Slashdot Mirror

Ref: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080714/0053011666.shtml

Wrong. They chose to respond to piracy with DRM. It has been showed repeatedly that even in the time of internet file sharing, DRM-free content sells better than their counterparts.

"The stupid response to X caused Y" does not mean "X caused Y"

Nobody invented graphene. It was discovered, rendering it basically unpatentable, so I'm not sure why not sure what that has to do with small patent holders. However with regards to your second point, inventing a clever way of creating it was worth the Nobel Prize.

I would not say that Grephene was not patentable. The Nobel prize winners were on the verge of doing it, but they did not as they said in their interview.

And it seems they did so with good reason.

It's not like this is the first free-to-play MMO, as I'm sure at least one of the linked articles will mention. D&D Online and Lord of the Rings Online have been making much more money since they became "free". DDO's Revenue is up 500%.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/09333711025.shtml -- Google engineer fired for spying

These types of people would now be reading your emails.

You're better off installing exim; buying a book and learning its' administration.

Fedora is a beta product! Cent0S is a product for production deployment.

I'd recommend building an action plan detailing the process by which you're going to transition people.

This will require a demonstration environment running in a virtual. Then set up a test network for a control group.

I was going to say this would been much easier if the Plane Finder AR iphone and android app wasn't labeled "an aid to terrorists" and removed from app stores, but it looks like you can still get it. There's a web version too at www.planefinder.net

Microsoft needs to understand that when they sell someone a piece of hardware, it is no longer Microsoft's to control outside of allowing it on their network or not.

That's just not true anymore. They've managed to pervert copyright law from the constitutional purpose of "to promote progress" to one of absolute control of anything, including ideas, anyone makes.

The RIAA (aka Major Labels) already pay musicians nothing, which is why they are facing a 6 billion dollar lawsuit in Canada

See also (though I usually hate linking to wikipoo-dia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

Then link to techdirt, instead, like you did with the first link. This link actually came from the article you linked to first, and is at least as informative as the wikipedia article, perhaps more so.

But the message is crystal clear. You can't legally COPY someones work and especially you can't share it.
I'm a writer and I want to get paid for copies of what I write. NO ONE has a right to take my work and
share it with others or copy it without paying. I have every right to expect that what I write IS MINE
TO SELL or give away - but it's MINE.

Unfortunately, it's quite obvious that you're not a published author, or you would understand the economics of the situation. You're not going to become a millionaire from a single book, unless you're already dead (and the publisher is fairly certain they can avoid giving anything to your estate).

The publishing industry may not be nearly as draconian as the music/movie industry, as far as profits are concerned, but any business that has as its business plan "sell the works of other people to make money" is screwing the content producer (the person who actually created the content in the first place). Especially in this day and age, when the easiest distribution method is "put it on a website". You can throw up a paywall, or better yet just ask for donations, and make more money distributing the content from a PC in your living room than you'll ever see by going through a company whose sole purpose is to bilk you of your profits.

For example:
Ask Trent Reznor how it works, he's making money hand over fist by giving away his music for free, only asking for currency if you want a physical product. Seems to me to be a very reasonable thing to do; "Here, listen to my music, you won't even have to rip it to mp3 first. By the way, if you want the CD, you can order it here, and it comes with lots of cool stuff in the case."

As a further example of Trent's work in this field: (with some emphasis added by myself)
From Techdirt's The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There):

Trent Reznor, the man behind the band Nine Inch Nails, has done so many experiments that show how this model works that it's difficult to describe them all. He's become a true leader in showing how this model works in a way that has earned him millions while making fans happy, rather than turning them into the enemy.

Reznor has always reached out to his fans, and has an amazingly comprehensive website, with forums, chat rooms and many other ways of interacting. He encourages fans to better connect with each other as well. While companies like Warner Music forced all the music videos of their artists off YouTube for many months, Reznor actually aggregates all the videos his fans take at concerts (he encourages them to bring cameras) on one page on his own website. He does the same for photos. He released a (free) iPhone app that allowed fans to locate each other, and communicate with each other, while sharing photos and videos as well. It's all about connecting with those fans, and helping them better connect with each other, so they feel like a part of a club.

