Sean Peele Back with Copyright Infringement with

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by picturesque, Apr 17, 2010.

  1. Several members have alerted me to the fact that Sean Peele, who infringed the copyrights of many members recently, has a new website, and has again infringed the copyrights of members. Many of the images are the same ones used in the previous website. Here is the thread about the recent incident.
    Here is the new website.
    New site:
    I am listing all the photographers whose image(s) I recognized on the new site. They are; Jay Philbrick, Jerry Ting, Carlos Ramirez, Chris Harrison, Jen Seay, Edward Horn, Elaine Vang, Thomas Paul, Meg Reul, Rachel Barker, Sergey Usik, Dave Gardner, Michael Brown, and Michele Rivera. There are probably many more, and I have not checked the family portrait, or any other section.
    You may want to check the site for your images. If you know any of the people above, please contact them and tell them. Information about what to do if your copyright has been infringed is in the thread about the first incident.
    You may also contact me with any other information.
  2. This guy is a gigantic FAIL.
  3. The Music is ripped off also. Beach Boys tune used under "Events" section ... as if.
    If anyone wants to get this guy ... send a link to the music publishers : -)
    I think this may constitute Internet Fraud ... taking money under false pretenses using the internet.
    Internet Fraud is policed by the FBI.
  4. I feel like I've been violated.
  5. Edward, what are you planning to do? Maybe another question is what can you do?
  6. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Each person whose photos have been used needs to send a DMCA takedown notice to his ISP. It would appear that the correct email to send it to is You can also go to and get a physical address for a letter. This is a sample DMCA takedown notice.
    VIA Email at
    Re: Copyright Claim
    To the ISP Hosting Company:
    I am the copyright owner of the photographs being infringed at:
    http://www. (Provided full address)
    Copies of the photographs being infringed are included to assist with their removal from the infringing Web sites.
    This letter is official notification under the provisions of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) to effect removal of the above-reported infringements. I request that you immediately issue a cancellation message as specified in RFC 1036 for the specified postings and prevent the infringer, who is identified by its Web address, from posting the infringing photographs to your servers in the future. Please be advised that law requires you, as a service provider, to “expeditiously remove or disable access to” the infringing photographs upon receiving this notice. Noncompliance may result in a loss of immunity for liability under the DMCA.
    I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of here is not authorized by me, the copyright holder, or the law. The information provided here is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I swear under penalty of perjury that I am the copyright holder.
    Please send me at the address noted below a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter.
  7. not my stuff is on there! grrr...does this guy not have any integrity?!?!?!
  8. Anyone who is a member of PPA (Professional Photographers of America) might want to take a look at where they detail their services for members who have had their copyright violated.
    The hosting ISP is HostDime. Their DMCA complaint procedure is detailed at
    While an email may yield some results, I believe that written communication via snail mail has a much firmer legal standing and may get results faster.
    While they are only obligated to remove the specific instances of copyright violation specified in a DMCA complaint, it's likely that if they get enough complaints they'll just pull the whole site like it seems his last ISP did.
  9. does this guy not have any integrity?!?!?!​
    Apparently not.
  10. If it helps any, here is the information about who's doing his hosting. A group called "domains by proxy":
    I don't know if writing to them would help or not, but I thought I'd post the information.
  11. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    "Domains by Proxy" is not the host. Domains by Proxy takes care of anonymous domain name registration. Based on the DNS servers, the hosting company is HostDime, as Bob and I have pointed out. Sending anything to Domains by Proxy will do nothing.
  12. As jeff points out, "domains by proxy" is simply a forwarding service for people who want to hide their identity. If you send anything to them, it simply gets forwarded to the real domain owner. If you don't want people to know who you are, where you live, what your email address is etc, you use a proxy service to hide them.
    The hosting company is identified in the WHOIS information via the nameservers.
  13. Did not see any of mine...perhaps he's been "tipped-off" and has removed images that aren't his? In any case, thanks Nadine for the heads-up. This is sadly not the first time this has happened to me.
  14. i guess time to move to another domain name since his old "studio" reputation is now trashed...
