolution, by plagiarizing, almost word for word in some passages, from The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, a 19th-century satire against Napoleon III of France written by French political satirist and Legitimist militant Maurice Joly.^[42]

Responsible for feeding many antisemitic and anti-Masonic mass hysterias of the 20th century, The Protocols has been influential in the development of some conspiracy theories, including some New World Order theories, and appears repeatedly in certain contemporary conspiracy literature.^[6] For example, the authors of the 1982 controversial book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail concluded that The Protocols was the most persuasive piece of evidence for the existence and activities of the Priory of Sion. They speculated that this secret society was working behind the scenes to establish a theocratic 'United States of Europe'. Politically and religiously unified through the imperial cult of a MerovingianGreat Monarch—supposedly descended from a Jesus bloodline—who occupies both the throne of Europe and the Holy See, this 'Holy European Empire' would become the hyperpower of the 21st century.^[43] Although the Priory of Sion itself has been exhaustively debunked by journalists and scholars as a hoax,^[44] some apocalypticmillenarianChristian eschatologists who believe The Protocols is authentic became convinced that the Priory of Sion was a fulfillment of prophecies found in the Book of Revelation and further proof of an anti-Christian conspiracy of epic proportions signaling the imminence of a New World Order.^[45]

Skeptics argue that the current gambit of contemporary conspiracy theorists who use The Protocols is to claim that they 'really' come from some group other than the Jews, such as fallen angels or alien invaders. Although it is hard to determine whether the conspiracy-minded actually believe this or are simply trying to sanitize a discredited text, skeptics argue that it does not make much difference, since they leave the actual, antisemitic text unchanged. The result is to give The Protocols credibility and circulation.^[8]

Round Table

During the second half of Britain's 'imperial century' between 1815 and 1914, English-born South African businessman, mining magnate and politician Cecil Rhodes advocated the British Empire reannexing the United States of America and reforming itself into an 'Imperial Federation' to bring about a hyperpower and lasting world peace. In his first will, written in 1877 at the age of 23, he expressed his wish to fund a secret society (known as the Society of the Elect) that would advance this goal:

To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.^[46]

Magnate and colonist Cecil Rhodes advocated a secret society which would make Britain control the Earth

In 1890, thirteen years after 'his now famous will,' Rhodes elaborated on the same idea: establishment of 'England everywhere,' which would 'ultimately lead to the cessation of all wars, and one language throughout the world.' 'The only thing feasible to carry out this idea is a secret society gradually absorbing the wealth of the world ['and human minds of the higher order'] to be devoted to such an object.'^[47]

Rhodes also concentrated on the Rhodes Scholarship, which had British statesman Alfred Milner as one of its trustees. Established in 1902, the original goal of the trust fund was to foster peace among the great powers by creating a sense of fraternity and a shared world view among future British, American, and German leaders by having enabled them to study for free at the University of Oxford.^[46]

Milner and British official Lionel George Curtis were the architects of the Round Table movement, a network of organizations promoting closer union between Britain and its self-governing colonies. To this end, Curtis founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in June 1919 and, with his 1938 book The Commonwealth of God, began advocating for the creation of an imperial federation that eventually reannexes the U.S., which would be presented to Protestant churches as being the work of the Christian God to elicit their support.^[48] The Commonwealth of Nations was created in 1949 but it would only be a free association of independent states rather than the powerful imperial federation imagined by Rhodes, Milner and Curtis.

The Council on Foreign Relations began in 1917 with a group of New York academics who were asked by President Woodrow Wilson to offer options for the foreign policy of the United States in the interwar period. Originally envisioned as a group of American and British scholars and diplomats, some of whom belonging to the Round Table movement, it was a subsequent group of 108 New York financiers, manufacturers and international lawyers organized in June 1918 by Nobel Peace Prize recipient and U.S. secretary of state Elihu Root, that became the Council on Foreign Relations on 29 July 1921. The first of the council’s projects was a quarterly journal launched in September 1922, called Foreign Affairs.^[49] The Trilateral Commission was founded in July 1973, at the initiative of American banker David Rockefeller, who was chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations at that time. It is a private organization established to foster closer cooperation among the United States, Europe and Japan. The Trilateral Commission is widely seen as a counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations.

In the 1960s, right-wing populist individuals and groups with a paleoconservative worldview, such as members of the John Birch Society, were the first to combine and spread a business nationalist critique of corporate internationalists networked through think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations with a grand conspiracy theory casting them as front organizations for the Round Table of the 'Anglo-American Establishment', which are financed by an 'international banking cabal' that has supposedly been plotting from the late 19th century on to impose an oligarchic new world order through a global financial system. Anti-globalist conspiracy theorists therefore fear that international bankers are planning to eventually subvert the independence of the U.S. by subordinating national sovereignty to a strengthened Bank for International Settlements.^[50]

The research findings of historian Carroll Quigley, author of the 1966 book Tragedy and Hope, are taken by both conspiracy theorists of the American Old Right (W. Cleon Skousen) and New Left (Carl Oglesby) to substantiate this view, even though Quigley argued that the Establishment is not involved in a plot to implement a one-world government but rather British and American benevolent imperialism driven by the mutual interests of economic elites in the United Kingdom and the United States. Quigley also argued that, although the Round Table still exists today, its position in influencing the policies of world leaders has been much reduced from its heyday during World War I and slowly waned after the end of World War II and the Suez Crisis. Today the Round Table is largely a ginger group, designed to consider and gradually influence the policies of the Commonwealth of Nations, but faces strong opposition. Furthermore, in American society after 1965, the problem, according to Quigley, was that no elite was in charge and acting responsibly.^[50]

Larry McDonald, the second president of the John Birch Society and a conservative Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives who represented the 7th congressional district of Georgia, wrote a foreword for Allen's 1976 book The Rockefeller File, wherein he claimed that the Rockefellers and their allies were driven by a desire to create a one-world government that combined 'super-capitalism' with communism and would be fully under their control. He saw a conspiracy plot that was 'international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.'^[51]

In his 2002 autobiography Memoirs, David Rockefeller wrote:

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents .. to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.^[52]

Barkun argues that this statement is partly facetious (the claim of 'conspiracy' and 'treason') and partly serious—the desire to encourage trilateral cooperation among the U.S., Europe, and Japan, for example—an ideal that used to be a hallmark of the internationalist wing of the Republican Party (known as 'Rockefeller Republicans' in honor of Nelson Rockefeller) when there was an internationalist wing. The statement, however, is taken at face value and widely cited by conspiracy theorists as proof that the Council on Foreign Relations uses its role as the brain trust of American presidents, senators and representatives to manipulate them into supporting a New World Order in the form of a one-world government.

In a 13 November 2007 interview with Canadian journalist Benjamin Fulford, Rockefeller countered that he felt no need for a world government and wished for the governments of the world to work together and collaborate. He also stated that it seemed neither likely nor desirable to have only one elected government rule the whole world. He criticized accusations of him being 'ruler of the world' as nonsensical.^[53]

Some American social critics, such as Laurence H. Shoup, argue that the Council on Foreign Relations is an 'imperial brain trust' which has, for decades, played a central behind-the-scenes role in shaping U.S. foreign policy choices for the post-World War II international order and the Cold War by determining what options show up on the agenda and what options do not even make it to the table;^[54] others, such as G. William Domhoff, argue that it is in fact a mere policy discussion forum^[55] which provides the business input to U.S. foreign policy planning.^{[citation needed]} Domhoff argues that '[i]t has nearly 3,000 members, far too many for secret plans to be kept within the group. All the council does is sponsor discussion groups, debates and speakers. As far as being secretive, it issues annual reports and allows access to its historical archives.' However, all these critics agree^{[citation needed]} that '[h]istorical studies of the CFR show that it has a very different role in the overall power structure than what is claimed by conspiracy theorists.'^[55]

The Open Conspiracy

H. G. Wells wrote the books The Open Conspiracy and The New World Order

In his 1928 book The Open Conspiracy British writer and futurist H. G. Wells promoted cosmopolitanism and offered blueprints for a world revolution and world brain to establish a technocratic world state and planned economy.^[56] Wells warned, however, in his 1940 book The New World Order that:

.. when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people .. will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by the frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.^[13]

Wells's books were influential in giving a second meaning to the term 'new world order', which would only be used by state socialist supporters and anti-communist opponents for generations to come. However, despite the popularity and notoriety of his ideas, Wells failed to exert a deeper and more lasting influence because he was unable to concentrate his energies on a direct appeal to intelligentsias who would, ultimately, have to coordinate the Wellsian new world order.^[57]

New Age

British neo-Theosophical occultist Alice Bailey, one of the founders of the so-called New Age movement, prophesied in 1940 the eventual victory of the Allies of World War II over the Axis powers (which occurred in 1945) and the establishment by the Allies of a political and religious New World Order. She saw a federal world government as the culmination of Wells' Open Conspiracy but favorably argued that it would be synarchist because it was guided by the Masters of the Ancient Wisdom, intent on preparing humanity for the mystical second coming of Christ, and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. According to Bailey, a group of ascended masters called the Great White Brotherhood works on the 'inner planes' to oversee the transition to the New World Order but, for now, the members of this Spiritual Hierarchy are only known to a few occult scientists, with whom they communicate telepathically, but as the need for their personal involvement in the plan increases, there will be an 'Externalization of the Hierarchy' and everyone will know of their presence on Earth.^[58]

New Age author Alice Bailey's writings have been condemned by Christian right conspiracy theorists

Bailey's writings, along with American writer Marilyn Ferguson's 1980 book The Aquarian Conspiracy, contributed to conspiracy theorists of the Christian right viewing the New Age movement as the 'false religion' that would supersede Christianity in a New World Order.^[59] Skeptics argue that the term 'New Age movement' is a misnomer, generally used by conspiracy theorists as a catch-all rubric for any new religious movement that is not fundamentalist Christian. By this logic, anything that is not Christian is by definition actively and willfully anti-Christian.^[60]

Paradoxically, since the first decade of the 21st century, New World Order conspiracism is increasingly being embraced and propagandized by New Age occultists, who are people bored by rationalism and drawn to stigmatized knowledge—such as alternative medicine, astrology, quantum mysticism, spiritualism, and theosophy.^[6] Thus, New Age conspiracy theorists, such as the makers of documentary films like Esoteric Agenda, claim that globalists who plot on behalf of the New World Order are simply misusing occultism for Machiavellian ends, such as adopting 21 December 2012 as the exact date for the establishment of the New World Order for the purpose of taking advantage of the growing 2012 phenomenon, which has its origins in the fringe Mayanist theories of New Age writers José Argüelles, Terence McKenna, and Daniel Pinchbeck.