From there, he gives fans real reasons to buy. Lately, he's taken to releasing everything he records for free online, knowing that the music will show up on file sharing sites anyway, so he sees no reason to fight it. Yet, he adds many other options that people might want to buy. With his release of the album Ghosts I-IV, he released all the tracks under a Creative Commons license that allowed anyone to share them online for free. Yet, he also set up some cool "reasons to buy." You could get the two disc CD, if you wanted, for just $10. Above that, though, was a Deluxe Edition Package, for $75. It was, effectively, a box set, but around a single album. Beyond the two CDs, it also included a DVD and a Blu-ray and a photobook of images.

Where the experiment got even more interesting was that he offered up the $300 Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition Pac

The problem with this would be that the artists don't own their own music. See this link for an example of how "RIAA Accounting" manages to shaft not only the customers, but the artists, too. It would appear that the record companies make at least ten times the money they give (grudgingly) to the artists... and then follow up by charging the artist for the privilege of using their studios, their recording facilities, their duplication facilities, etc. Many times, the artist ends up owing the recording studio if their album doesn't go at least platinum.

Dope-smoking MafiAA accountants. The same people who decide that a multiplatinum album grossing over a billion dollars in sales, for which the band was fronted $45k each in a year, studio time perhaps $500k, physical production run costs possibly $200k, and $200,000 in "tour support" can somehow lose money.

See also (though I usually hate linking to wikipoo-dia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

You could have simply verified one of the claims made: that he submitted legislation to let people remove DRM for lawful purposes (It's the Fair Use Act of 2007). Now, it's perfectly reasonable to check up on people. But you need to do that in spite of their biases, not just because of them. If you never check up on the people you agree with, you have no basis for thinking you know what you think you know.

So ad hominem is NOT warranted, despite what you claim. This is the internet. You can look up things as much as you want to. If the one and only thing you can figure out is the political persuasion of the person speaking, if you can't find even one single fact about something--anything!--to call the conclusions into doubt except their political leaning, nobody should take you seriously. Ever. Until you reform your ways.

Why? Because you've proven to be a lazy thinker. You took a mental shortcut and didn't even bother to check if it was warranted or not. You said that it's "completely rational to double-check anything they say" but didn't bother doing that (or even trying to!).

By your own definition, you are not behaving rationally.

If it helps you any, I'm not a Republican, Democrat or Libertarian (though I may have voted for some). I simply hate seeing people promote logical fallacies. Boucher had his flaws, but he really was one of the best in Congress on tech issues (that's a VERY low bar to clear, mind you). I know because I read all the news, figure out the things people agree on (even if they disagree about the implications of those things), and do a bit of fact checking to see who is lying. (Everyone is, sometimes. The trick is knowing when.)

no, that was deliberate. I was trying to imply that the numbers are significantly worse than they sound.

Schools like this Singapore school which claims that its "genuine" parents are "distressed" by the internet and they needed to do something about it. So they have engaged lawyers, of course paid for by the parents themselves without their consent (or manufactured consent).

Read at Techdirt: Indian School in Singapore sues parent for anonymous comments on his blog

I have been following this for a while. The most recent censorship attempt takes the form of a request to the CERT of India government to ban blogs in Singapore, Malaysia and India:
Techgoss story: Indian school asks CERT to ban three blogs in three countries

View the blogs before they are vaporized ! Archive them at your risk of course !
Blogs under censorship attack: Blog 1, from Singapore which is a "Parents Forum/Blog",
Blog 2, from Malaysia which is a "GIIS Malaysia Parents" blog, and
Blog 3, from India which is a "RSK Parents Forum" blog.

I am sure the school will argue that private education in India needs such drastic measures !

profits from extremely punitive lawsuits.

Would you believe that they actually lose money on that shit? Lawyers aren't cheap, especially evil lawyers (even though they make up most of the supply).

San Diego County, California. The kid said he bought the motorcycle from a guy named "Skye" for a few hundred bucks. Nothing in the court record shows anything about using a computer to arrange the sale, so I don't see why they would impose all the draconian restrictions on him other than an attempt at a legal-system version of "You're grounded, kid."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/04513511498/court-rejects-probation-rules-on-teen-that-ban-him-from-using-social-networks-or-instant-messaging-programs.shtml

Scroll down - you can see the appellate court decision at the bottom.

Looking up your reference, an interesting point was made in a comment here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/01464111127/more-stories-of-people-arrested-for-making-joke-threats-on-social-networks.shtml
"The police will not be able to know anything they can just sit and wait until someone make something real or they can go in before and get every joker out there and maybe get that one that was not joking. It is not like screaming fire in a theater, is called frustration venting, take that away and probably more people will snap."

What do humans do when they think there are under 24X7 surveillance and always careful about what they to an inhumanly high standard of performance? What percentage of them will just suddenly snap with no warning? It's an interesting question. So, the security procedures may in that sense ironically make the security problem much worse.

Though with that said, I can see why the police were concerned given what Joe Lipari wrote... I guess, as a species, we're not adapted to operate in a storytelling environment (either as speakers or listeners) where whatever we say in a few seconds can be immediately viewed by billions of people and even more machines and archived for all eternity? Maybe we need a more formal policy for retractions? Or saying, I was just joking?

It's the usual problem of asking what kind of society do you want to live in for yourself and your family? When is "more safety" actually making things "less safe" when you pass even the point of diminishing returns to get to the point of negative returns? Of course, since there is a lot of money on the line (whether for programs or for individual's jobs in law enforcement) that can drive more and more excessive responses, until the entire system starts to crumble. We may need significant socio-economic change before then, such as I outline here:
    http://knol.google.com/k/paul-d-fernhout/beyond-a-jobless-recovery#Four_long(2D)term_heterodox_alternatives

In the past when a society crumbled people could just go live in the woods or jungles because they had the skills and the power of failing cities to damage their surroundings was limited (like salting the land locally). But now, with nuclear weapons and such, when societies fail, there is much more at risk. And also, people no longer know how to live off the land, and there are so many people that we are dependent on our complex social systems for food, water, and so on. So, we really need to solve these issues rather than letting things come to a collapse. But the good news is, many people are working on related issues:
    http://www.blessedunrest.com/
    http://www.bluezones.com/makeover-about

One suggestion by David Brin is that surveillance should go both ways:
    "The transparent society: will technology force us to choose between privacy and freedom?"
    http://books.google.com/books?id=UzpNEpln8V4C

And tangentially related to that, by me: :-)
    "The need for FOSS intelligence tools for sensemaking etc."
    http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/2846ca1b6bee64e1

Murdoch's paywall sites (with the exception of the WSJ) are not just losing subscribers, they're also losing advertisers. A newspaper can't survive on subscription fees alone, advertising has always been the largest source of revenue.

References to the situation I described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6960304.stm
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070116/115327.shtml

techdirt has this picture, together with 2 other much more complete and accurate ones.

It's way, way more tangled than the Guardian picture would lead you to believe

(Disclaimer - I help develop and support software that controls hardware made by pretty much all those companies, but my opinions are my own and do not represent them or my customers/etc)

{US: For the purpose of this Agreement, Parties agree that patents do not fall within the scope of this Section.}

Patents was one of the sticking points, the US rep wanted to keep patents out but the Mexicans wanted patents in.

I say all of it needs to be revealed to everyone. Of course it won't be because they people would oppose it. Notice how the second article says it's an "executive agreement" instead of a "treaty." An agreement doesn't need senate approval.

Falcon

I started to post in order to question your claim, googled, and found lots of news making similar unfounded claims. Every article or blog said piles of people were affected, but then they give a single example. In many cases it's the same example. I'm not questioning that it happens, but it seems more likely to be

1) legitimate claims where BMI-licensed music was played in a place without a license, and they legitimately need to pay (according to law, not me)
2) a number of anecdotes of intimidation without any actual legal action, where either nothing happens or the owner gives up

What I do not see is anywhere that BMI or ASCAP have ever shut someone down. They intimidate, the owner rolls over, and the owner shuts the place down. If you're clicking the reply button to chastize me, read on please before doing so. They can claim anything they want, but "try to shut [them] down"? Only through intimidation. Kinda like me repeatedly asking for my two dollars.

This article has the claim that it's happening all over but has a single example and one that's not clearly legit or not. It also says that license costs are being pressured down, probably due to people not wanting to pay license fees:
http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Music/2009/0109/p14s01-almp.html

Here's "one" illigitimate claim, can't tell if it's the same one:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1823043352.shtml

Here's a guy who keeps getting invoices, but because he hasn't been caught with licenseable music nothing has happened, which is typically how it happens and not actually shutting anyone down.
http://www.viewnews.com/2010/VIEW-May-18-Tue-2010/Henderson/35878176.html

Here's an entire essay using the word extortion instead of license, and they managed a single example (I skimmed it), and it names the musician, not the places that hired him.
http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2010/08/bmiascapsesac-legal-extortion-scam.html

It links to this guy, with the title being "HOW ONE INDEPENDENT MUSICIAN DEFEATED BMI". Although he didn't get hired by these places, the US Copyright Office told BMI to sodomize themselves with a rusty baton.
http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html

In short, there is no difference between the establishments that shouldn't pay BMI but do, and the people who give their bank accounts to Nigerian scammers. They make it bad for everybody, and they need to grow a sack. Go ahead and sue me, I have playlists for every night I've been in business. Hell, I taped every show. Tell me what night, and what was played, and I'll show you the video.

Businesses shut themselves down out of ignorance. BMI and ASCAP are some shady bastards who need to be beaten with pillows until bruised at the very least, but business does this to itself.

http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?tag=joe+lipari&edition=techdirt

The court dismissed that Lanham Act-based case, because Beverly Stayart had no "commercial interest" where Yahoo (and Overtune?) i.e. search engines were competitors to herself.

It did not mean that she has no commercial interest in her own name. She cannnot sue "big company X" who display unrelated (read: adult content, ED pharmaceuticals) ads paid for by third-parties.

The judge's decision was that Beverly Stayart cannot use the particular section, 43(a), of the federal Lanham Act (in regard to trademarks) to have Yahoo search engine's Safe Harbor protection drops.

See TechDirt article for a better write up.

bwahahahaha what a troll. What a deliberate, obvious troll. You should have used republican talking points.

SCO/Darl Mcbride never won any case. Nobody has settled with SCO either, in fact SCO is in bankruptcy. Why again? Because of all that stuff they "owned"? Is that where the "people will settle" BS comes from? Because patent trolls rarely win, as recent studies have shown. So there is a reason to not settle: you can save more money by going through the courts, because the more you cost the competitor (microsoft), the less they're going to be willing to go after you again.

Have a patent of theirs invalidated and they can't go after anyone else for it either. expose the company as a subsidiary of microsoft. Either of these are retaliatory options.

So lets get to #2, the only reason anyone has any issues of "idenmnity" is because Microsoft is suing their competitors through subsidiaries. However, there is still a second important factor: do you have to pay anything to create your own implementation of android? No. Do you have to pay for indemnification? no.

what you're stating is almost along the same lines as trying to claim x264 is free, which might be true if people didn't look for more information.

Nice job. Now Slashdot is going to get sued by Righthaven media for linking to the LVRJ.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100928/16212911200/eff-comes-out-guns-blazing-in-countersuit-against-righthaven-stepens-media.shtml

When you're aware of a trademark issue you have to defend it or you loose it.