    i think unless someone takes this guy to court and make him learn a lesson he'll just keep on changing names.
  15. He still doesn't have any taste. Apparently it can't be learned...
  16. Melissa--would you please tell me which of your images he had on the site?
    Also, did any of you register your images? If so, we can do a class action.
    Michael--it is that lovely orangy picture of a couple's first dance that was a Wedding Photo of the Week selection a year or so ago.
  17. Michael--this is the image.
    Also--another member whose images appear on the site is Todd Laffler. Todd was actually the person who first knew about Sean Peele's copyright infringement. Roberta Ganz is the person who noticed Todd's image on Sean Peele's original site. We all owe her a debt.
  18. What will it take for this jerk to learn? He's not some stupid young kid, either. His profile puts him in his 50's. (Same photo as in his old advertising.)
    Didn't even change his phone number.
  19. I wish this guy is taught a good lesson. Has anyone been able to talk to him as yet.
  20. is NOT the same site. Peele's is
  21. Jeff,
    I caught my mistake and wrote back to the website to disregard my email to them. I failed to crosscheck my google search and did err.
  22. I put my blog article on Peele back up.
    The original was cached by Google immediately after printing. By reprinting my article, the old links resolve to the new printing of the story. To date, Mr. Peele never has replied to any of my requests for an interview. The new printing contains a modest expansion in the search tags, to include the name of his new website.
    I wasn't particularly interested in writing gossip column type material, but some of these egregious misuses of material include the commercial exploitation of an American Soldier in uniform.
    I believe that exploitation is for profit, during what would probably be conservatively labeled, "Uncivil activities." Expect vigorous refusals of cooperation with Mr. Peele from numerous veterans who find this type of behavior below distasteful. Leave Soldier's families alone if you're going to steal from somebody. Thanks.
    The second printing is at:
  23. Just make the picture yourself is a better way to go. Rising photographers should be encouraged to do better. A bad photo made by you is far superior to a good photo snatched from someone else. Try to do what's right in this world.
  24. Here is the screen shot of my image :) Thanks Nadine!
  25. This guy's name is now all over the internet. Just do a google/bing search and see all the times his name comes up. There is even a bridal site in San Diego cautioning people about him.
    This guy is a despicable little worm.
  26. Why not just call him and talk to him? His phone number is on his site.
  27. He won't answer any calls...I think we should...I could use a nice trip to So. Cal :)
  28. He won't answer any calls...I think we should...I could use a nice trip to So. Cal :)
    How does he know it's you?
    And concerning the thievery... how is this guy getting your stuff without watermarks?
  29. OK folks, we don't need that kind of talk. Let's keep things to what we can do...legally. Again, the first step is taking a screenshot(s) of your image(s) on his site. Then contact him (e-mail is good, since you need to include the screenshot), and request that he take your image down. The last time around, I did the above, and he took my images down. If he doesn't, the next step is to file a DMCA complaint.
    While there is nothing that, as an entity, can legally do about this issue, this thread can serve as a place to share victims' information and experiences. There isn't a lot victims can do together, unless one of you has registered your images, in which case, a class action can be made. But if the website provider receives many DMCA complaints, it may choose to take the website down. This is if Mr. Peele decides to ignore the various requests for removal of images--which, again, has got to come from each individual victim.
    Let's keep focused on our goal of getting each victim's image(s) taken off his site. And let's use this thread for sharing information.
  30. RT--I am sure Mr. Peele is leery of answering phone calls by now. Read the thread about the previous incident.
    Also in the previous thread, you will see that anyone can get any image, once it is online. Sometimes it is harder, but not impossible. Your only defense is putting watermarks all over your image so it would be difficult to retouch out.
    Melissa--thanks for the screenshot. I just want to keep track of the images used without permission. Have you sent an e-mail with the screenshot attached, asking for removal?
  31. Nadine, found my image on his site. I wrote him a VERY strongly worded, though professional, letter requesting its immediate removal from his site. Told him next step would be pursuing it through the legal system.
    Here is a screenshot:
  32. You know, if none of you are going to do anything legal, you're going to be chasing this guy from site to site forever...
  33. Wolfeye--there is no other 'legal' thing to do. Legal things to do are as stated above. File a DMCA complaint. Only if one of the victims has registered his or her images can a class action suit be started. Read Bob Atkins' information in the previous thread.