Skeptics argue that the connection of conspiracy theorists and occultists follows from their common fallacious premises. First, any widely accepted belief must necessarily be false. Second, stigmatized knowledge—what the Establishment spurns—must be true. The result is a large, self-referential network in which, for example, some UFO religionists promote anti-Jewish phobias while some antisemites practice Peruvian shamanism.^[6]

Fourth Reich

American writer Jim Marrs claimed that former Nazis and their sympathizers have been continuing Nazi policies worldwide, especially in the United States

Conspiracy theorists often use the term 'Fourth Reich' simply as a pejorative synonym for the 'New World Order' to imply that its state ideology and government will be similar to Germany's Third Reich.^{[citation needed]}

Conspiracy theorists, such as American writer Jim Marrs, claim that some ex-Nazis, who survived the fall of the Greater German Reich, along with sympathizers in the United States and elsewhere, given haven by organizations like ODESSA and Die Spinne, have been working behind the scenes since the end of World War II to enact at least some principles of Nazism (e.g., militarism, imperialism, widespread spying on citizens, corporatism, the use of propaganda to manufacture a national consensus) into culture, government, and business worldwide, but primarily in the U.S. They cite the influence of ex-Nazi scientists brought in under Operation Paperclip to help advance aerospace manufacturing in the U.S. with technological principles from Nazi UFOs, and the acquisition and creation of conglomerates by ex-Nazis and their sympathizers after the war, in both Europe and the U.S.^[61]

This neo-Nazi conspiracy is said to be animated by an 'Iron Dream' in which the American Empire, having thwarted the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy and overthrown its Zionist Occupation Government, gradually establishes a Fourth Reich formerly known as the 'Western Imperium'—a pan-Aryan world empire modeled after Adolf Hitler's New Order—which reverses the 'decline of the West' and ushers a golden age of white supremacy.^[62]

Skeptics argue that conspiracy theorists grossly overestimate the influence of ex-Nazis and neo-Nazis on American society, and point out that political repression at home and imperialism abroad have a long history in the United States that predates the 20th century. Some political scientists, such as Sheldon Wolin, have expressed concern that the twin forces of democratic deficit and superpower status have paved the way in the U.S. for the emergence of an inverted totalitarianism which contradicts many principles of Nazism.^[63]

Alien invasion

Since the late 1970s, extraterrestrials from other habitable planets or parallel dimensions (such as 'Greys') and intraterrestrials from Hollow Earth (such as 'Reptilians') have been included in the New World Order conspiracy, in more or less dominant roles, as in the theories put forward by American writers Stan Deyo and Milton William Cooper, and British writer David Icke.^[6][64][65]

British writer David Icke claims that shapeshifting aliens called Reptilians control the Earth

The common theme in these conspiracy theories is that aliens have been among us for decades, centuries or millennia, but a government cover-up enforced by 'Men in Black' has shielded the public from knowledge of a secret alien invasion. Motivated by speciesism and imperialism, these aliens have been and are secretly manipulating developments and changes in human society in order to more efficiently control and exploit human beings. In some theories, alien infiltrators have shapeshifted into human form and move freely throughout human society, even to the point of taking control of command positions in governmental, corporate, and religious institutions, and are now in the final stages of their plan to take over the world.^[65] A mythical covert government agency of the United States code-named Majestic 12 is often imagined being the shadow government which collaborates with the alien occupation and permits alien abductions, in exchange for assistance in the development and testing of military 'flying saucers' at Area 51, in order for United States armed forces to achieve full-spectrum dominance.^[6]

Skeptics, who adhere to the psychosocial hypothesis for unidentified flying objects, argue that the convergence of New World Order conspiracy theory and UFO conspiracy theory is a product of not only the era's widespread mistrust of governments and the popularity of the extraterrestrial hypothesis for UFOs but of the far right and ufologists actually joining forces. Barkun notes that the only positive side to this development is that, if conspirators plotting to rule the world are believed to be aliens, traditional human scapegoats (Freemasons, Illuminati, Jews, etc.) are downgraded or exonerated.^[6]

Brave New World

Antiscience and neo-Luddite conspiracy theorists emphasize technology forecasting in their New World Order conspiracy theories. They speculate that the global power elite are reactionary modernists pursuing a transhumanist agenda to develop and use human enhancement technologies in order to become a 'posthuman ruling caste', while change accelerates toward a technological singularity—a theorized future point of discontinuity when events will accelerate at such a pace that normal unenhanced humans will be unable to predict or even understand the rapid changes occurring in the world around them. Conspiracy theorists fear the outcome will either be the emergence of a Brave New World-like dystopia—a 'Brave New World Order'—or the extinction of the human species.^[66]

Democratic transhumanists, such as American sociologist James Hughes, counter that many influential members of the United States Establishment are bioconservatives strongly opposed to human enhancement, as demonstrated by President Bush's Council on Bioethics's proposed international treaty prohibiting human cloning and germline engineering. Furthermore, he argues that conspiracy theorists underestimate how fringe the transhumanist movement really is.^[67]

Postulated implementations

Just as there are several overlapping or conflicting theories among conspiracists about the nature of the New World Order, so are there several beliefs about how its architects and planners will implement it:

Gradualism

Conspiracy theorists generally speculate that the New World Order is being implemented gradually, citing the formation of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913; the League of Nations in 1919; the International Monetary Fund in 1944; the United Nations in 1945; the World Bank in 1945; the World Health Organization in 1948; the European Union and the euro currency in 1993; the World Trade Organization in 1998; the African Union in 2002; and the Union of South American Nations in 2008 as major milestones.^[6]

An increasingly popular conspiracy theory among American right-wing populists is that the hypothetical North American Union and the amero currency, proposed by the Council on Foreign Relations and its counterparts in Mexico and Canada, will be the next milestone in the implementation of the New World Order. The theory holds that a group of shadowy and mostly nameless international elites are planning to replace the federal government of the United States with a transnational government. Therefore, conspiracy theorists believe the borders between Mexico, Canada and the United States are in the process of being erased, covertly, by a group of globalists whose ultimate goal is to replace national governments in Washington, D.C., Ottawa and Mexico City with a European-style political union and a bloated E.U.-style bureaucracy.^[68]

Skeptics argue that the North American Union exists only as a proposal contained in one of a thousand academic and policy papers published each year that advocate all manner of idealistic but ultimately unrealistic approaches to social, economic and political problems. Most of these are passed around in their own circles and eventually filed away and forgotten by junior staffers in congressional offices. Some of these papers, however, become touchstones for the conspiracy-minded and form the basis of all kinds of unfounded xenophobic fears especially during times of economic anxiety.^[68]

For example, in March 2009, as a result of the late-2000s financial crisis, the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation pressed for urgent consideration of a new international reserve currency and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development proposed greatly expanding the I.M.F.'s special drawing rights. Conspiracy theorists fear these proposals are a call for the U.S. to adopt a single global currency for a New World Order.^[69][70]

Judging that both national governments and global institutions have proven ineffective in addressing worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve, some political scientists critical of New World Order conspiracism, such as Mark C. Partridge, argue that regionalism will be the major force in the coming decades, pockets of power around regional centers: Western Europe around Brussels, the Western Hemisphere around Washington, D.C., East Asia around Beijing, and Eastern Europe around Moscow. As such, the E.U., the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and the G-20 will likely become more influential as time progresses. The question then is not whether global governance is gradually emerging, but rather how will these regional powers interact with one another.^[71]

Coup d'état

The American militia movement claim that a coup d'état will be launched by a 'Secret Team' in black helicopters

American right-wing populist conspiracy theorists, especially those who joined the militia movement in the United States, speculate that the New World Order will be implemented through a dramatic coup d'état by a 'secret team', using black helicopters, in the U.S. and other nation-states to bring about a totalitarian world government controlled by the United Nations and enforced by troops of foreign U.N. peacekeepers. Following the Rex 84 and Operation Garden Plot plans, this military coup would involve the suspension of the Constitution, the imposition of martial law, and the appointment of military commanders to head state and local governments and to detain dissidents.^[72]

These conspiracy theorists, who are all strong believers in a right to keep and bear arms, are extremely fearful that the passing of any gun control legislation will be later followed by the abolishment of personal gun ownership and a campaign of gun confiscation, and that the refugee camps of emergency management agencies such as FEMA will be used for the internment of suspected subversives, making little effort to distinguish true threats to the New World Order from pacifist dissidents.^[23]

Before year 2000 some survivalists wrongly believed this process would be set in motion by the predicted Y2K problem causing societal collapse.^[73] Since many left-wing and right-wing conspiracy theorists believe that the 11 September attacks were a false flag operation carried out by the United States intelligence community, as part of a strategy of tension to justify political repression at home and preemptive war abroad, they have become convinced that a more catastrophic terrorist incident will be responsible for triggering Executive Directive 51 in order to complete the transition to a police state.^[74]

Skeptics argue that unfounded fears about an imminent or eventual gun ban, military coup, internment, or U.N. invasion and occupation are rooted in the siege mentality of the American militia movement but also an apocalypticmillenarianism which provides a basic narrative within the political right in the U.S., claiming that the idealized society (i.e., constitutional republic, Jeffersonian democracy, 'Christian nation', 'white nation') is thwarted by subversive conspiracies of liberalsecular humanists who want 'Big Government' and globalists who plot on behalf of the New World Order.^[15]

Mass surveillance

Part of a series on
Global surveillance
Disclosures
Systems
Agencies
People
Places
Laws
Five Eyes U.S. EU
Proposed changes
U.S.
Concepts
Related topics
Cryptography Human rights

Conspiracy theorists concerned with surveillance abuse believe that the New World Order is being implemented by the cult of intelligence at the core of the surveillance-industrial complex through mass surveillance and the use of Social Security numbers, the bar-coding of retail goods with Universal Product Code markings, and, most recently, RFID tagging by microchip implants.^[6]

Claiming that corporations and government are planning to track every move of consumers and citizens with RFID as the latest step toward a 1984-like surveillance state, consumer privacy advocates, such as Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre,^[75] have become Christian conspiracy theorists who believe spychips must be resisted because they argue that modern database and communications technologies, coupled with point of saledata-capture equipment and sophisticated ID and authentication systems, now make it possible to require a biometrically associated number or mark to make purchases. They fear that the ability to implement such a system closely resembles the Number of the Beast prophesied in the Book of Revelation.^[6]

In January 2002, the Information Awareness Office (IAO) was established by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to bring together several DARPA projects focused on applying information technology to counter asymmetric threats to national security. Following public criticism that the development and deployment of these technologies could potentially lead to a mass surveillance system, the IAO was defunded by the United States Congress in 2003.^[76] The second source of controversy involved IAO’s original logo, which depicted the 'all-seeing' Eye of Providence atop of a pyramid looking down over the globe, accompanied by the Latin phrase scientia est potentia (knowledge is power). Although DARPA eventually removed the logo from its website, it left a lasting impression on privacy advocates.^[77] It also inflamed conspiracy theorists,^[78] who misinterpret the 'eye and pyramid' as the Masonic symbol of the Illuminati,^[35][79] an 18th-century secret society they speculate continues to exist and is plotting on behalf of a New World Order.^[39][40]

American historian Richard Landes, who specializes in the history of apocalypticism and was co-founder and director of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University, argues that new and emerging technologies often trigger alarmism among millenarians and even the introduction of Gutenberg's printing press in 1436 caused waves of apocalyptic thinking. The Year 2000 problem, bar codes and Social Security numbers all triggered end-time warnings which either proved to be false or simply were no longer taken seriously once the public became accustomed to these technological changes.^[80] Civil libertarians argue that the privatization of surveillance and the rise of the surveillance-industrial complex in the United States does raise legitimate concerns about the erosion of privacy.^[81] However, skeptics of mass surveillance conspiracism caution that such concerns should be disentangled from secular paranoia about Big Brother or religious hysteria about the Antichrist.^[6]

Occultism

Conspiracy theorists of the Christian right, starting with British revisionist historian Nesta Helen Webster, believe there is an ancient occult conspiracy—started by the first mystagogues of Gnosticism and perpetuated by their alleged esoteric successors, such as the Kabbalists, Cathars, Knights Templar, Hermeticists, Rosicrucians, Freemasons, and, ultimately, the Illuminati—which seeks to subvert the Judeo-Christian foundations of the Western world and implement the New World Order through a one-world religion that prepares the masses to embrace the imperial cult of the Antichrist.^[6] More broadly, they speculate that globalists who plot on behalf of a New World Order are directed by occult agencies of some sort: unknown superiors, spiritual hierarchies, demons, fallen angels or Lucifer. They believe that these conspirators use the power of occult sciences (numerology), symbols (Eye of Providence), rituals (Masonic degrees), monuments (National Mall landmarks), buildings (Manitoba Legislative Building^[82]) and facilities (Denver International Airport) to advance their plot to rule the world.^[6][83]

For example, in June 1979, an unknown benefactor under the pseudonym 'R. C. Christian' had a huge granite megalith built in the U.S. state of Georgia, which acts like a compass, calendar, and clock. A message comprising ten guides is inscribed on the occult structure in many languages to serve as instructions for survivors of a doomsday event to establish a more enlightened and sustainable civilization than the one which was destroyed. The 'Georgia Guidestones' have subsequently become a spiritual and political Rorschach test onto which any number of ideas can be imposed. Some New Agers and neo-pagans revere it as a ley-line power nexus while a few conspiracy theorists are convinced that they are engraved with the New World Order's anti-Christian 'Ten Commandments.' Should the Guidestones survive for centuries as their creators intended, many more meanings could arise, equally unrelated to the designer’s original intention.^[84]

New World Order The End Has Come Movie Download Torrent 2017

Skeptics argue that the demonization of Western esotericism by conspiracy theorists is rooted in religious intolerance but also in the same moral panics that have fueled witch trials in the Early Modern period, and satanic ritual abuse allegations in the United States.^[6]

Population control

Conspiracy theorists believe that the New World Order will also be implemented through the use of human population control in order to more easily monitor and control the movement of individuals.^[6] The means range from stopping the growth of human societies through reproductive health and family planning programs, which promote abstinence, contraception and abortion, or intentionally reducing the bulk of the world population through genocides by mongering unnecessary wars, through plagues by engineering emergent viruses and taintingvaccines, and through environmental disasters by controlling the weather (HAARP, chemtrails), etc. Conspiracy theorists argue that globalists plotting on behalf of a New World Order are neo-Malthusians who engage in overpopulation and climate change alarmism in order to create public support for coercive population control and ultimately world government. Agenda 21 is condemned as 'reconcentrating' people into urban areas and depopulating rural ones, even generating a dystopian novel by Glenn Beck where single-family homes are a distant memory.

Skeptics argue that fears of population control can be traced back to the traumatic legacy of the eugenics movement's 'war against the weak' in the United States during the first decades of the 20th century but also the Second Red Scare in the U.S. during the late 1940s and 1950s, and to a lesser extent in the 1960s, when activists on the far right of American politics routinely opposed public health programs, notably water fluoridation, mass vaccination and mental health services, by asserting they were all part of a far-reaching plot to impose a socialist or communist regime.^[85] Their views were influenced by opposition to a number of major social and political changes that had happened in recent years: the growth of internationalism, particularly the United Nations and its programs; the introduction of social welfare provisions, particularly the various programs established by the New Deal; and government efforts to reduce inequalities in the social structure of the U.S.^[86] Opposition towards mass vaccinations in particular got significant attention in the late 2010s, so much so the World Health Organization listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten global health threats of 2019. By this time, people that refused or refused to allow their children to be vaccinated were known colloquially as 'anti-vaxxers', though citing the New World Order conspiracy theory or resistance to a perceived population control agenda as a reason to refuse vaccination were few and far between.^[87][88]

Mind control

Social critics accuse governments, corporations, and the mass media of being involved in the manufacturing of a national consensus and, paradoxically, a culture of fear due to the potential for increased social control that a mistrustful and mutually fearing population might offer to those in power. The worst fear of some conspiracy theorists, however, is that the New World Order will be implemented through the use of mind control—a broad range of tactics able to subvert an individual's control of his or her own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decisions. These tactics are said to include everything from Manchurian candidate-style brainwashing of sleeper agents (Project MKULTRA, 'Project Monarch') to engineering psychological operations (water fluoridation, subliminal advertising, 'Silent Sound Spread Spectrum', MEDUSA) and parapsychological operations (Stargate Project) to influence the masses.^[89] The concept of wearing a tin foil hat for protection from such threats has become a popular stereotype and term of derision; the phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and is associated with conspiracy theorists.

Skeptics argue that the paranoia behind a conspiracy theorist's obsession with mind control, population control, occultism, surveillance abuse, Big Business, Big Government, and globalization arises from a combination of two factors, when he or she: 1) holds strong individualist values and 2) lacks power. The first attribute refers to people who care deeply about an individual's right to make their own choices and direct their own lives without interference or obligations to a larger system (like the government), but combine this with a sense of powerlessness in one's own life, and one gets what some psychologists call 'agency panic,' intense anxiety about an apparent loss of autonomy to outside forces or regulators. When fervent individualists feel that they cannot exercise their independence, they experience a crisis and assume that larger forces are to blame for usurping this freedom.^[90][91]

Alleged conspirators

According to Domhoff, many people seem to believe that the United States is ruled from behind the scenes by a conspiratorial elite with secret desires, i.e., by a small secretive group that wants to change the government system or put the country under the control of a world government. In the past the conspirators were usually said to be crypto-communists who were intent upon bringing the United States under a common world government with the Soviet Union, but the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 undercut that theory. Domhoff notes that most conspiracy theorists changed their focus to the United Nations as the likely controlling force in a New World Order, an idea which is undermined by the powerlessness of the U.N. and the unwillingness of even moderates within the American Establishment to give it anything but a limited role.^[55]

Although skeptical of New World Order conspiracism, political scientist David Rothkopf argues, in the 2008 book Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, that the world population of 6 billion people is governed by an elite of 6,000 individuals. Until the late 20th century, governments of the great powers provided most of the superclass, accompanied by a few heads of international movements (i.e., the Pope of the Catholic Church) and entrepreneurs (Rothschilds, Rockefellers). According to Rothkopf, in the early 21st century, economic clout—fueled by the explosive expansion of international trade, travel and communication—rules; the nation-state's power has diminished shrinking politicians to minority power broker status; leaders in international business, finance and the defense industry not only dominate the superclass, they move freely into high positions in their nations' governments and back to private life largely beyond the notice of elected legislatures (including the U.S. Congress), which remain abysmally ignorant of affairs beyond their borders. He asserts that the superclass' disproportionate influence over national policy is constructive but always self-interested, and that across the world, few object to corruption and oppressive governments provided they can do business in these countries.^[92]

Viewing the history of the world as the history of warfare between secret societies, conspiracy theorists go further than Rothkopf, and other scholars who have studied the global power elite, by claiming that established upper-class families with 'old money' who founded and finance the Bilderberg Group, Bohemian Club, Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations, Rhodes Trust, Skull and Bones, Trilateral Commission, and similar think tanks and private clubs, are illuminated conspirators plotting to impose a totalitarian New World Order—the implementation of an authoritarian world government controlled by the United Nations and a global central bank, which maintains political power through the financialization of the economy, regulation and restriction of speech through the concentration of media ownership, mass surveillance, widespread use of state terrorism, and an all-encompassing propaganda that creates a cult of personality around a puppet world leader and ideologizes world government as the culmination of history's progress.^[6]

Marxists, who are skeptical of right-wing populist conspiracy theories, also accuse the global power elite of not having the best interests of all at heart, and many intergovernmental organizations of suffering from a democratic deficit, but they argue that the superclass are plutocrats only interested in brazenly imposing a neoliberal or neoconservative new world order—the implementation of global capitalism through economic and military coercion to protect the interests of transnational corporations—which systematically undermines the possibility of a socialist one-world government.^[93] Arguing that the world is in the middle of a transition from the American Empire to the rule of a global ruling class that has emerged from within the American Empire, they point out that right-wing populist conspiracy theorists, blinded by their anti-communism, fail to see is that what they demonize as the 'New World Order' is, ironically, the highest stage of the very capitalist economic system they defend.^[93]

Criticism

Skeptics of New World Order conspiracy theories accuse its proponents of indulging in the furtive fallacy, a belief that significant facts of history are necessarily sinister; conspiracism, a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history, rather than social and economic forces; and fusion paranoia, a promiscuous absorption of fears from any source whatsoever.^[6]

Domhoff, a research professor in psychology and sociology who studies theories of power, wrote in 2005 an essay entitled There Are No Conspiracies. He says that for this theory to be true it required several 'wealthy and highly educated people' to do things that don't 'fit with what we know about power structures'. Claims that this will happen goes back decades and have always been proved wrong.

Partridge, a contributing editor to the global affairs magazine Diplomatic Courier, wrote a 2008 article entitled One World Government: Conspiracy Theory or Inevitable Future? He says that if anything nationalism, which is the opposite of a global government, is rising. He also says that attempts at creating global governments or global agreements 'have been categorical failures' and where 'supranational governance exist they are noted for their bureaucracy and inefficiency.'

Although some cultural critics see superconspiracy theories about a New World Order as 'postmodernmetanarratives' that may be politically empowering, a way of giving ordinary people a narrative structure with which to question what they see around them,^[94] skeptics argue that conspiracism leads people into cynicism, convoluted thinking, and a tendency to feel it is hopeless even as they denounce the alleged conspirators.^[95]

Alexander Zaitchik from the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote a report titled 'Patriot' Paranoia: A Look at the Top Ten Conspiracy Theories', in which he personally condemns such conspiracies as an effort of the radical right to undermine society.^[96]

Concerned that the improvisational millennialism of most conspiracy theories about a New World Order might motivate lone wolves to engage in leaderless resistance leading to domestic terrorist incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing,^[97] Barkun writes that 'the danger lies less in such beliefs themselves .. than in the behavior they might stimulate or justify' and warns 'should they believe that the prophesied evil day had in fact arrived, their behavior would become far more difficult to predict.'

Warning of the threat to American democracy posed by right-wing populist movements led by demagogues who mobilize support for mob rule or even a fascist revolution by exploiting the fear of conspiracies, Berlet writes that 'Right-wing populist movements can cause serious damage to a society because they often popularize xenophobia, authoritarianism, scapegoating, and conspiracism. This can lure mainstream politicians to adopt these themes to attract voters, legitimize acts of discrimination (or even violence), and open the door for revolutionary right-wing populist movements, such as fascism, to recruit from the reformist populist movements.'

Hughes, a professor of religion, warns that no religious idea has greater potential for shaping global politics in profoundly negative ways than 'the new world order'. He writes in a February 2011 article entitled Revelation, Revolutions, and the Tyrannical New World Order that 'the crucial piece of this puzzle is the identity of the Antichrist, the tyrannical figure who both leads and inspires the new world order'. This has in turn been the Soviet Union and the Arab world. He says that inspires believers to 'welcome war with the Islamic world' and opens the door to nuclear holocaust.'

Criticisms of New World Order conspiracy theorists also come from within their own community. Despite believing themselves to be 'freedom fighters', many right-wing populist conspiracy theorists hold views that are incompatible with their professed libertarianism, such as dominionism, white supremacism, and even eliminationism.^[15][98] This paradox has led Icke, who argues that Christian Patriots are the only Americans who understand the truth about the New World Order (which he believes is controlled by a race of reptilians known as the 'Babylonian Brotherhood'), to reportedly tell a Christian Patriot group, 'I don't know which I dislike more, the world controlled by the Brotherhood, or the one you want to replace it with.'

You could just buy a new laptop too, as laptops with G/N are often a little older too. If you're, for example, still running a Wireless G/N device, but have an AC2 Access Point, then a new piece of hardware would speed it up. How to make steam download faster.