No, you don't.

The surprising part is that Dave hasn't sued for patent infringement. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/06/15/1316257.shtml?tid=123&tid=99 http://www.securityfocus.com/news/8472 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040312/1522218.shtml Maybe they forgot to file a patent?

Here's one start: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/1659115788.shtml. The article references other artists who have spoken out against the RIAA's anti-filesharing tactics.

"Film your own movies"/"Write your own books"/"Build your own games"/"Perform your own music" will be the response of the copyright conglomerates.

I doubt it. They think user generated content boosts piracy.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/16245711033.shtml

nobody is going to come after you for copying and p(a|o)sting on a comment thread

Maybe my sarcasm meter is in need of some maintenance, but this happens all the time. Just check out the Righthaven/LVJR lawsuits for a small sampling.

Not after EU rejected it :)

Even Microsoft admits they benefit from piracy.

Every time somebody pirates MS Office instead of installing Open Office is another person locked into their document formats, another person emailing MS Office documents to other people and another person who gets used to working with MS Office instead of the competition.

Maybe Paul Allen will buy them.

I had never actually heard of this before, but man, what complete bullshit. And a single google search provides tons of examples, if not that specific case:

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2010/06/09/pay_to_play/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100518/2341299481.shtml
http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html

At least Bruce seems to have some common sense (make sure you read the update):

http://gothamist.com/2010/02/04/the_boss_sues_midtown_pub.php

That pretty much represents the final straw on the camel's back for me. From this point forward, I will only ever pay for independent music. If your band is a member of any of those organizations, I will be performing civil disobedience against unwarranted extortion, and just pirate your shit if I want to have it. If you don't like it, leave those groups, and I'll buy it. And for the record, this is coming from someone who legally owns nearly 1000 CDs, and a good couple thousand iTunes songs (where the 99 cents was worth more than buying a full cd for one or two songs). But fuck it. I went to a lot of trouble (and expense, over the years) to do what I thought was the right thing. Apparently, I was wrong, since I was merely funding the absurdities of this kind of bullshit. My apologies to everyone else for helping promote this situation with my purchases. It won't happen again.

Righthaven has been at this for a number of weeks. Basically, they clearly don't understand how useful people linking to the LVRJ articles are, nor do they understand the application of proper liability. As far as Righthaven is concerned, if anyone anywhere copies three words from an article and links back to the original, that's bad. Techdirt's been following the situation pretty well. This post in particular highlights how ridiculous their stance is.

Knowing this, the AP/Yahoo don't want to risk a lawsuit by enhancing the article by doing something as simple as link to the LVRJ. Of course, it's you and I who suffer.

Righthaven has been at this for a number of weeks. Basically, they clearly don't understand how useful people linking to the LVRJ articles are, nor do they understand the application of proper liability. As far as Righthaven is concerned, if anyone anywhere copies three words from an article and links back to the original, that's bad. Techdirt's been following the situation pretty well. This post in particular highlights how ridiculous their stance is.

Knowing this, the AP/Yahoo don't want to risk a lawsuit by enhancing the article by doing something as simple as link to the LVRJ. Of course, it's you and I who suffer.

They could raise a fuss...

Not anymore.

EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent

They could raise a fuss...

In related news, today TechDirt posted about scammers starting to send out fake Hadopi notices asking random people for money.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100902/02075110872.shtml

This is really turning out to be a FAIL of EPIC proportions.

Yep. The most likely reason the movie didn't do that well was because most people didn't want to watch it. Or they were told not to bother from those who watched it.

I wonder if those 5000 John Does are actually the total number of those who pirated the movie - which would be a rather embarrassingly small figure :). From what I hear, I wouldn't bother wasting my bandwidth downloading Hurt Locker, and I doubt I'd bother popping down the local pirate shop to get a copy.

If filmmakers wanted to make more money they should make movies that millions of people will want to watch, and make it easy for them to pay and watch it.

