Comments on: Joel vs Big Music: Day III

By: Scaramouche

Scaramouche — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:38:15 +0000

Personally iam getting a bit depressed about this whole situation It just seems that everything everywhere is been stacked against us. The corporations just happily manipulate laws to their own advantage & nobody will stop them

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:46:50 +0000

“itâs definitely not going to end well for him.”

Ok worst case scenario the corrupted justice ask him to pay few gazillion of dollar and he BK chapter 7 and voila! Not a big deal really!

The music parasites got zip and have to pay for all the legal expenses!

One good news for them though:They will not be charged for the bullets.
In some place they charge for that too.

Sorry Vivendique Universale, Sony/BMG, EMI and Time Warner and your swarm of legal pests!
You are a pack of corporate terrorists and you are a waste of space. We can not afford you!

By: Irate Pirate

Irate Pirate — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:29:16 +0000

“Unfortunately, we seem to keep getting clowns pretending to be lawyers.”

So very true. It seems Joel is not only going to end up paying for something he may may not have done, but also for everything that every other file sharer out there has ever done too. Based on the above testimony, it is a fair bet the industry doesn’t really care about the money. It would be like trying to get blood from a rock and they know it. No, this case is clearly about making an example out of Joel and it’s definitely not going to end well for him.

By: Scaramouche

Scaramouche — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:03:59 +0000

I hate to say, ive got a bad feeling this trial is gonna end badly with the MAFIAA winning

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:30:17 +0000

“Most of the morning and a portion of the afternoon was testimony from Dr. Doug Jacobson, the Plaintiffâs expert witness. He began by going over his qualifications and his curriculum vitae and was admitted as an expert with no objection from Plaintiffs.”

It would have been pretty funny if they objected to their own expert witness.

As for the trial being conducted in the real world; I hope you’re not holding your breath. I have this image of Charlie Nesson going home to a house full of mannequins, dressing up in a Roman toga and pretending to be addressing the Roman senate.

I’m not a lawyer, but I would think they’d want to attack the credibility of the MediaSentry evidence. Specifically the fact that there isn’t a single piece of it that couldn’t be easily faked by anyone with even moderate computer skills. What *PROOF* is there that the evidence is genuine? Isn’t that what a PI license is supposed to ensure? Why don’t they create some “evidence” of their own showing that MediaSentry was distributing hundreds of files themselves? Or that they hacked Joel’s computer. Not to trick the court, but to illustrate how easily such evidence can be faked, and therefore how unreliable it can be.

When discussing IP spoofing, they should have brought up the fact that researchers at one college tricked the RIAA into sending infringment notices to a networked printer.

I tryly believe that a good lawyer could destroy the RIAA in court. Unfortunately, we seem to keep getting clowns pretending to be lawyers.