Comments on: TRIAL DAY 2

By: Lynell Pumper

Lynell Pumper — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 07:12:11 +0000

So what? Mr. Belafonte, legendary icon falls asleep. He’s 84 or so. I fall asleep a lot all the time. I’m only 62. The point is it happens. Another thing, how do we know he wasn’t meditatin’-? Gee, is this truly news or is it an attempt to humiliate the venerated actor, activist, singer, author? This is ridiculous-. I don’t believe Mr. Belafonte broke any laws by sleepin. LEAVE HIM ALONE. Please. Life.Tera gold

By: William Burns, I completely forgot.

William Burns, I completely forgot. — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:19:33 +0000

“The purpose of a law is to serve and protect the interest of a society as a whole, and not a select group of individuals.”

THIS IS EPIC. If laws in a government serve a few individuals, then the government form is aristocratic. No, not even. TOTALITARIAN is more like it!

Thanks to “William Burns, shiny, I agree!” for pointing it out.

By: Neil Preston Hater

Neil Preston Hater — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:43:32 +0000

ARTISTS AREN’T LOSING FROM FILE SHARING. THE FUCKING GREEDY CAPITALIST CARTELS ARE!

By: William Burns, shiny, I agree!

William Burns, shiny, I agree! — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:42:50 +0000

so true:

- if i play a CD i buy at a party will that put me in copyright infringement? — I agree shiny. How can the artists (not the labels since clearly the artists have everything to lose from file sharing and not the labels…no deeeefffiiiinnnitely not the labels who are losing) earn money if everyone is listening to them at a party? The RIAA is crazy!

- “If you’re selling water in the desert and it begins to rain,” said Nesson, “you need a new business.” — i agree Mr. Nesson. intellectual property is like fire. you don’t buy it. you get it from someone else’s “candle”

- It was only through mass civil disobedience that such a law was repealed. — HELL YEAH!

By: Marquis Starr

Marquis Starr — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:35:57 +0000

Like the Website, nicely designed for SEO purposes. Remember, if you can, to spread out your Keywords….

By: Michael Dean Hajas

Michael Dean Hajas — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:01:13 +0000

Mr. Gary Wade Leak makes point in his argument against file sharing, and how it affects the music/recording industry at large. Unfortunately this is a case of “calling the kettle black”. In the event of corporate infringement in cases such as mine, the corporation indemnifies itself simply by saying “you proove the ownership of your Intellectual Property over international lines. Unfortunately the World does not recognize the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. as the end all be all of Intellectual Property registry and proof of ownership. In the case of Alexander Graham Bell and Antonio Marouchi, the very fact that we as neighbours cannot agree on the ownership of the IP regarding the Telephone, suggests that every invention, song, poem, etc….. is subject to the same confusion. Joining with the United States of America as many of our Canadian top selling artists have done, sprays further emphasis on the fact that artisans are forced to identify themselves with a corporate bully with a bigger gun. The World Intellectual Property Organization is unable to Police Intellectual Property theft. Our affiliate CIPO or the Canadian Intellectual Propery Organization, charges fees to register Intellectual Property with the Government, giving a false sense of protection. My communications with CIPO officer Andre Tremblay suggests that “after what I had described to him regarding the assumption of my IP by SONY BMG ZOMBA, that I am responsible for Policing my own Intellectual Properties”. Of course this is an impossibilty. If Gary Wade Leak, and Howard Stringer are beginning to feel the “high tech pinch”, it is my opinion that perhaps they level the playing field and welcome TRUE open discussion, to admit their corporate wrong doings. I will continue to simultaneously educate the public as well, that they may have a BIG PICTURE frame of what is truly transpiring in the game of Intellectual Property protection and ownership.

Please feel free to contact myself regarding this or anyother music related copyright infringement. Michael Dean Hajas
mdean707@hotmail.com

By: shiny

shiny — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:12:13 +0000

and i just had a thought after reading the comments above me, if you weren’t making a profit, merely sharing the music with others, where will it all end?

if i play a CD i buy at a party will that put me in copyright infringement?

it’s just crazy

shiny, in deepest, darkest, er…..belfast

By: shiny

shiny — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:10:07 +0000

the more i read of this the more it becomes clear that they are trying to make an example of you, but in the end, you can’t pay what you don’t have, and even if they force bankruptcy on you, they can’t take items essential to everyday life, so really, they have nothing to gain from this other than trying to scare other people into conforming.

i say mass civil disobedience is the way to go. i reckon about 99% of internet users are behind you here joel, so good luck man. you stand your ground.

i’ve said it before and i’ll keep saying it,

they can’t sue us all.

By: Iron C

Iron C — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:10:54 +0000

Or, as so often is the case, their potential is negated when they produce music for money. Although I’m not arguing that case. That would be absurd.

I can’t say I want Joel to get away totally free, because taking something without paying the people who put in the time and money to get that thing out there is wrong. But then again, I don’t like to see some jerky record label win either, which is I guess why the majority of the support here is unfettered… nobody likes a jerk winning, even if they’re right.

The harshest thing about the case is how Joel was selected (whether by random or by profiling… I don’t know) while others commiting the same crime weren’t.

One law that applies to whoever they can be bothered chasing down.

By: somedude

somedude — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:09:14 +0000

In the full writeup it clearly states that the files shared by Joel were not created/ripped by him, but by somebody called ‘havok’. So Joel got them from somebody else and didn’t pay for it. To me that’s not stealing, because the other person allowed Joel to make a copy, without asking for a fee. So copying, sure, but not stealing.
(By the way I’m not saying that it’s right to copy songs, just that I don’t agree it can be classified as stealing.)