  34. Class actions can be costly and burdensome. Perhaps the state has a consumer protection entity that can take action. The Attorney General office in my state frequently takes action on fraudulent advertising. Also, a local photographer association might (big might, but, might) use its resources to seek an injunction or other unfair trade practice remedies to prevent unfair competition of the sort asserted here. While criminal penalties for infringement is usually only seen in larger commercial context, repeated infringement activity may motivate local competition and copyright owners affected to determine if the activity rises to the type where criminal penalties can apply. A complaint made to the proper authority can be sought in that event.
    Indeed, there may be 'other legal things' to do in situations where the type of conduct described here takes place.
  35. Judge Brown will to sort him out.
  36. The "location" of the Internet makes it difficult for this to fall within a state's jurisdiction. If you look at his script/source code, it's clear he planned ahead for this... code is clean and clear of any indication of author, source, and is as sterile and spartan as you can get and still run.
    This guy is going to resurface everytime you whack the mole.
  37. The "location" of the Internet makes it difficult for this to fall within a state's jurisdiction.​
    The internet here is merely an advertising medium and the means of alleged infringement and misrepresentation, not the be all and end all. "This guy" physically exists, operates, markets in a particular state and competes with photographers in that state. Classic jurisdiction creating activity. There could even be the necessary "minimum contacts" to establish jurisdiction as to infringement in other states as well.
  38. Tim, That sort of talk is not helpful.
    [I'm guessing the comment I refer here to has just been deleted]
  39. I went through all the comments here and I may have missed it, but has anyone else noticed in the "About Us" section, that the name "Jerry" is referred to as well? Looks like Mr. Peele has a partner in crime?
    Might be a completely irrelevant detail, but interesting nonetheless... and makes me wonder if a) Jerry actually exists and b) if he's got his own site ripping people off too.
  40. I did notice that and thought the same thing too...whoever he is...they aren't facebook friends...I tried that route
  41. I'm not from California, but I am guessing they have similar requirements to most states as far as business licensing and registering dba/fictious business name reqiurements, and while its possible this photographer has complied with all such requirements, I wouldn't be surprised to find out he hasn't. If I was someone whose images had been misappropriated, it might be worth it to write a letter to bring this to the attention of the appropriate state licensing authorities. Any violations on his part in licensing requirements could result in fines from the municipality. I also noticed that the telephone number comes back as a landline, and for $4.95 one of those online search companies says they can provide you with the physical address if you needed to serve legal papers or official documents.
  42. Melissa and Edward--have you contacted Sean Peele to ask him to remove your image(s)?
  43. Nadine,
    I just want to thank you again for the heads up. Also Jeff Spirer and Bob Atkins for the info on the ISP. This Peele guy is real piece of work.
    Thanks again,
  44. You are welcome Dave. Please let us know the results after you contact him for removal of your images. So far, I have not seen one image removed. This is not a good sign, and perhaps a sign that Sean Peele is going to ignore any such requests.
  45. Here in the world of printing there was very little of this monkey business pre digital; before color copiers; before great "xerox" type machines.
    Then BBS's grew; then the web/internet and it is a real mess.
    Sadly this stuff of copyrights; folks having others use their images is very widespread.
    A certain fraction of folks view the internet as a sea of *free stuff*; even usable for their own commercial applications.
    In the old days folks did not give away their images; they held on to the originals and each copy got stamped. I worked for a studio in Indiana in the 1960s that if you did not do this; you got fired.
    Fast forward to today and watermarking or markings prints is OUT/out of vogue; and web advertising is about free.
    One has the situation where your beloved images get nicked off the web and re-used .
    It is naive of folks to assume a person with no integrity is going to learn; change or even care. It is in their DNA to pluck all the free goodies you dangle out there. Think of them as rats.
    I hope folks here catch your current rat and be too more vigilant with your dangling of juicy images.
    For each rat you catch there can be a lot more you never catch; thus if one reduced the sources of free food the rat population can drop.
  46. Has anyone contacted any San Diego media? The potential scammed bride angle may add some local interest.

