Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category


December 28, 2010

None other than William D. Stewart, Los Angeles Superior Court.

Not qualified, minimally educated, biased, rude, discourteous and a fool.



December 23, 2010

In the name of copyright fascism, the RIAA, MPAA, AFTRA, ASCAP, BMI…

will overthrow our democracy to control the internet, control those who use the internet, then contol everyone and everything on the net or not.

PIRACY OR FASCISM? Seig heil to the RIAA! Seig heil! Download a nanosecond of a song without a license and you’re dead meat!


Hail and Farewell!

We have met the enemy and he is us!

Copyright Nazis taking control! No more piracy no more freedom!

Middle managers can keep their jobs at the record companies.

Destroying America, oh, that’s just collateral damage!

The end of the country aas we know it! And I don’t feel fine

December 23, 2010

The new religion: copyright fascism.

I.P. amen; I.P. amen; I.P. amen; together: I.P. amen; I.P. amen; hail to the RIAA: Hallelujah! Amen; amen; amen.

Say goodbye to our democracy in the name of copyright enforcement. All hail big brother. Amen.

big brother is here

April 8, 2009

Internet records to be stored for a year
Details of every email sent and website visited by people in Britain are to be stored for use by the state from tomorrow as part of what campaigners claim is a massive assault on privacy.
By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 3:20PM BST 05 Apr 2009
A European Union directive, which Britain was instrumental in devising, comes into force which will require all internet service providers to retain information on email traffic, visits to web sites and telephone calls made over the internet, for 12 months.
Police and the security services will be able to access the information to combat crime and terrorism.
Related Articles
Hundreds of public bodies and quangos, including local councils, will also be able to access the data to investigate flytipping and other less serious crimes.
It was previously thought that only the large companies would be required to take part, covering 95 per cent of Britain’s internet usage, but a Home Office spokesman has confirmed it will be applied “across the board” to even the smallest company.
Privacy campaigners say the move to force telecoms companies to store the data is the first step towards the controversial central database at the heart of the Home Office’s Intercept Modernisation Programme, which will gather far more detailed information on Britain’s online activities.
Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, said: “I don’t think people are aware of the implications of this move. It means that everything we do online or on the phone will be known to the authorities.
“They are using this to produce probably the world’s most comprehensive surveillance system.
“This is a disgraceful example of the covert influence that Brussels has across our freedoms and liberties. The entire episode has been marked by a litany of secret dealings, vicious political games and a complete absence of transparency.”
Phil Noble of privacy group NO2ID, said: “This is the kind of technology that the Stasi would have dreamed of.
“We are facing a co-ordinated strategy to track everyone’s communications, creating a dossier on every person’s relationships and transactions.
“It is clearly preparatory work for the as-yet un-revealed plans for intercept modernisation.”
Another EU directive which requires companies to hold details of telephone records for a year has already come into force, and although internet data is held on an ad hoc basis this is the first time the industry has faced a statutory requirement to archive the material.
Information held includes the details of who contacted who, and when, but does not involve the content of emails being stored.
The taxpayer will reimburse internet service providers and telecoms companies for the costs associated with storing the billions of individual records.
Thierry Dieu of ETNO, the European telecoms networks operators association, said: “We regret that the legislation has been put through without real consultation with the players in the market.
“The UK is the only country which has decided to reimburse the cost of retaining all the data. It remains to be seen whether this will cover all the costs.”
A Home Office spokesman said: “It is the Government’s priority to protect public safety and national security. That is why we are completing the implementation of this directive, which will bring the UK in line with our European counterparts.
“Letters will go out to communication service providers telling them that it is coming into force. We are talking across the board, to all communication providers.”
He said communications data played a “vital part” in a wide range of criminal investigations, such as the hunt for the killer of Rhys Jones, the 11-year-old schoolboy shot dead in Liverpool in 2007, and the prevention of terrorists attacks.
“Without communications data, resolving crimes such as the Rhys Jones murder would be very difficult if not impossible.
“Access to communications data is governed by Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which ensures that effective safeguards are in place and that the data can only be accessed when it is necessary and proportionate to do so,” he said.
A European deal on storing data was first pursued by Charles Clarke when he was home secretary in 2005.
At the time, a Home Office spokesman confirmed that a major mobile phone company which had previously stored its data for just two days had agreed to retain the information for a year in exchange for £875,000 in taxpayers’ money.
A report compiled by ETNO in 2004 said that a large internet service provider would need to store between 20,000 and 40,000 terabytes of data – of the equivalent of 40 trillion emails – if it was required to keep all traffic data for 12 months.

MORE ON THE RIAA: a comment

July 21, 2008

it is very clear from rcent news that both the RIAA and the MPAA feel that they are not only above the law, but well fiounded and long standing judicial principles, such as burden of proof and burden of producing evidence should not be applied to their lawsuit for alleged copyright infringement.  In addition, via some of their wishes about the ACTA treaty it is clear that they also want to violate human rights, namely privacy.  Whther the right of privacy is explicitly stated in the US constitution is irrelevant, the bill of rights is not a list of rights given to the people by the US government but a list of certin rights made clear.  In addition, California in its state constituion guarantees its citizens the right of privacy.

So, it’s copyright infringement lawsuits without bound vs. american jurisprudence and the federal rules of civil procedure.
The courts are alredy ovrbudened, with the RIAA monoploizing court calendars across he nation, it can only get worse.

Brian Lee Corber
attorney at law
Los Angeles, California

stop infringement; destroy judicial system and privacy

July 20, 2008

I Don’t Believe in Imaginary Property brings us an analysis of several organizations’ goals for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which we’ve discussed previously. In particular, he points out the anti-privacy views of the Business Software Alliance: “While the ACTA itself is not public, the US Trade Representative has at least released the ACTA comments. While many of them are to be expected, such as the RIAA & co. wanting copyright filters, one item on the BSA’s wish list really stands out: ‘In a number of European countries one of the biggest impediments to efforts by rights holder to enforce their IP rights on the Internet is the overbroad interpretation of privacy laws by some European authorities.’ They want ACTA to ‘fix’ that by neutering the privacy laws. Given the BSA’s other questionable activities, it couldn’t hurt to tell their member companies what you think of their participation. After all, organizations like the BSA exist in part to shield their members from bad PR.” Full documents of comments from the various organizations are available at Public Knowledge.


July 16, 2008

The Performing Right Society (PRS) is writing to thousands of small businesses to make them aware of the consequences of, and possible legal action that could result from, breaking copyright law by playing music without a licence from PRS.

The law ensures that the UK’s 60,000 songwriters and composers that PRS represents – who are small businesses themselves – receive royalties for the use of their work.

PRS aims to ensure that all businesses that play music in public – for example, to customers or employees – understand that permission to do so is needed from the writers and composers of that music.

Keith Gilbert, Managing Director, PRS Public Performance Sales, says: “PRS is a vital source of income to the creators of music, 90% of whom earn less than £5,000 a year in royalties. We are writing to businesses to raise awareness of the value of music to their business and of the need to buy a PRS Music Licence which reimburses those who created that music.

“Around 300,000 organisations are acting within the law and already have a PRS Music Licence. But, often unknowingly, many thousands more are not, and we want those companies to be aware that they need to adhere to UK copyright law and to buy a PRS Music Licence.”

A PRS Music Licence costs from £66 a year. It gives any premises permission to play over 10 million pieces of music – from pop to classical and every style and genre in between – in all formats including radio, TV, CD, MP3 and telephone ‘on-hold’ systems. PRS Music Licences are tailored according to the size of business and the way in which music is being played.

Businesses can call 0800 068 48 28 for advice on when they need a PRS music licence or visit

who is corberlaw

June 21, 2008


MAIL:  BOX 4656



June 18, 2008





MAIL:  BOX 4656





Hello world!

May 12, 2008

Welcome to This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!