FWIW, I paid to watch Avatar in the cinema. And it was worth my money, nice graphics and all that. Even my mom paid to watch it with one of her friends and they both liked it too. Surprise surprise, my mom doesn't always like the same movies I like. My dad didn't want to watch it - he said it was too long. IIRC he watched LoTR, and I think that did well by most sane estimates.

But despite that, somehow LOTR allegedly didn't make enough money for some crooks to pay Peter Jackson his fair share, and apparently Return of the Jedi never made money ( http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6024677.ece). "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" lost money too: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml

So guess who I think are the real thieves and crooks in the movie and music industry? It's not those file sharers.

Makes you wonder how they stay in business. Perhaps the Government should shut them down and put them out of their misery.

This is the core of the matter. You (and others) want to impose regulations to stop this exact problem. And this is the EXACT problem that has never occurred, and that there is no hint of occurring in the near future, from any ISP of any level of evil. Not even Comcast is considering it, so that should tell you just how likely it is to occur.

How soon we forget, eh?
Telefonic, too

Those are not the only instances, either. Comcast throttling Bittorrent traffic, regardless of legitimacy, likely planned due to their investment in their own P2P streaming video service.

The fact that it hasn't happened yet wholesale has no bearing on "just how likely it is to occur". Private companies can and will do whatever they want to pursue profits. They can be sticking their toe in the water and beating their chests about it today, and tomorrow, it will be realized as the norm. Sans third-party regulation, the absolute worst of industry can and does come home to roost eventually.

I don't know about you, but I am not willing to wait on the inevitable before I do something about it. Reactive remediation is ALWAYS more costly and difficult by at least an order of magnitude than proactive prevention.

We may well see something like ComTube. But it's a far, far cry from there to where they ALSO rate limit YouTube.

Considering they are already talking about it, and have done some investing in streaming video technologies, I think it is a lot closer than you realize.

But the same can be said for regulators. The only difference is that with regulators there is literally no-where else to turn when the worst possible thing happens, because they are the be-all and end all of what is allowed. With companies when one displeases you you simply stop buying services from them. There used to be very little choice, but there's usually at least a choice between Cable and DSL internet, and with WiMax coming online that's enough competition that no ISP would make the suicidal move of rate limiting YouTube.

If you are displeased with regulators, what can you do? Vote in someone who say they will fix it, hope fifty other states do the same more or less, and THEN hope a politician keeps his promise to you? I'd even take voice menus on a help line direct to India over that!'

No, the same can NOT be said for regulators, simply because their job description says that they are charged with serving *me* as one of the people, not the industry schills. Now, they can shirk that charge, and eventually they will be replaced and any damage they did from their corruption repaired. That's simply not an option with corporations. I have ZERO say in what a corporation does. There are no elected / appointed public servants in control of corporations. The only choice I have is as you say, to not use their services. Except where I live there IS no choice. We have DSL. That's it. We have just gotten cable now, but it is owned by the SAME telephone company that provides our DSL, and they do not provide, nor have any plans to provide, internet over it. There is no WiMax or municipal option. This is the situation MANY MILLIONS of Americans are still in, and it is not likely to change much in the next decade, simply because these companies have ZERO incentive to improve on what's out there.

Maybe you live in a big city where there are now (finally!) a few choices, but if they all do the same thing, what choice is there? Without regulation, ISPs who don't cheat can't compete with others who are cheating, so they have to do it, too, or go out of business.

And again, the REALITY is that companies have not done what you are so sure they would do, despite having had any years to do so.

Well, again, you are wrong, because they ARE, and are openly making pla

Is this the same Burning Man that claims copyright on any PRIVATE photos taken at their events?

PASS. Horrible IP grab + single Open Source project is still a negative, methinks.

TechDirt's Mike Masnick did a wonderful job explaining why you are wrong: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100808/00561810539.shtml

They did way too little, way too late. They had a very powerful brand, but they failed to reinvent themselves in the consumers' eyes because they didn't see digital as a big enough threat to their existing business.