See also

References

1. ^ ^abLewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary
2. ^ ^ab'Novus Ordo Seclorum - Origin and Meaning of the Motto Beneath the American Pyramid'. GreatSeal.com.
3. ^ ^abcdCamp, Gregory S. (1997). Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia. Commish Walsh. ASINB000J0N8NC.
4. ^ ^abcdeBerlet, Chip; Lyons, Matthew N. (2000). Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. Guilford Press. ISBN1-57230-562-2.
5. ^ ^abGoldberg, Robert Alan (2001). Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. Yale University Press. ISBN0-300-09000-5.
6. ^ ^{abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz}Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press; 1 edition. ISBN0-520-23805-2.
7. ^ ^abFenster, Mark (2008). Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture (2nd ed.). University of Minnesota Press. ISBN0-8166-5494-8.
8. ^ ^abBerlet, Chip (September 2004). 'Interview: Michael Barkun'. Retrieved 2009-10-01.
9. ^Pete Williams, Andrew Blankstein (1 November 2014). 'Sources: Alleged LAX gunman had 'new world order' conspiracy tract'. NBC News. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
10. ^Thomas J. Knock (12 March 2019). To End All Wars, New Edition: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order. Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0-691-19192-8.
11. ^Buchanan, Patrick J. (1999). A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny. Regnery Publishing, Inc. ASINB001NHW8GI.
12. ^Hughes, J. 'Better Living Through World Government: Transnationalism as 21st Socialism'. Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
13. ^ ^abWells, H. G. (2006). The New World Order. Hesperides Press. ISBN1-4067-2262-6.
14. ^Wagar, W. Warren (1977). H. G. Wells and the World State. Ayer Co Pub. ISBN0-8369-5915-9.
15. ^ ^abcdefghijkBerlet, Chip (15 April 1999). 'Dances with Devils: How Apocalyptic and Millennialist Themes Influence Right Wing Scapegoating and Conspiracism'. The Public Eye. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
16. ^(clip) 'George Bush Sr. New World Order Live Speech Sept 11 1991'. YouTube. 3 December 2011. Retrieved 14 January 2016.
17. ^Judis, John B. (20 November 1990). 'George Bush, Meet Woodrow Wilson'. The New York Times. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
18. ^Pitcavage, Mark; Institute for Intergovernmental Research: Camouflage and Conspiracy. The Militia Movement From Ruby Ridge to Y2K. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 44, No. 6, Pages 957–981, SAGE Publications, 2001.
19. ^Grice, Andrew (4 April 2009). 'This was the Bretton Woods of our times'. The Independent. Archived from the original on 5 April 2009. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
20. ^Kissinger, Henry (12 January 2009). 'The chance for a new world order'. The New York Times. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
21. ^Romero, George (2011). The Rescue. p. 246. ISBN1-4564-9962-9.
22. ^Krugman, Paul (11 June 2009). 'The Big Hate'. The New York Times. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
23. ^ ^abAnti-Defamation League (16 November 2009). 'Rage Grows in America: Anti‑Government Conspiracies'. ADL Special Reports. Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved 2009-11-20.
24. ^Monfette, Christopher (16 March 2009). 'SXSW 09: New World Order Review'. ign.com. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
25. ^Gosa, Travis L. (June 2011). 'Counterknowledge, racial paranoia, and the cultic milieu: Decoding hip hop conspiracy theory'. Poetics. 39 (3): 187–204. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2011.03.003. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
26. ^Johnson, George (1983). Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc. ISBN0-87477-275-3.
27. ^ ^abcHughes, Richard T. (24 February 2011). 'Revelation, Revolutions, and the Tyrannical New World Order'. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
28. ^Bruce, Barron (1993). 'A Summary Critique. Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, pp. 44–45'. Archived from the original on 8 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-30.
29. ^Sine, Tom. 'Suspicions of Conspiracy: How a spirit of fear can distort scripture and history'. Sojourners (July–August 1995). Archived from the original on 24 July 2009. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
30. ^Gomes, Peter J. (1996). The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart. William Morrow & Co.^{[dead link]}
31. ^Vandruff, Dean; Vandruff, Laura. 'Christians & Conspiracy Theories: A Call to Repentance'. Retrieved 2009-11-30.
32. ^Coughlin, Paul T. (1999). Secrets, Plots & Hidden Agendas: What You Don't Know About Conspiracy Theories. InterVarsity Press. ISBN0-8308-1624-0.
33. ^De Hoyos, Arturo (2011). As it True What They Say About Freemasonry?. M. Evans and Company, revided edition. ISBN1-59077-153-2.
34. ^ ^abMcKeown, Trevor W. (5 May 2004). 'Doesn't the satanic design of Washington, DC's street plan prove that there's a masonic conspiracy?'. Anti-masonry Frequently Asked Questions. Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A. M. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
35. ^ ^abMcKeown, Trevor W. (5 May 2004). 'Is the eye and pyramid a masonic symbol?'. Anti-masonry Frequently Asked Questions. Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A. M. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
36. ^Knight, Peter (1 January 2003). Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 227. ISBN978-1576078129.
37. ^McConachie, James; Tudge, Robin. Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories, The (3rd). Rough Guides UK. ISBN9781409362456.
38. ^McKeown, Trevor W. (5 May 2004). 'Does Freemasonry have a secret political agenda?'. Anti-masonry Frequently Asked Questions. Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A. M. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
39. ^ ^abStauffer, Vernon L. (1918). 'The European Illuminati'. New England and the Bavarian Illuminati. Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A. M. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
40. ^ ^abcMcKeown, Trevor W. (2004). 'A Bavarian Illuminati primer'. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
41. ^Soviet Jewry: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations, United States Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. 1984. p. 56
42. ^Spargo, John (1921). The Jew and American Ideals. Harper & Brothers.
43. ^Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, Corgi, 1982. ISBN0-552-12138-X.
44. ^'The Priory Of Sion'.
45. ^Aho, Barbara (1997). 'The Merovingian Dynasty: Satanic Bloodline of the AntiChrist & False Prophet'. Archived from the original on 2009-12-12. Retrieved 2009-11-11.
46. ^ ^abFlint, John E. (1976). Cecil Rhodes (1st ed.). Little Brown & Company. ISBN0-316-28630-3.
47. ^'MR. RHODES'S IDEAL OF ANGLO-SAXON GREATNESS; Statement of His Aims, Written for W.T. Stead In 1890. He Believed a Wealthy Secret Society Should Work to Secure the World's Peace and a British-American Federation'(PDF). The New York Times. 9 April 1902.
48. ^Curtis, Lionel. Civitas Dei: The Commonwealth of God London (1938). MacMillan & Sons
49. ^'About CFR'. Council on Foreign Relations.
50. ^ ^abScienta Press staff. 'Carroll Quigley: Theorist of Civilizations'.
51. ^McDonald, Lawrence P. Introduction. The Rockefeller File. By Gary Allen. Seal Beach, CA: '76 Press, 1976. ISBN0-89245-001-0.
52. ^Rockefeller, David (2002). Memoirs. Random House. ISBN0-679-40588-7.
53. ^Fulford, Benjamin (2007). Benjamin Fulford interviews David Rockefeller.
54. ^Shoup, Laurence H.; Minter, William (2004). Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy. Authors Choice Press. ISBN0-595-32426-6.
55. ^ ^abcDomhoff, G. William (2005). 'There Are No Conspiracies'. Retrieved 2009-01-30.
56. ^Wells, H. G. (2006). The Open Conspiracy. Book Tree. ISBN1-58509-275-4.
57. ^Earle, Edward Mead (26 April 2018). 'H. G. Wells, British Patriot in Search of a World State'. World Politics. 2 (2): 181–208. doi:10.2307/2009188. JSTOR2009188.
58. ^Bailey, Alice A. (1957). 'The Externalization of the Hierarchy'. USNISA. Archived from the original on 5 August 2009. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
59. ^Cumbey, Constance (1985). The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow: The New Age Movement and our Coming Age of Barbarism. Huntington House Publishers; Revised edition. ISBN0-910311-03-X.
60. ^McKeown, Trevor W. (5 May 2004). 'Has Freemasonry become part of the New Age movement?'. Anti-masonry Frequently Asked Questions. Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A. M. Retrieved 2009-11-02.
61. ^Marrs, Jim (2008). The Rise of the Fourth Reich: The Secret Societies That Threaten to Take Over America. William Morrow. ISBN978-0-06-124558-9.
62. ^Zeskind, Leonard (2009). Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN0-374-10903-6.
63. ^Pipes, Daniel (1 May 2003). 'Inverted Totalitarianism'. Retrieved 2009-12-21.
64. ^'Page not found'. Alternet. Archived from the original on 2012-05-02. Retrieved 2018-04-26.
65. ^ ^abFrel, January (1 September 2010). 'Inside the Great Reptilian Conspiracy: From Queen Elizabeth to Barack Obama – They Live!'. Retrieved 2010-09-01.
66. ^Collins, Phillip D. (2006). The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century. BookSurge Publishing. ISBN1-4196-3932-3.
67. ^Hughes, James (2004). Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. Westview Press. ISBN0-8133-4198-1.
68. ^ ^abHolland, Joshua (15 June 2007). 'Debunking the North American Union Conspiracy Theory'. Retrieved 2009-01-09.
69. ^'Bachmann: No foreign currency'. Star Tribune. 26 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-03.
70. ^'The Right-Wing Echo Chamber In Action: How A Conspiracy Travels From Drudge To Obama, Via Fox News'.
71. ^Partridge, Mark C (14 December 2008). 'One World Government: Conspiracy Theory or Inevitable Future?'. Archived from the original on 17 August 2009. Retrieved 4 May 2014.
72. ^Levitas, Daniel (20 January 2004). The Terrorist Next Door: The Militia Movement and the Radical Right. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN0-312-32041-8.
73. ^BBC News Special Report (5 October 1998). 'Death to the New World Order'. Retrieved 2006-06-24.
74. ^Ron Rosenbaum (19 October 2007). 'Who Will Rule Us After the Next 9/11?'. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
75. ^Albrecht, Katherine; McIntyre, Liz (2006). The Spychips Threat: Why Christians Should Resist RFID and Electronic Surveillance. Nelson Current. ISBN1-59555-021-6.
76. ^'Total/Terrorism Information Awareness (TIA): Is It Truly Dead?'. Electronic Frontier Foundation (official website). 2003. Archived from the original on 25 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-03-15.
77. ^Seifert, Jeffrey W. (16 December 2004). 'Data Mining: An Overview'(PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-11.
78. ^Terry Melanson (22 July 2002). 'Information Awareness Office (IAO): How's This for Paranoid?'. Illuminati Conspiracy Archive. Retrieved 11 October 2009.
79. ^Morris, S. Brent (1 January 2009). 'The Eye in the Pyramid'. Short Talk Bulletin. Masonic Service Association. Retrieved 2009-10-27.
80. ^Baard, Mark (6 June 2006). 'RFID: Sign of the (End) Times?'. wired.com. Retrieved 18 December 2006.
81. ^Stanley, Jay (August 2004). 'The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society'(PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
82. ^Albo, Frank (2007). The Hermetic Code. Winnipeg Free Press. ISBN0-9682575-3-4.
83. ^Marrs, Jim (2013). Our Occulted History. William Morrow. ISBN978-0-06-213032-7.
84. ^Laycock, Joseph (6 July 2009). '10 Commandments of the Anti-Christ: Mysterious 'Guidestones' Madden Conspiracy Theorists and Christian Fundamentalists'. AlterNet. Archived from the original on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
85. ^Henig, Robin Marantz (1997). The People's Health. Joseph Henry Press. p. 85. ISBN0-309-05492-3.
86. ^Rovere, Richard H. (1959). Senator Joe McCarthy. University of California Press. pp. 21–22. ISBN0-520-20472-7.
87. ^'Ten health issues WHO will tackle this year'. Who.int. Retrieved 2019-01-19.
88. ^PM, Aristos Georgiou (2019-01-15). 'The anti-vax movement has been listed by WHO as one of its top 10 health threats for 2019'. Retrieved 2019-01-16.
89. ^Harrington, Evan (1996). 'Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia: Notes from a Mind-Control Conference'. Archived from the original on 17 March 2008. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
90. ^Ilan, Shrira (11 September 2008). 'Paranoia and the roots of conspiracy theories - September 11 and the psychological roots of conspiracy theories'. Psychology Today. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
91. ^Melley, Timothy (December 1999). Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Paranoia in Postwar America. Cornell University Press. ISBN0-8014-8606-8.
92. ^Rothkopf, David J. (2008). Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN0-374-27210-7.
93. ^ ^abParty for Socialism and Liberation (1 September 2010). 'Daniel Estulin and the phony 'Bilderberg conspiracy''. Archived from the original on 7 August 2011. Retrieved 7 October 2010.
94. ^Lewis, Tyson; Kahn, Richard (2005). 'The Reptoid Hypothesis: Utopian and Dystopian Representational Motifs in David Icke's Alien Conspiracy Theory'(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on 27 July 2011. Retrieved 4 June 2010.
95. ^Berlet, Chip (September 2004). 'Interview: G. William Domhoff'. Retrieved 1 October 2009.
96. ^''Patriot' Paranoia: A Look at the Top Ten Conspiracy Theories'. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2018-04-02.
97. ^Boyer, Paul S. (27 July 2004). 'The Strange World of Conspiracy Theories'. Archived from the original on 10 March 2013. Retrieved 1 October 2009.
98. ^Holland, Joshua (12 June 2009). 'The Terrorist Threat: Right-Wing Radicals and the Eliminationist Mindset'. Archived from the original on 23 July 2009. Retrieved 23 July 2009.

Further reading

The following is a list of non-self-published non-fiction books that discuss New World Order conspiracy theories.

• Carr, William Guy (1954). Pawns in the Game. Legion for the Survival of Freedom, an affiliate of the Institute for Historical Review. ISBN0-911038-29-9.
• Still, William T. (1990). New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies. Huntington House Publishers. ISBN0-910311-64-1.
• Cooper, Milton William (1991). Behold a Pale Horse. Light Technology Publications. ISBN0-929385-22-5.
• Kah, Gary H. (1991). En Route to Global Occupation. Huntington House Publishers. ISBN0-910311-97-8.
• Martin, Malachi (1991). Keys of This Blood: Pope John Paul II Versus Russia and the West for Control of the New World Order. Simon & Schuster. ISBN0-671-74723-1.
• Robertson, Pat (1992). The New World Order. W Publishing Group. ISBN0-8499-3394-3.
• Wardner, James (1994) [1993]. The Planned Destruction of America. Longwood Communications. ISBN0-9632190-5-7.
• Keith, Jim (1995). Black Helicopters over America: Strikeforce for the New World Order. Illuminet Press. ISBN1-881532-05-4.
• Cuddy, Dennis Laurence (1999) [1994]. Secret Records Revealed: The Men, The Money and The Methods Behind the New World Order. Hearthstone Publishing, Ltd. ISBN1-57558-031-4.
• Marrs, Jim (2001) [2001]. Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids. HarperCollins. ISBN0-06-093184-1.
• Lina, Jüri (2004). Architects of Deception. Referent Publishing. ASINB0017YZELI.

