If something can poissibly make me rich or even richer, I don’t care if someone else is going to be poorer, I really don’t.
What I care about is my own pocket, and that is the way it should be in a society which is money driven.

I don’t care if some Joe Blow is not going to get paid for the album because I downloaded it for free. But if I, myself, is a musician, and I find out that the same Joe stole my piece, I’ll make sure that I will sue his arse so badly, that his grand-grand children will still have to keep on paying me.

Couldn’t be more wrong.

What is wrong is the suing of the customers.
What is wrong is suing children.
What is wrong is the criminalization of the decent public.
What is wrong is awarding absurd damages 1,000 times higher than actual damages in copyright infringement cases.
What is wrong is the awarding of non actual damages in copyright infringement cases.
What is wrong is the hijacking if royalties for (allegedly) artists and songwriters, when in fact the artists hardly paid a fair share.
What is wrong is the manipulation of the corrupt court system and judges to favor big publishers and big cartels.
What is wrong is the illegal and the so called legal payola (ads) to distort the music and entertainment market.
What is wrong is the payola press (used to promote music and other entertainment crap).
What is wrong is entering people’s computers to see what files are in them.
What is wrong is selling blank media and recording equipment and then prohibiting their use to copy music for private non commercial use.
What is wrong is to have over 100 year copyright duration when that does nothing to promote the creation of more musical and other works.
What is wrong is that one corrupt judge makes 200+ obvious and intentional errors and no one notices or talk about it. Our case.
What is wrong is to put a “save as” or a “save image as” option on browsers and then expect that no one will use the option because it is a act of copyright infringement.
What is wrong is to sell photocopy machines and then expect that no one will use them because their use is almost always an act of copyright infringement.
What is wrong is en expectation to have the copyright law followed when lawyers and judges can hardly agree what the law and the hidden jurisprudence means.
What is wrong is the passing of laws that favor special interest groups after legislative payola (that is what lobbies are) pushed the law.
What is wrong is that justice has become a business. It is all play for pay. No money, no justice.
What is wrong is to have copyright laws that accomplish the opposite of what it is said was intended: less works made available to the people.
What is wrong is the tyranny in the courts.
Etc, etc.

I really do not care if music or software gets pirated. It just pisses me off and makes me laugh at the same time when people try to protect their “property” and go pro p2p networks that only exist to distribute stolen material.

So, people, make up your mind: p2p and copyright do not go together! Make your choice, will ya????

If anything is important in any country it is to know there is no corruption in the courts. Too bad you don’t care. Because there are many like you, the country is where it is.

BTW, we didn’t loose BS. The real owner and songwriter is unknown. Certainly the owner cannot be the publisher named as owner by a corrupt federal judge that operate in broad daylight because there are too many people like you, and that includes much of the traditional press.

I do know that the publisher who stole the song BS, Peermusic, actually sued another publisher (Latin American Music) who also stole the song, thinking they were stealing the song from us. In that case, the court did not even know or realize (that is how superficial things are in federal court here) or was told by any of the parties after they became aware that Peermusic did not eve know who the author was.

As to our family loosing the songs, you may not know what is happening. Sure Peermusic and Latin American music, the two publisher we sued because they either stole or infringed our songs think they won some songs. But that is not the end of the story.

BTW again, what has popularity to do with the importance of a case?

LOL, if that music were any popular, it would have been pirated on p2p and newsgroups left and right.

Actually, Details on copyright registrations are meaningless. To prove it here is a story.

There is this song named “Borracho Sentimental” (BS), meaning Sentimental Drunk.

In 1964 a music publisher Peermusic (aka Peer, aka Peer International, aka Southern Music) executive sends a letter to another Peermusic executive – we have a copy of the letter – asking that the latter executive get 14 Venegas (gvenegas.com) songs “without the author suspecting” they would be copyright registered under Peermusic’s name.

Clearly the idea of the big music publisher was to steal some Venegas songs. This was pre-Internet age, when music could be registered and used anywhere in the world and the a songwriter would never be aware of it. One of the songs in the list of songs to be robbed was Borracho Sentimental. The name alone says Venegas dis not write the song. Listening the son songs says the same thing. Ah, but we have a letter written by Venegas where he explains that he did not write the song.

A USA federal judge at Puerto Rico District Court heard all possible testimony and evidence of the facts about BS in our lawsuit against Peermusic. And what did the “honorable” judge decide about the song stolen (who knows from) by Peermusic, BS? BS belonged to Peermusic because it timely (whatever that means) copyrighted the song. The other 13 stolen songs were awarded to Peermusic too, because they were timely copyright registered, when in fact most were never even registered.

In short, technical details about copyright registrations are meaningless because federal court judges can do anything they want when the press is not looking, which is 99.9 percent of the time.

“I am so sensible, Sir, of the kindness with which the House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim’s Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living. If I saw, Sir, any probability that this bill could be so amended in the Committee that my objections might be removed, I would not divide the House in this stage. But I am so fully convinced that no alteration which would not seem insupportable to my honourable and learned friend, could render his measure supportable to me, that I must move, though with regret, that this bill be read a second time this day six months.”

ENJOY until they get the new copyright law in, hten any i repeat ANY DVDRIP = 20,000 fine for anti circumvention
that means that the conservatives SAY that its only a 500$ download fine , nope , even old uncopyrighted stuff
that is in dvdrip form will get you a 20,000 fine per each instance

Can’t pay a fine
That will be a maximum of 1 day in jail per 10$
or about 7 years per movie that doesn’t even have copyright.
Does this sound like a section 12 charter violation, you bet.
CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT