Comments on: TRIAL DAY 2

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.)

By: acsenray

acsenray — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:33:48 +0000

For all those bringing “those greedy record labels” to the table, you’re coming with dirty hands. Stealing isn’t excused when you say “I stole from a jerk.”

Iron C: Of course they’re not going to say that, but without compensation, people aren’t going to be able to afford to spend their lives honing their skills or the time to create outstanding works. The facts are that the best works and the most popular works are created by professionals, people who don’t have to have a day job. When you take without paying, you remove some of their potential.

By: Iron C

Iron C — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:39:53 +0000

Neil…

“Artists will only make music if they can make some monet from doing so.”

Wouldn’t be ace if all the seminal artists of the last century whose music has touched and inspired millions of people said “It was a bit of a thankless chore composing that music until I got paid”? It’d be mint.

By: Neil Preston

Neil Preston — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:06:45 +0000

If you had only admitted somewhere that what you had done was wrong, I might have some sympathy with you. Artists will only make music if they can make some monet from doing so. If you want to steal their property and pass it on to others without any recompense, you must expect to pay a price for this. It seems that the level of the price is what you are arguing about. But how about an acknowledgfement in writing that what you did in the first place was theft and therefore wrong.
Neil - England

By: TP

TP — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:56:51 +0000

Here’s what I would like to ask RIAA:
1) if you’ve chosen to use KaZaa program to listen music, what are the steps to get permission to listen songs owned by RIAA via KaZaa? Is it even possible to receive permission to use their content? (if you find a file from kazaa, how to get permission to use it?) Is there some monthly payment system available for which you can subscribe? How do they handle providing licenses for the content if the content is received by the user via unauthorized channels?
2) If it’s not possible to receive such permission, are they claiming that every KaZaa user that touches those files are in violation of their exclusive rights?
3) If every KaZaa user is in violation, are they going to sue all those millions of people who use it?