External links

• World Government summit Official Website
• Quotations related to New World Order at Wikiquote

Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)&oldid=899173706'

Part of a series on
File sharing
Technologies
Video sharing sites
BitTorrent sites
Academic/scholarly
File sharing networks
P2P clients
Streaming programs
Anonymous file sharing
Development and societal aspects
By country or region
Comparisons

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia (audio, images and video), documents or electronic books. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange intellectual property that is subject to copyright law or licensing.

• 2Jurisdictions
  • 2.5Germany
  • 2.16United States

File hosting and sharing[edit]

File hosting services may be used as a means to distribute or share files without consent of the copyright owner. In such cases one individual uploads a file to a file hosting service, which others may download. Legal history is documented in case law.

For example in the case of Swiss-German file hosting service RapidShare, in 2010 the US government's congressional international anti-piracycaucus declared the site a 'notorious illegal site', claiming that the site was 'overwhelmingly used for the global exchange of illegal movies, music and other copyrighted works'.^[1] But in the legal case Atari Europe S.A.S.U. v. Rapidshare AG in Germany (Legal case: OLG Düsseldorf, Judgement of 22 March 2010, Az I-20 U 166/09 dated 22 March 2010) the Düsseldorf higher regional court examined claims related to alleged infringing activity and reached the conclusion on appeal that 'most people utilize RapidShare for legal use cases'^[2] and that to assume otherwise was equivalent to inviting 'a general suspicion against shared hosting services and their users which is not justified'.^[3] The court also observed that the site removes copyrighted material when asked, does not provide search facilities for illegal material, noted previous cases siding with RapidShare, and after analysis the court concluded that the plaintiff's proposals for more strictly preventing sharing of copyrighted material – submitted as examples of anti-file sharing measures RapidShare might have adopted – were found to be 'unreasonable or pointless'.^[4]

In January 2012 the United States Department of Justice seized and shut down the file hosting site Megaupload.com and commenced criminal cases against its owners and others. Their indictment concluded that Megaupload differed from other online file storage businesses, suggesting a number of design features of its operating model as being evidence showing a criminal intent and venture.^[5]

Jurisdictions[edit]

Australia[edit]

A secondary liability case in Australia, under Australian law, was Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 1242 (5 September 2005). In that case, the Court determined that the Kazaa file sharing system had 'authorized' copyright infringement. The claim for damages was subsequently settled out of court.

In the case of AFACT v iiNet which was fought out in the Federal Court, an internet service provider was found not to be liable for the copyright infringement of its users. The case did not, however, create a clear precedent that Australian ISPs could never be held liable for the copyright infringement of their users by virtue of providing an internet connection. AFACT and other major Australian copyright holders have stated their intention to appeal the case, or pursue the matter by lobbying the government to change the Australian law.

Canada[edit]

The Copyright Modernization Act was passed in 2012, and came into effect on 2 January 2015. It provides for statutory damages for cases of non-commercial infringement between $100 and $5 000 and damages for commercial infringement from $500 to $20 000.

China[edit]

The People's Republic of China is known for having one of the most comprehensive and extensive approaches to observing web activity and censoring information in the world.^{[citation needed]} Popular social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook cannot be accessed via direct connection by its citizens. Mainland China requires sites that share video files to have permits and be controlled by the state or owned by state. These permits last for three years and will need renewal after that time period. Web sites that violate any rules will be subject to a 5-year ban from providing videos online.^[6] One of the country's most used file sharing programs, BTChina got shut down in December 2009. It was shut down by the State Administration of Radio Film and Television for not obtaining a license to legally distribute media such as audio and video files.^[7] Alexa, a company that monitors web traffic, claims that BTChina had 80,000 daily users. Being one of the primary file sharing websites for Chinese citizens, this shutdown affected the lives of many internet users in China. China has an online population of 222.4 million people and 65.8% are said to participate in some form of file-sharing on websites.^[8]

European Union[edit]

On 5 June 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that making temporary copies on the user's screen or in the user's cache is not, in itself, illegal.^[9][10] The ruling relates to the British Meltwater case settled on that day.^[11]

The judgement of the court states: 'Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the copies on the user’s computer screen and the copies in the internet ‘cache’ of that computer’s hard disk, made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website, satisfy the conditions that those copies must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, as well as the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of that directive, and that they may therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders.'^[12]

The Boy Genius Reportweblog noted that 'As long as an Internet user is streaming copyrighted content online .. it’s legal for the user, who isn’t willfully [sic] making a copy of said content. If the user only views it directly through a web browser, streaming it from a website that hosts it, he or she is apparently doing nothing wrong.'^[13]

In November 2009, the European Parliament voted on changes to the Telecoms Package. With regard to file-sharing, MEPs agreed to compromise between protecting copyright and protecting user's rights. A European Parliament statement reads 'A user's internet access may be restricted, if necessary and proportionate, only after a fair and impartial procedure including the user's right to be heard.' EU members were given until May 2011 to implement these changes into their own laws.^[14]

Germany[edit]

In Germany, file sharing is illegal and even one copyrighted file downloaded through BitTorrent can trigger €1000 fines or more. The GEMA also used to block many YouTube videos.

Graduated response[edit]

Demonstration in Sweden in support of file sharing, 2006

In response to copyright violations using peer to peerfile sharing or BitTorrent the content industry has developed what is known as a graduated response, or three strikes system. Consumers who do not adhere to repeated complaints on copyright infringement, risk losing access to the internet. The content industry has thought to gain the co-operation of internet service providers (ISPs), asking them to provide subscriber information for IP addresses identified by the content industry as engaged in copyright violations. Consumer rights groups have argued that this approach denies consumers the right to due process and the right to privacy. The European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution in April 2008 admonishing laws that would require ISPs to disconnect their users and would prevent individuals from acquiring access to broadband.^[15][16]

• Refer to your game documentation for information about how to configure the Xbox 360 controller for a specific game. Download xbox 360 controller driver cd windows 10. If you’re having trouble with the drivers, you can install the controller software on a Windows 8.1 or Windows 8 PC by using Windows 7 compatibility mode. Drivers for Windows 8.1 and Windows 8 are installed by default. Install any updates and then try again. Simply plug your controller into a USB port and the driver will self-install.

In a number of European countries attempts to implement a graduated response have led to court cases to establish under which circumstances an ISP may provide subscriber data to the content industry. In order to pursue those that download copyrighted material the individual committing the infringing must be identified. Internet users are often only identifiable by their Internet Protocol address (IP address), which distinguishes the virtual location of a particular computer. Most ISPs allocate a pool of IP addresses as needed, rather than assigning each computer a never-changing static IP address. Using ISP subscriber information the content industry has thought to remedy copyright infringement, assuming that the ISPs are legally responsible for the end user activity, and that the end user is responsible for all activity connected to his or hers IP address.^[16][17]

In 2005 a Dutch court ordered ISPs in the Netherlands not to divulge subscriber information because of the way the Dutch content industry group had collected the IP addresses (Foundation v. UPC Nederland). According to Dutch law ISPs can only be ordered to provide personal subscriber data if it is plausible that an unlawful act occurred, and if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the subscriber information will identify the person who committed the infringing act. In Germany court specifically considered the right to privacy and in March 2008 the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that ISPs could only give out IP address subscription information in case of a 'serious criminal investigation'. The court furthermore ruled that copyright infringement did not qualify as a serious enough offense. Subsequently, in April 2008, the Bundestag (German parliament) approved a new law requiring ISPs to divulge the identity of suspected infringers who infringe on a commercial scale. Similarly, in Sweden, a controversial file sharing bill is awaiting the Riksdag’s approval. The law, which would enter into effect on 1 April 2009, would allow copyright holders to request the IP addresses and names of copyright infringement suspects in order to take legal action against them. The copyright holders, though, should present sufficient evidence of harm to justify the release of information regarding the Internet subscribers.^[18] In Italy, the courts established that criminal liability does not extend to file sharing copyrighted material, as long as it is not done for commercial gain. Ruling on a case involving a copyright holder who employed a third party to collect IP addresses of suspected copyright infringers, the Italian Data Protection Authority ruled in February 2008 that the systematic monitoring peer-to-peer activities for the purpose of detecting copyright infringers and suing them is prohibited.^[16]

France[edit]

In October 2009, France's highest constitutional court approved the HADOPI law, a 'three-strikes law';^[19] however, the law was revoked on 10 July 2013 by the French Government because the punitive penalties imposed on copyright infringers was considered to be disproportionate.^[20]

Ireland[edit]

In May 2010, Irish internet provider Eircom have announced they will cut off the broadband connection of subscribers suspected of copyright infringement on peer-to-peer file sharing networks. Initially, customers will be telephoned by Eircom to see if they are aware of the unauthorized downloads. When customers are identified for a third time they will lose their internet connection for 7 days, if caught for a fourth time they will lose their internet connection for a year.^[21]

Japan[edit]

File sharing in Japan is notable for both its size and sophistication.^[22] The Recording Industry Association of Japan claims illegal downloads outnumber legal ones 10:1.^[23]

The sophistication of Japan's filesharing is due to the sophistication of Japanese anti-filesharing. Unlike most other countries, filesharing copyrighted content is not just a civil offense, but a criminal one, with penalties of up to ten years for uploading and penalties of up to two years for downloading.^[23] There is also a high level of Internet service provider cooperation.^[24] This makes for a situation where file sharing as practiced in many other countries is quite dangerous.

Ben Moody The End Has Come

To counter, Japanese file sharers employ anonymization networks with clients such as Perfect Dark (パーフェクトダーク) and Winny.

Malaysia[edit]

In June 2011, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission has ordered the blocking of several websites including The Pirate Bay and several file-hosting websites via a letter dated 30 May to all Malaysian ISPs for violating Section 41 of the Copyright Act 1987, which deals with pirated content.^[25]

Mexico[edit]

Mexican law does not currently address non-commercial file sharing, although Mexican legislators have considered increasing penalties for unauthorized file sharing. Broadband usage is increasing in Mexico, and Internet cafes are common,^[26]. Due to the relative lack of authorized music distribution services in Mexico, filesharing continues to dominate music access. According to the recording industry in 2010, Internet sharing of music dominated approximately 90% of the total music market in Mexico with peer to peer networks the most dominant form of music copyright infringement.^[27]

Netherlands[edit]

According to Dutch law reproduction of a literary, science, or art work is not considered a violation on the right of the creator or performing artist when all of the following conditions have been met:

• The copy has not been made with an (in)direct commercial motive
• The copy's purpose is exclusively for own practice, study or use
• The number of copies is limited

Such a copy is called a 'thuiskopie' or home copy.

Since 2018, following a decision by the Ministry of Justice, there is an organization which guarantees that artists and rights holders get a compensation for copies of their works made for private use.^[28] This compensation is levied indirectly through a surcharge on information carriers such as blank CD's, blank DVD's, MP3 Players, and, since 2013, hard drives and tablets.

North Korea[edit]

File sharing in North Korea is done by hand with physical transport devices such as computer disk drives, due to lack of access to the Internet. It is illegal, due to regime attempts to control culture.^[29] Despite government repression, file sharing is common, as it is in most other countries.^[30]

Because official channels are heavily dominated by government propaganda and outside media is banned, illegally traded files are a unique view into the outside world for North Koreans.^[30] The most shared media is from South Korea; k-pop and soap operas.^[29]

South Korea[edit]

In March 2009, South Korea passed legislation that gave internet users a form of three strikes for unlawful file sharing with the intention of curbing online theft.^[31]This is also known as graduated response.As the number of cases of unauthorized sharing increases, the proportion of youth involved has increased. As file shares are monitored, they are sent messages instructing them to stop. If their file sharing continues, their internet connection may be disconnected for up to six months.^[32]The force behind this movement is the Korean National Assembly’s Committeeon Culture, Sports, Tourism, Broadcasting & Communications (CCSTB&C). With help from local internet service providers, the CCSTB&C have gainedaccess and formed communication channels to specific file sharing users.^[33]

Spain[edit]

In a series of cases, Spanish courts have ruled that file sharing for private use is legal.In 2006, the record industry's attempts to criminalize file sharing were thwarted when Judge Paz Aldecoa declared it legal to download indiscriminately in Spain, if done for private use and without any intent to profit,^[34][35] and the head of the police's technology squad has publicly said 'No pasa nada. Podéis bajar lo que queráis del eMule. Pero no lo vendáis.' ('It's ok. You can download whatever you want with eMule. But don't sell it.').^[36] There have been demonstrations where the authorities have been informed that copyrighted material would be downloaded in a public place, the last of which took place on 20 December 2008.^[37] No legal action was taken against the protestors.^{[38][39][40][41][42]} In another decision from May 2009,^[43] a judge ruled in favor of a person engaged in the private, non-commercial file-sharing of thousands of movies, even though the copying was done without the consent of the copyright owners.

