Comments on: Big Music sues 2,000 customers

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 08 May 2006 21:07:42 +0000

try searching just his last name and you’ll come up with a listing for derek a borchardt. mickey is a nickname.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:39:29 +0000

It turns out that the publisher of all of the works in question is Random House (UK). Normally if an issue such as this arises within the ‘family’, they try to work it out internally to forego the bad PR. I suppose that the main reason this spilled out into open court is that there is potentially a great deal more money at stake should there be interest from the film industry, marchandising, licensing of T-shirt and bottle openers, etc.

If can can successfully assert a claim for copyright infringement based on a similar theme or concept, nothing new would likely ever get produced as accordig to Christopher Booker in “Why we write stories…” there are only seven basic plots in literature. I’m comfortably certain they have all been used at least once.

–TurboGeek

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 23:42:11 +0000

And then you find that he was NOT a casual P2P user ( as he implies in his lol .. report ). He was a member of a Apocalypse, a well know pre-release group ( in his report he implies, but does not clearly say, the he was not involved in pre-release activity ).

The … report .. is designed to scare casual P2P users into believeing that what they are doing is a criminal matter.
It’s not, it’s a Civil matter.

This person got busted doing a lot more than casual P2P, and probably as part of his plea agreement has been forced to write a deliberately misleading propoganda paper with a gun to his head.

The got a tool under their thumb.

But, P2P is STILL not a Criminal matter.
Civil.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 23:04:49 +0000

Sounds suspicious, yes, but I checked the FBi website to find this:

http://washingtondc.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel06/wf022806usa.htm

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:39:20 +0000

And we expect the p2p kids to know
what is copyright infringenet is?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:36:45 +0000

A British judges has just decided that the author od “The Da Vinci Code” did not infringe someone else’s rights.

The NY Time has this heading:
Idea for ‘Da Vinci Code’ Was Not Stolen, Judge Says

But ideas cannot be copyright protected. So the people of a major newspapapar are confused about copyrights or dowright misleading the people. Or maybe it is the judge that is confused.

The article says the judge stated that the suing party
“had failed in their effort to prove that Mr. Brown had stolen their “central theme” because they could not accurately state what that theme was.”

But the words “central theme” do not appear in any copyright law, including the American. The use of these ambiguous words is very unfortunate, as now any author must know the “central theme” of every work under copyright so as to make sure that they are not used (thus infringed).

Furthermore Mr. Brown, the author of “The DaVinci Code” is quoted as saying:
“Today’s verdict shows that this claim was utterly without merit,” he said. “I’m still astonished that these two authors chose to file their suit at all.”

Mr. Brown could have rightfully said that it was amazing that the lawyers who filed the lawsuit (and their author customer) were so confused about the copyright law (or so corrupt) that that they chose to file the lawsuit (which reminds me of RIAA).

To resume: Newspapers are confuse, lawyers are confused, authors are confused and judges are confused.

Insane confusion.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 17:54:44 +0000

To understand how insane this suing of customers by the copyright cartels the following statement by Russell McOrmond should be read. While Mr. McOrmond wrote it in the context of Canadian law, it really applies to the law of everywhere.

Wrote Russell McOrmond – p2pnet contributing editor:

“If copyright is to be respected in Canada by private citizens, it needs to be respectable (ie, understandable, and reasonably able to be obeyed), which the current act is not.

Simple questions like whether or not unauthorized downloading of music is an infringement causes great debate among lawyers. It’s unreasonable for the government to expect citizens to obey a law which even specialized lawyers don’t understand and can’t agree on.”

I add:

Of course the laws get more complicated (less understandable) when you mix in the international Internet anf the laws and legal systems of other countries (not all consistent, to say the least) and where copyrighted works are created and distributed (legally and illegally).

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It is a reason.
That the law is confusing is not an excuse. It is another reason.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 08:41:21 +0000

Derek Adam Borchardt.

Busted in Operation Fastlink …..

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/February/06_crm_103.html

Currently an English Major.

He was a member of Apocalypse Crew, a pre-release group.
He in no way is like the “average” P2P user.

It is clearly a coerced piece of propoganda.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 02:36:04 +0000

I’m thinkin’ he smells BULLSHITE.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:53:42 +0000

a rat? a liar perhaps?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:22:38 +0000

Searching the University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s website (uncc.edu) using the search term ‘FBI’ does not turn up anything at involving p2p, or an arrest of a student for p2p or anything else. Using their ‘people finder’ to locate the alleged student, MICKEY BORCHARDT, returns no results. Of the disciplinary consequences imposed by the University cited by the alledged arrestee, expulsion was not among them.

What’s that I smell?

–TurboGeek

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:12:09 +0000

Googling the name “MICKEY BORCHARDT” (The alleged name of the alleged student in the article above) on news.google.com turns exactly ONE and only ONE entry and it’s the op-ed piece in the LA TIMES.

This seems EXTREMELY suspicious. If someone was actually arrested by the FBI for CRIMINAL copyright infringment via p2p, I would have thought there’d be a press release bonanza from the RIAA.

If I were to venture a guess, I would surmise that this piece was professionally written and a PR firm “placed” it on the op-ed page of the LA Times. If so, shame on all involved.