Currently the Czech law requires you to pay royalties to collecting agencies regardless of the fact that you are not a member of any such agency and therefore will never get any money of them back.
It doesn't matter that you are only playing music composed by you, you are still obliged to pay.

And how is this any different from, say, ASCAP, who demands that you pay a license fee because you potentially could sing songs to which they have grabbed the rights.

If you RTFA and look at the legal note from the lawyer, you can see what they are talking about, and they're not talking about a 2004 article, they are talking about comments from april 16th 2010 from a guy named "the unchosen one" claiming to have worked for the Jeffery guy.

The comment post the lawsuit threat is basically about: http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20041001/0941211&threaded=true#c1102

There are a couple other posts about the jeffery guy too, but this is the one they are trying to sue for it looks. But heres the paste.

"my name is adam gould son of doctor gould in leeds.
I get bollocked by jeffery everyday. He makes me feel stupid, maybe because i am?? I get paid 30k a year to get slapped about like a whore by jeffery. Who only looks after his own 'jewish' workers. the rest treated like shite.

Jeffery Morris has young people around him, they are so so fooled by his 'brainwashing' ways!! tels them anything to make them sell..many people are educated but caught in a 'dream' that he will make them rich. Hahah what a joke!!

The guy who runs wamey now is Dennis Carr, who owns a bar in manchester. Complete conman, check him out on google, inside track. He tries to get into your head like the demon headmaster, but he is just a working class plasterer who earned a few quid scammin people in property. Jeffery Morris what a wanker, scammer. Dennis is gettin a dose of his own medicine by jeffery..where is your workforce? left because dennis is a conman"

Anchor baby you say not including the USA, until recently if you were born in Ireland you automatically got citizenship. It is less of a big deal now since European Union citizens can settle and work within other European member states and if your husband / wife is a European citizen you get to play too.

The law in Ireland had to be changed with so many pregnant african women flying into the countries airports.

Now wouldn't you like to hear a condensed version of what the fuss is about.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041001/0941211.shtml

this is the thread techdirt were threatened about, it seems strangely familiar so it might have been the subject of a slashdot story before.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113128438710254&ref=search this is a current facebook group

For several years Jeffrey Morris has been setting up email marketing businesses around the Leeds area and taking advantage of both employees and customers. Is it coincidence that he has changed the company name five times since the it all began...

The original techdirt story seems to have been about a peer to peer email scheme meant to protect you from spam but the company next door so to speak are a spam marketing company run by pretty much the same people. The history is a bit convoluted but essentially it seems Jeffrey Morris renames and restarts his companies on a regular basis some might say when they stink just a bit too much.
Its a wonderful thread spanning 6 years of jeff morris and his internet based "marketing" companies.

The thread has been spammed with biblical quotes and tom jones lyrics, i guess they are left in to avoid techdirt appearing to endorse the thread comments. occasionally there are testimonials by possible customers or employee's saying how wonderful jeffs email promotions company is others saying that his services under deliver and others that he rips off his staff too.

some noted posters include a nick griffin and Mr adolf hitler. Largely adding a little humour to the proceedings.

I believe one problem mr morris has with this thread is that if you google his current ventures then you find this thread with all the old names included. They just won't give him a break, seems that possible ex-employee's sometimes possible current (at the time) employees keep joining the dots which tends to lead potential customers to run away from mr morris's advances (well his companies any way).

If you generally read slashdots comments you should enjoy reading the thread at techdirt and see if you can follow the story.

Profiting from globally publishing antisemitic comments hardly gives them the moral high ground regardless of the legal issues.

Oh please, you're the one trying to sully Jews by associating their good name with a spammer.

The story looks to be about this post http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041001/0941211.shtml regarding Jeftel in which the company is called out for being a spam sham. This guy doesnt exactly look like the next Richard Branson :) Jeftel.com doesnt exactly resolve to a legit operation either. Just a default holder page. Is this guy just pissed for being caught out? What a douche