The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that personal data associated with an IP address may only be disclosed in the course of a criminal investigation or for public safety reasons. (Productores de Música de España v. Telefónica de España SAU).^[16]

It has been reported that Spain has one of the highest rates of file-sharing in Europe.^[44] Over a twelve-month period there were 2.4 billion reported downloads of copyrighted works including music, video games, software and films in Spain. Statistics for 2010 indicate that 30% of the Spanish population uses file-sharing websites, double the European average of 15%.^[44]

Record labels would have it that this has had a negative impact on the industry, with investment drying up, according to IFPI head John Kennedy. In 2003, for instance, 10 new Spanish artists appeared in the top 50 album chart, but in 2009 not a single new Spanish artist featured in the same chart. Album sales dropped by two-thirds over a period of five years leading up to 2010. 'Spain runs the risk of turning into a cultural desert .. I think it's a real shame that people in authority don't see the damage being done.'^[45]

However, the Spanish Association of Music Promoters (APM) states that 'Music is alive,' as despite the decrease in record sales the revenues from concert ticket sales has increased 117% over the last decade, from €69.9 million to €151.1 million in 2008. The number of concerts doubled from 71,045 in 2000 to 144,859 in 2008, and the number of people attending concerts increased from 21.8 million in 2000 to over 33 million in 2008.^[46]

Despite the troubles weathered by the entertainment industry, file sharing and torrent websites were ruled legal in Spain in March 2010. The judge responsible for the court ruling stated that 'P2P networks are mere conduits for the transmission of data between Internet users, and on this basis they do not infringe rights protected by Intellectual Property laws'.^[47]

On 20 September 2013, the Spanish government approved new laws that will take effect at the beginning of 2014. The approved legislation will mean that website owners who are earning 'direct or indirect profit,' such as via advertising links, from pirated content can be imprisoned for up to six years. Peer-to-peer file-sharing platforms and search engines are exempt from the laws.^[48]

Since January 2015, Vodafone Spain blocks thepiratebay.org as requested by the Ministry of Interior. And since 29 March 2015 thepiratebay is blocked on multiple URLs from all ISPs^[111]

United Kingdom[edit]

Around 2010, the UK government's position was that action would help drive the UK’s vital creative and digital sectors to bolster future growth and jobs.^[49] According to a 2009 report carried out by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry95 per cent of music downloads are unauthorised, with no payment to artists and producers.^[50] Market research firm Harris Interactive believed there to be 8.3 million file sharers in the UK. Moreover the BPI claimed that in 1999 UK music purchases totaled £1,113 million but had fallen to £893.8 million in 2008.^[51] The Digital Economy Act 2010 received Royal Assent on 9 April 2010.^[52] But subsequently its main provisions were never legislatively passed.

Historical situation prior to 2010

Previous cases in the UK have seen internet users receive bills of £2500 for sharing music on the internet.^[53]

Digital Economy Act 2010

The Digital Economy Bill proposed that internet service providers (ISPs) issue warnings by sending letters to those downloading copyrighted files without authorization. Following this, the bill proposed that ISPs slow down or even suspend internet access for repeat offenders of unauthorized file sharing. The bill aimed to force internet service providers to disclose the identities of those offenders as well as making conditions for the regulation of copyright licensing. The Digital Economy Bill incorporated a graduated response policy despite the alleged file sharer not necessarily having to be convicted of copyright offences.^[54] The bill also introduced fines of up to £50,000 for criminal offences relating to copyright infringement – for example if music is downloaded with intent to sell. The high penalty is considered to be proportionate to the harm caused to UK industries.^[55] An appeals process exists whereby the accused can contest the case however, the concern has been expressed that this process will be costly and that, in requiring the individual to prove their innocence, the bill reverses the core principles of natural justice.^[56] Similarly, a website may be blocked if it is considered that it has been, is being, or is likely to be used in connection with copyright infringement^[57] meaning that a site does not actually have to be involved in copyright infringement – rather intent must be proved.

The Act was seen as controversial, and potentially creating serious repercussions for both file sharers and internet service providers.^[58] The bill was met with a mixed response. Geoff Taylor of the BPI claims the bill is vital for the future of creative works in the UK.^[56] The Conservative party spokesman for Culture and Media stated that those downloading should be given a criminal record. Conversely, the Liberal Democrat party spokesman for Culture and Media claimed the bill was reckless and dangerous stating that children could unwittingly be file sharing causing an entire family to lose their internet connection. In addition to this, there was concern that hackers may access internet connections to download files and leave the bill payer responsible. Specific concerns raised included:

• Providers of public Wi-Fi access is uncertain. Responsibility for breaches could be passed on to the provider due to the difficulty in identifying individual users. The internet provider therefore may risk losing internet access or facing a hefty fine if an infringement of copyright takes place. Many libraries and small cafés for example may find this impossible to adhere to as it would require detailed logging of all those requiring internet access. In libraries in particular this may provide challenges to the profession’s importance of user privacy and could force changes in future policies such as Acceptable Use Policies (AUP). Public libraries utilise AUPs in order to protect creative works from copyright infringement and themselves from possible legal liability. However, unless the AUP is accompanied by the provision of knowledge on how to obey laws it could be seen as unethical, as blame for any breaches is passed to the user.^[59]
• Hospitality sector - may also be affected by the Digital Economy Act. The British Hospitality Association has stated that hotels would have particular problems in providing details of guest’s internet access to Internet Service Providers and entire hotels may face disconnection. They have also expressed their concern that an individual's actions may lead to such a drastic outcome.^[60]
• Internet service providers were also hostile towards the bill. TalkTalk stated that suspending access to the internet breached human rights. This view may be shared by many, as a survey carried out by the BBC found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should be the 'fundamental right of all people'.^[61] Certainly, people require access to the internet for many aspects of their life for example shopping, online banking, education, work and even socialising. Furthermore, TalkTalk Director of Regulation, Andrew Heaney has acknowledged that file sharing is a problem but the answer is to educate people and create legal alternatives. Heaney has also argued that disconnected offenders will simply create other user names to hide their identity and continue downloading. TalkTalk has claimed that 80% of youngsters would continue to download regardless of the bill and that internet service providers are being forced to police this without any workable outcomes.^[62]
• Cable company Virgin Media also criticized the Digital Economy Bill believing it to be heavy handed and likely to alienate customers. Virgin advocated the development of alternative services which people would choose instead of file sharing.^[63]

The bill provoked protests in many forms. The Guardian reported that hundreds were expected to march outside the House of Commons on 24 March 2010.^[64] Moreover, an estimated 12,000 people sent emails to their MPs, through the citizen advocacy organization 38 degrees. 38 degrees objected to the speed with which the bill was rushed through parliament, without proper debate, due to the imminent dissolution of parliament prior to a general election.^[64] In October 2009 TalkTalk launched its Don't Disconnect Us campaign asking people to sign a petition against the proposal to cut off the internet connections of those accused of unauthorized file sharing.^[65] By November 2009 the petition had almost 17,000 signatories^[66] and by December had reached over 30,000.^[67] The Pirate Party in the UK called for non-commercial file sharing to be legalized. Formed in 2009 and intending to enter candidates in the 2010 UK general election, the Pirate Party advocates reform to copyright and patent laws and a reduction in government surveillance.^[68]

The Code which would implement these sections of the Act was never passed into law by Parliament, and no action was taken on it after around 2013.

Digital Economy Act 2017

The Digital Economy Act 2017 updates the anti-infringement provisions of existing laws, creates or updates criminal copyright breach provisions, and provides for a wider range of sentencing for criminal infringement.

United States[edit]

In Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), the Supreme Court found that Sony's new product, the Betamax (the first mass-market consumer videocassette recorder), did not subject Sony to secondary copyright liability because it was capable of substantial non-infringing uses. Decades later, this case became the jumping-off point for all peer-to-peer copyright infringement litigation.

The first peer-to-peer case was A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the 9th Circuit considered whether Napster was liable as a secondary infringer. First, the court considered whether Napster was contributorily liable for copyright infringement. To be found contributorily liable, Napster must have engaged in 'personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement.'^[69] The court found that Napster was contributorily liable for the copyright infringement of its end-users because it 'knowingly encourages and assists the infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights.'^[70] The court analyzed whether Napster was vicariously liable for copyright infringement. The standard applied by the court was whether Napster 'has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities.'^[71] The court found that Napster did receive a financial benefit, and had the right and ability to supervise the activity, meaning that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim of vicarious infringement.^[72] The court denied all of Napster's defenses, including its claim of fair use.

The next major peer-to-peer case was MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005). In this case, the Supreme Court found that even if Grokster was capable of substantial non-infringing uses, which the Sony court found was enough to relieve one of secondary copyright liability, Grokster was still secondarily liable because it induced its users to infringe.^[73][74]

New World Order The End Has Come Movie Download Torrent Download

It is important to note the concept of blame in cases such as these. In a pure P2P network there is no host, but in practice most P2P networks are hybrid. This has led groups such as the RIAA to file suit against individual users, rather than against companies. The reason that Napster was subject to violation of the law and ultimately lost in court was because Napster was not a pure P2P network but instead maintained a central server which maintained an index of the files currently available on the network.

Around the world in 2006, an estimated five billion songs, equating to approximately 38,000 years in music were swapped on peer-to-peer websites, while 509 million songs were purchased online. The same study which estimated these findings also found that artists that had an online presence ended up retaining more of the profits rather than the music companies.^[75]

In November 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the Secure Federal File Sharing Act,^[76] which would, if enacted, prohibit the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing software by U.S. government employees and contractors on computers used for federal government work.^[77] The bill has died with the adjournment of 111th Congress.

Copyright law[edit]

A copyright in the United States consists of the exclusive rights enumerated under 17 USC 106.^[78] When having to do with pictures, music, literature or video, these exclusive rights include:1. The right to reproduce or redistribute the picture, music, lyrics, text, video, or images of a video.2. The right to distribute the picture, music, lyrics, text, video, or images of a video.3. The right to produce derivative works of the copyrighted work.4. The right to perform the work publicly.5. The right to display the work publicly.6. The right to transmit the work through the use of radio or digital transition. In summary, these exclusive rights cover the reproduction, adaptation, publication, performance, and display of a copyrighted work (subject to limitations such as fair use).^[79]

Anyone who violates the exclusive rights of copyright has committed copyright infringement, whether or not the work has been registered at the copyright office. If an infringement has occurred, the copyright owner has a legal right to sue the infringer for violating the terms of their copyright. The monetary value of the lawsuit can be whatever a jury decides is acceptable.

In the case of file sharing networks, companies claim that peer-to-peer file sharing enables the violation of their copyrights. File sharing allows any file to be reproduced and redistributed indefinitely. Therefore, the reasoning is that if a copyrighted work is on a file sharing network, whoever uploaded or downloaded the file is liable for violating the copyright because they are reproducing the work without the authorization of the copyright holder or the law.

Primary infringement liability[edit]

The fundamental question, 'what use can a P2P file-sharing network's customers make of the software and of copyrighted materials without violating copyright law', has no answer at this time, as there has been almost no dispositive decision-making on the subject.

This issue has received virtually no appellate attention, the sole exception being BMG Music v. Gonzalez,^[80] a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which held that where a defendant has admitted downloading and copying song files from other users in the P2P network without permission of the copyright holders, she cannot claim that such copying is a 'fair use'. Since Gonzalez involves a defendant who had admitted to actual copying and downloading of songs from other unauthorized users, it is of limited applicability in contested cases, in that it relates solely to the reproduction right in 17 USC 106(1), and has no bearing on the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right.

