A law’s applicability to a particular person is inversely proportional to the amount of money that person has. In other words, a person or corporation that has loads of cash are more able to flout the law. If Michael Jackson had screwed little boys on national TV, I’m sure he still would have stood a good chance of being aquitted. Whether he did the crime or not is of little relevance in the court system. What is relevant is whether his lawyer was better than the prosecutor.

It is time to take back the power that the judges usurped:

http://www.fija.org

It is time to take back the power that the politicians usurped:

http://www.lp.org
http://www.constitutionparty.com

Hundreds of songs were pirated from my family by music publishers who passed themselves as owners for many years, licensed the songs and collected royalties. The funny part being that the judge found the practice to be a non infringement and non damaging one.

Now this is hillarious part: The judge did not even order the infringing companies to pay the illegally collected royalties or to notify their customers that did not own their songs and their licenses were illegal and to stop the distribution of additional records.

The we sued two RIAA record companies for each producing 16 or more records with songs owned by my father. One of these companies is Sony and the other is Sonolux, part of Organización Ardila Lülle, one of the largest South American conglomerates.

The funny part is that the lawsuits, both filed in 2001, are undecided by the two judges in the cases. Hillarious, no?

And the FBI says that copying is a crime! Well, te judges think otherwise. Hillarious, no?

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Its funny..A multimillion dollar business in piracy?