A series of cases dealing with the RIAA's 'making available' theory has broad implications, not only for the subject of P2P file sharing but for the Internet at large. The first to receive a great deal of attention was Elektra v. Barker,^[81] an RIAA case against Tenise Barker, a Bronx nursing student. Ms. Barker moved to dismiss the complaint, contending, among other things, that the RIAA's allegation of 'making available' did not state any known claim under the Copyright Act.^[82][83] The RIAA countered with the argument that even without any copying, and without any other violation of the record companies' distribution rights, the mere act of 'making available' is a copyright infringement, even though the language does not appear in the Copyright Act, as a violation of the 'distribution' right described in 17 USC 106(3).^[84] Thereafter, several amicus curiae were permitted to file briefs in the case, including the MPAA, which agreed^[85] with the RIAA's argument, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA), and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which agreed with Ms. Barker.^[86][87] The US Department of Justice submitted a brief refuting one of the arguments made by EFF,^[88] but did not take any position on the RIAA's 'making available' argument, noting that it had never prosecuted anyone for 'making available'.^[89] The Elektra v. Barker case was argued before Judge Kenneth M. Karas in Manhattan federal court on 26 January 2007,^[90] and decided on 31 March 2008.^[91]

The decision rejected the RIAA's 'making available' theory but sustained the legal sufficiency of the RIAA's pleading of actual distribution and actual downloading. Additionally, the Court suggested to the RIAA that it might want to amend its complaint to include a claim for 'offering to distribute for purposes of distribution', but gave no guidance on what type of evidence would be required for an 'offer'. The Court's suggestion that merely 'offering' to distribute could constitute a violation of the Act has come under attack from William Patry, the author of the treatise Patry on Copyright.^[92]

Three other decisions, also rejecting the RIAA's 'making available' theory, came from more unexpected sources.

The Barker decision was perhaps rendered anticlimactic by the decision of Judge Janet Bond Arterton, from the District of Connecticut, handed down six weeks earlier, in Atlantic v. Brennan,^[93] rejecting the RIAA's application for a default judgment. Brennan, like Barker, rejected the RIAA's 'making available' theory, but unlike Barker it found the RIAA's specificity on the other issues to be insufficient, and it rejected the conceptual underpinnings upon which Judge Karas based his 'offer to distribute' idea.

And Barker was perhaps overshadowed by the decision of Judge Gertner, rendered the same day as the Barker decision, in quashing a subpoena served on Boston University to learn the identity of BU students, in London-Sire v. Doe 1.^[94] Here too the Court rejected the RIAA's 'making available' theory, but here too—like Atlantic but unlike Elektra – also rejected any possible underpinning for an 'offer to distribute' theory.

And then came the decision of the District Judge Neil V. Wake, in the District of Arizona, in Atlantic v. Howell.^[95] This 17-page decision^[96] – rendered in a case in which the defendant appeared pro se (i.e., without a lawyer) but eventually received the assistance of an amicus curiae brief and oral argument by the Electronic Frontier Foundation^[97]—was devoted almost exclusively to the RIAA's 'making available' theory and to the 'offer to distribute' theory suggested by Judge Karas in Barker. Atlantic v. Howell strongly rejected both theories as being contrary to the plain wording of the Copyright Act. The Court held that 'Merely making a copy available does not constitute distribution..The statute provides copyright holders with the exclusive right to distribute 'copies' of their works to the public 'by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.' 17 U.S.C. ..106(3). Unless a copy of the work changes hands in one of the designated ways, a 'distribution' under ..106(3) has not taken place.' The Court also expressly rejected the 'offer to distribute' theory suggested in Barker, holding that 'An offer to distribute does not constitute distribution'.^[98]

The next critical decision was that in Capitol v. Thomas, which had received a great deal of media attention because it was the RIAA's first case to go to trial, and probably additional attention due to its outsized initial jury verdict. The RIAA had prevailed upon the trial judge to give the jurors an instruction which adopted its 'making available' theory,^[99] over the protestations of the defendant's lawyer. Operating under that instruction, the jury returned a $222,000 verdict over $23.76 worth of song files.^[100] Almost a year after the jury returned that verdict, however, District Judge Michael J. Davis set the verdict aside, and ordered a new trial, on the ground that his instruction to the jurors—that they did not need to find that any files were actually distributed in order to find a violation of plaintiffs' distribution right—was a 'manifest error of law'.^[101] The Judge's 44-page decision agreed with Howell and London-Sire and rejected so much of Barker as intimated the existence of a viable 'offer to distribute' theory.

There may be indications that the RIAA has been jettisoning its 'making available' theory. In a San Diego, California, case, Interscope v. Rodriguez, where the Judge dismissed the RIAA's complaint as 'conclusory', 'boilerplate', 'speculation', the RIAA filed an amended complaint which contained no reference at all to 'making available'.^[102] In subsequent cases, the RIAA's complaint abandoned altogether the 'making available' theory, following the model of the Interscope v. Rodriguez amended complaint.

In its place, it is apparently adopting the 'offer to distribute' theory suggested by Judge Karas. In the amended complaint the RIAA filed in Barker, it deleted the 'making available' argument—as required by the judge—but added an 'offer to distribute' claim, as the judge had suggested.^[103] It remains to be seen if it will follow that pattern in other cases.

Secondary infringement liability[edit]

Secondary liability, the possible liability of a defendant who is not a copyright infringer but who may have encouraged or induced copyright infringement by another, has been discussed generally by the United States Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster,^[74] which held in essence that secondary liability could only be found where there has been affirmative encouragement or inducing behavior. On remand, the lower court found Streamcast, the maker of Morpheus software, to be liable for its customers' copyright infringements, based upon the specific facts of that case.^[104]

Under US law 'the Betamax decision' (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.), holds that copying 'technologies' are not inherently illegal, if substantial non-infringing use can be made of them. Although this decision predated the widespread use of the Internet, in MGM v. Grokster, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the applicability of the Betamax case to peer-to-peer file sharing, and held that the networks could not be liable for merely providing the technology, absent proof that they had engaged in 'inducement.'

In 2006 the RIAA initiated its first major post-Grokster, secondary liability case, against LimeWire in Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, where the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that LimeWire induced copyright infringement and granted a permanent injunction against LimeWire.

Electronic Frontier Foundation[edit]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) seeks to protect and expand digital rights through litigation, political lobbying, and public awareness campaigns. The EFF has vocally opposed the RIAA in its pursuit of lawsuits against users of file sharing applications and supported defendants in these cases. The foundation promotes the legalization of peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted materials and alternative methods to provide compensation to copyright holders.^[105]

In September 2008 the organization marked the 5th 'anniversary' of the RIAA's litigation campaign by publishing a highly critical, detailed report, entitled 'RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later',^[106] concluding that the campaign was a failure.

Reported suspension of RIAA litigation campaign[edit]

Several months later, it was reported that the RIAA was suspending its litigation campaign,^[107] followed by a report that it had fired the investigative firm SafeNet (formerly MediaSentry) operating on its behalf.^[108] Some of the details of the reports, including claims that the RIAA had actually stopped commencing new lawsuits months earlier, and that its reason for doing so was that it had entered into tentative agreements with Internet service providers to police their customers, proved to be either inaccurate or impossible to verify^[109] and RIAA's claim not to have filed new cases 'for months' was false.^[110]

Effects[edit]

New World Order The End Has Come Movie Download Torrent 2016

A study ordered by the European Union found that illegal downloading may lead to an increase in overall video game sales because newer games charge for extra features or levels. The paper concluded that piracy had a negative financial impact on movies, music, and literature. The study relied on self-reported data about game purchases and use of illegal download sites. Pains were taken to remove effects of false and misremembered responses.^{[111][112][113]}

Notable cases[edit]

EU

• Atari Europe S.A.S.U. v. Rapidshare AG (Germany)
• OiNK's Pink Palace (England)

New World Order The End Has Come Movie Download Torrent Full

USA

New World Order The End Has Come Movie Download Torrent Free

• The AACS encryption key controversy of 2007
• Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter - appeal case which analyzed contributory infringement in the context of linking to infringing material and social bookmarking.
• Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios (The Betamax decision)

Sweden

Singapore

See also[edit]

References[edit]

1. ^'RIAA joins congressional caucus in unveiling first-ever list of notorious illegal sites'. RIAA. 19 May 2010. Archived from the original on 23 April 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2011.
2. ^Roettgers, Janko (3 May 2010). 'RapidShare Wins in Court'. Gigaom.com. Archived from the original on 26 February 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2011. - cite from ruling: 'Es ist davon auszugehen, dass die weit überwiegende Zahl von Nutzern die Speicherdienste zu legalen Zwecken einsetzen und die Zahl der missbräuchlichen Nutzer in der absoluten Minderheit ist.' (It is to be expected that the vast majority of users use the storage services for lawful purposes and the number of abusive users are in the absolute minority.)
3. ^From the Atari v. RapidShare ruling: 'entspricht einem Generalverdacht gegen Sharehoster-Dienste und ihre Nutzer, der so nicht zu rechtfertigen ist' (corresponds to a general suspicion against shared hosting services and their users, which is not to justify such)
4. ^Legal case: OLG Dusseldorf, Judgement of 22 March 2010, Az I-20 U 166/09 dated 22 March 2010.
5. ^Department of Justice indictment, on Wall Street Journal's websiteArchived 15 July 2012 at Archive.today - see sections 7 - 14.
6. ^Moya, Jared (4 January 2008). 'China to Require Video File-Sharing sites to get permits?'. Zeropaid. Archived from the original on 5 October 2010. Retrieved 26 May 2010.
7. ^'China Shuts Down File-Sharing Site'. Canadian Broadcasting Company. 9 September 2009. Archived from the original on 4 October 2010. Retrieved 26 May 2010.
8. ^Moya, Jared (8 December 2009). 'China Shutters BitTorrent Sites Over Porn, Copyrighted Material'. Zeropaid. Archived from the original on 11 February 2010. Retrieved 26 May 2010.
9. ^'Good news everyone: after 5 years, we now know that what we do every day is legal…No, seriously'. Copyright for Creativity: A Declaration for Europe. Archived from the original on 20 December 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
10. ^'CJEU Judgment: No Copyright Infringement in Mere Web Viewing'. www.scl.org. SCL - The IT Law Community (UK). Archived from the original on 20 December 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
11. ^Meyer, David. 'You can't break copyright by looking at something online, Europe's top court rules'. Gigaom. Archived from the original on 27 October 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
12. ^'Case C‑360/13'. Court of Justice of the European Union. Court of Justice of the European Union. Archived from the original on 20 December 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
13. ^Smith, Chris. 'Pirating copyrighted content is legal in Europe, if done correctly'. www.bgr.com. Boy Genius Report. Archived from the original on 19 December 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
14. ^European MPs votes on new telecoms law, 24 November 2009
15. ^Herseth Kaldestad, Oyvind (9 September 2008). 'Norwegian Consumer Council calls for Internet complaint board'. Forbrukerradet. Archived from the original on 27 October 2008.
16. ^ ^abcdKlosek, Jacqueline (9 October 2008). 'United States: Combating Piracy And protecting privacy: A European Perspective'. Mondaq. Archived from the original on 14 October 2008.
17. ^Herseth Kaldestad, Oyvind (28 February 2008). 'ISP liability: Norwegian Consumer Council warns consumers not to sign letter of guilt'. Forbrukerradet. Archived from the original on 26 October 2008.
18. ^'Government presents controversial file sharing bill'. Archived from the original on 1 March 2009. Retrieved 31 January 2009.
19. ^France Approves Wide Crackdown on Net Piracy. Pfanner, Eric (2009). https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/technology/23net.html?_r=2/Archived 8 January 2014 at the Wayback Machine.
20. ^Siraj Datoo (9 July 2013). 'France drops controversial 'Hadopi law' after spending millions'. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 26 December 2013.
21. ^'Inside Ireland'. 28 March 2012. Archived from the original on 28 March 2012.
22. ^Shirley Gene Field (2010). 'Internet Piracy in Japan: Lessig’s Modalities of Constraint and Japanese File Sharing'.Archived 7 April 2014 at the Wayback MachineUniversity of Texas Masters Thesis.
23. ^ ^ab'Japan introduces piracy penalties for illegal downloads'.Archived 19 April 2014 at the Wayback MachineBBC.
24. ^George Ou (16 March 2008). 'Japan's ISPs agree to ban P2P pirates'.Archived 7 April 2014 at the Wayback MachineZDNet, .
25. ^'No more free downloads as MCMC blocks 10 file sharing sites'. The Star (Malaysia). 11 June 2011. Archived from the original on 20 April 2013. Retrieved 11 June 2011.
26. ^'In Mexico, music piracy rising with broadband'. MSNBC. 7 July 2006. Archived from the original on 12 November 2017. Retrieved 12 November 2017.
27. ^International Intellectual Property Alliance (18 February 2010). '2010 special 301 report on copyright protection and enforcement'(PDF). MEXICO. Mexico: 66. Retrieved 27 May 2010.^{[permanent dead link]}
28. ^interactive, 4net. 'top free hosting'. brightcobracenter.com. Archived from the original on 25 October 2012.
29. ^ ^abJeremy Hsu (22 May 2012). 'Illegal File-Sharing Opens North Korea to World'.Archived 5 March 2016 at the Wayback MachineYahoo! News.
30. ^ ^abIan Steadman (6/08/2012). 'Report finds rampant filesharing in North Korea, despite the risks'.Archived 7 April 2014 at the Wayback MachineWired.
31. ^Moya, Jared (23 July 2009). 'South Korea's 'Three-Strikes' Law Takes Effect'. Zero Paid. Archived from the original on 27 September 2013. Retrieved 23 September 2013.
32. ^Barry, Sookman; Dan Glover (20 January 2010). 'Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for the times'. Archived from the original on 12 June 2010. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
33. ^Tong-hyung, Kim (23 July 2009). 'Upload a Song, Lose your Internet Connection'. Korea Times. Archived from the original on 27 May 2010. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
34. ^'Spanish judge says downloading is legal'. Archived from the original on 15 September 2008. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
35. ^'Spanish court decides linking to P2P downloads is legal'. Archived from the original on 27 September 2008. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
36. ^'Del '¿Por qué no te callas?' al 'No pasa nada, podéis bajar lo que queráis del eMule''. Archived from the original on 22 June 2008. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
37. ^'Manifestación a favor del intercambio de archivos frente a la sede del PSOE'. Archived from the original on 23 February 2009. Retrieved 12 March 2009.
38. ^'Operation Teddy: P2P sharing is not illegal'. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
39. ^'Compartir Es Bueno! Lo hemos hecho! Y nadie nos ha detenido'. Archived from the original on 14 September 2008. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
40. ^'Spanish copyright society hounds Uni teacher out of job'. Archived from the original on 2 June 2008. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
41. ^'Jorge Cortell – Descargar y copiar música es legal y bueno'. Archived from the original on 10 February 2009. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
42. ^'Downloading files from p2p networks is legal in Spain'. Archived from the original on 1 February 2009. Retrieved 17 February 2009.
43. ^Downloading 3322 Copyrighted Movies is Okay in SpainArchived 31 May 2009 at the Wayback Machine, at TorrentFreak
44. ^ ^abSpain finds that film piracy is a hard habit to break. Tremlett, Giles (2010). 'Spain finds that film piracy is a hard habit to break'. Archived from the original on 4 February 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2011..
45. ^Allen, Katie. Piracy continues to cripple music industry as sales fall 10%Archived 7 April 2017 at the Wayback MachineThe Guardian. 21 January 2010.
46. ^El número de conciertos en España y la recaudación por venta de entradas se multiplicaron por dos en la última década. 'Últimas noticias'. Archived from the original on 30 December 2010. Retrieved 16 January 2011.
47. ^File Sharing and Torrent Websites Now Legal in Spain. Wilhelm, Alex. (2010). 'File Sharing And Torrent Websites Now Legal In Spain'. Archived from the original on 22 July 2010. Retrieved 16 January 2011.
48. ^Mike Butcher (21 September 2013). 'Spanish Pirate Site Owners To Get 6 Years Of Jail Time, But Users Off The Hook'. TechCrunch. AOL Inc. Archived from the original on 25 September 2013. Retrieved 23 September 2013.
49. ^'Progress of the Digital Economy Bill'. Interactive.bis.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 27 May 2010. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
50. ^'International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IPFI) Digital Music Report 2009'. Ifpi.org. 16 January 2009. Archived from the original on 7 December 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
51. ^Rory Cellan-Jones (27 November 2009). 'Cellan-Jones, Rory (2009) 'Facts about file-sharing' BBC NEWS 27th November 2009'. BBC. Archived from the original on 23 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
52. ^Emma Barnett (9 April 2010). 'Digital Economy Act: what happens next?'. The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 3 June 2010.
53. ^'Mother to settle web music charge BBC News 20th August 2005'. BBC News. 20 August 2005. Archived from the original on 13 December 2006. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
54. ^Digital Economy BillArchived 30 April 2010 at the Wayback Machine
55. ^'Digital Economy Bill Copyright Factsheet November 2009'. Interactive.bis.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 2 April 2010. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
56. ^ ^abJohnson, Bobbie (16 March 2010). 'Concern as Lords Pass Digital Economy Bill to Lords'. The Guardian. UK. Archived from the original on 8 December 2013. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
57. ^Charles Arthur (8 April 2010). 'Arthur, Charles (2010) 'Digital Economy Bill rushed through Wash-Up in late night session' The Guardian'. The Guardian. UK. Archived from the original on 10 September 2013. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
58. ^Phillips, Tom (8 April 2010). 'Phillips, Tom (2010) Digital Economy Bill passes as critics warn of 'catastrophic disaster' Metro'. Metro.co.uk. Archived from the original on 7 September 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
59. ^Britz, J. J. (2002). Information Ethics: its Demarcation and Application. In: Lipinski, T. A. (eds.) Libraries, Museums, and Archives: Legal and Ethical Challenges in the New Era of Information. Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. pp. 194–219.
60. ^Arthur, C. (2010). Opposition to the Digital Economy Bill. The Guardian. Availability: 'Archived copy'. Archived from the original on 20 July 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2016.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link). Last accessed 30 March 2010.
61. ^'Internet access is a fundamental right BBC News'. BBC News. 8 March 2010. Archived from the original on 20 October 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
62. ^'Music fans will sidestep filesharing clampdown says TalkTalk' TalkTalk Press Centre 15 March 2010Archived 25 September 2010 at the Wayback Machine
63. ^Technology (25 August 2009). 'Andrews, Amanda (2009) 'BT and Virgin Media attack Government plans to curb illegal downloading' Telegraph 25th August 2009'. The Daily Telegraph. UK. Archived from the original on 25 December 2013. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
64. ^ ^abArthur, Charles (24 March 2010). 'Hundreds expected outside parliament to protest at digital economy bill'. The Guardian. UK. Archived from the original on 21 January 2016. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
65. ^'Don't Disconnect Us campaign group website'. Dontdisconnect.us. Archived from the original on 27 December 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
66. ^'Beaumont, Claudine (2009) 'Stephen Fry backs Digital Economy Bill protests' Telegraphy 14th November 2009'. The Daily Telegraph. UK. 24 November 2009. Archived from the original on 24 February 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
67. ^'Heaney, Andrew (2009) 'Our Don't Disconnect Us petition passes 30,000 signatories' TalkTalk Blog'. Talktalkblog.co.uk. 14 December 2009. Archived from the original on 24 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
68. ^Pirate Party Official website, 'Archived copy'. Archived from the original on 5 January 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2011.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link)
69. ^A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001) citing Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publ'g Co., 158 F.3d 693, 706 (2d Cir. 1998)
70. ^Napster, at 1020.
71. ^Napster, at 1022, citingGershwin Publ'g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc, 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971.
72. ^Napster, at 1024.
73. ^MGM v. Grokster, 514 U.S. 913, 940 (2005).
74. ^ ^ab'MGM v. Grokster'. Recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com. 30 June 2010. Archived from the original on 24 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
75. ^June 2008, The Tables Have Turned: Rock Stars – Not Record Labels – Cashing In On Digital Revolution^{[permanent dead link]}, IBISWorld
76. ^H.R. 4098, The Secure Federal File Sharing Act, introduced 17 November 2009
77. ^Richard Lardner (18 November 2009). 'House Pushes Ban On Peer-To-Peer Software For Federal Employees'. Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 20 November 2009. Retrieved 18 November 2009.
78. ^'17 USC 106'. Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. Archived from the original on 28 August 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
79. ^'17 USC 106 notes'. Codes.lp.findlaw.com. Archived from the original on 9 March 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
80. ^'BMG v. Gonzalez'. Recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com. 30 June 2010. Archived from the original on 24 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
81. ^'Elektra v. Barker'. Recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com. 30 June 2010. Archived from the original on 24 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
82. ^'Elektra v. Barker, Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
83. ^'Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
84. ^'Elektra v. Barker, Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Dismissal Motion'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
85. ^'Amicus Curiae brief of MPAA'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
86. ^'Amicus Curiae brief of EFF'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
87. ^'Amicus Curiae brief of USIIA and CCIA'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
88. ^'Statement of Interest of U.S. Department of Justice'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 18 January 2010. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
89. ^'Statement of Interest, page 5, footnote 3'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 18 January 2010. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
90. ^'Elektra v. Barker 'Making Available' Oral Argument Now Available Online'Archived 18 March 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 27 February 2007
91. ^'Judge rejects RIAA 'making available' theory but sustains complaint, and gives RIAA chance to replead defective theory in Elektra v. Barker'Archived 5 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 31 March 2008.
92. ^'The recent making available cases'Archived 26 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine, The Patry Copyright Blog, 3 April 2008.
93. ^'Default judgment denied in Atlantic v. Brennan, RIAA complaint insufficient, possible defenses of copyright misuse, excessive damages'Archived 28 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 25 February 2008.
94. ^'RIAA's Boston University Subpoena Quashed in Arista v. Does 1–21'Archived 10 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 3 April 2008.
95. ^'Atlantic v. Howell'. Recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com. 30 June 2010. Archived from the original on 24 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
96. ^'RIAA summary judgment motion denied in Atlantic v. Howell; RIAA 'making available' theory & Judge Karas 'offer to distribute' theory rejected'Archived 2 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 29 April 2008
97. ^'Jeffrey Howell is not alone; Electronic Frontier Foundation files amicus curiae brief refuting RIAA arguments in Atlantic v. Howell'Archived 16 January 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 12 January 2008
98. ^For commentary on Atlantic v. Howell see 'Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Howell'Archived 6 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine, The Patry Copyright Blog, 30 April 2008. For the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of Mr. Howell, see 'Jeffrey Howell is not alone; Electronic Frontier Foundation files amicus curiae brief refuting RIAA arguments in Atlantic v. Howell'Archived 16 January 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 12 January 2008
99. ^'Jury Instructions in Virgin v. Thomas Available Online'Archived 16 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Recording Industry vs. The People, 5 October 2007 (See instruction number 15)
100. ^'RIAA Wins in First-Ever Jury Trial; Verdict of $222,000 for 24 Song Files Worth $23.76'Archived 20 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 4 October 2007.
101. ^'RIAA's $222,000 verdict in Capitol v. Thomas set aside. Judge rejects 'making available'; attacks excessive damages.'Archived 28 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 24 September 2008.
102. ^'RIAA Abandons 'Making Available' in Amended Complaint in Rodriguez caseArchived 21 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine', Recording Industry vs. The People, 10 September 2007.
103. ^'Amended complaint filed in Elektra v. Barker'Archived 16 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 2 May 2008.
104. ^'Streamcast Held Liable for Copyright Infringement in MGM v. Grokster, Round 2Archived 25 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine', Recording Industry vs. The People, 30 September 2006.
105. ^Electronic Frontier Foundation. 'Making P2P Pay Artists'. Archived from the original on 25 April 2006. Retrieved 25 April 2006.
106. ^'RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later'. Eff.org. Archived from the original on 7 October 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
107. ^'p2pnet reports that RIAA dropping 'mass lawsuits' to look for 'more effective ways' to combat copyright infringement'Archived 7 August 2010 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 19 December 2008.
108. ^'Wall Street Journal confirms that RIAA dumped MediaSentry'Archived 8 December 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 4 January 2009
109. ^'Recording Industry vs. The People'. Recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com. Archived from the original on 18 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
110. ^'Recording Industry vs. The People'. Recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com. Archived from the original on 19 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
111. ^'Illegal downloads may not actually harm sales, but the European Union doesn't want you to know that'. 22 September 2017. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017.
112. ^Polgar, David Ryan. 'Does Video Game Piracy Actually Result in More Sales?'. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017.
113. ^'EU study finds piracy doesn't hurt game sales, may actually help'. Archived from the original on 1 October 2017.

Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_aspects_of_file_sharing&oldid=893985858'