    Also, I was wondering if anyone who has had images stolen has contacted the subject of the image? It would seem that they may have a cause of action since they were used to advertise/promote a product without permission or compensation. Impractible for most to pursue, but if any happen to live in CA, it might be worth it for them to look into small claims court or send a letter with an offer to settle for past use of their likeness for promotional purposes.
  47. Nadine - I called him and left him a message along with sending an email to remove my image from his website - But I think he is ignoring us all...
    Jennifer - I have not let my bride know, but it is kind of humorous that he chose that particular image because it is our nanny and her new I probably should let her know :)
  48. I e-mailed a TV station in SD about it. Haven't heard back. If they get several it might pique their interest.
  49. what was the TV station? I'll send one two
  50. Looks like the site has been taken down.
  51. Until he pops up again with another site...
    Ever see the movie "Mystery Men"? Methinks we have the same power as Ben Stiller's character.
  52. The link above brings one right to the site and its up and running right now.
  53. John--the link doesn't work on my computer. What are you running? I have Explorer 8.
  54. Nadine; here his site address works on a mac with safari; but it is just a dummy site with some godaddy adverts etc.
    Try hitting F5 a few times to force a brower reload with IE
  55. I'm just getting the go daddy adverts now.
  56. I just got on the site again. Anyone know what is going on?
  57. I'm just getting the GoDaddy page. Did you save a mirror of the site which your computer's bringing up? I don't know if that would happen; just a guess.
  58. Not that I know of, although I haven't turned off the computer or Windows at all. And I got the godaddy ads a few times too.
  59. I'm still able to get on his site. Anyone able to explain this?
  60. OK, right now, 9:30 PDT, his site came up for me, too.
    Maybe they're kicking him off and he's putting it back up.
  61. I see the site just fine. It's possible he's switching hosts and we're seeing a slow propagation of new nameserver information. It can take anything from a few minutes to 24hrs for information on new name servers to propagate across the network. While that's happening some people will see the site on a new host, some will see it on the old host depending on the routing.
  62. According to WhoIs is no longer with GoDaddy. It is now registered as shown below:
    Registrant: BluDomain
    17919 E. Dorado Drive
    Centennial, Colorado 80015
    United States

    Registered through: Domains Priced Right
    Domain Name: MONSTERBLU4.COM which is hosting
    Created on: 19-Mar-10
    Expires on: 19-Mar-11
    Last Updated on: 19-Mar-10

    Administrative Contact:
    Hasselbach, Aundrea
    17919 E. Dorado Drive
    Centennial, Colorado 80015
    United States
    (303) 895-6196

    Technical Contact:
    Hasselbach, Aundrea
    17919 E. Dorado Drive
    Centennial, Colorado 80015
    United States
    (303) 895-6196

    Domain servers in listed order:

    Registry Status: clientDeleteProhibited
    Registry Status: clientRenewProhibited
    Registry Status: clientTransferProhibited
    Registry Status: clientUpdateProhibited
  63. I see it has different pics now the Dreussi picture is back up and another Rachel Barker shot.
  64. well, if its bludomain that should be easy to take down, i doubt bludomain want to alienate their core customer by helping a photo thief.
  65. Slippery li'l sucker, ain't he?
  66. Nadine-
    Several bridal/wedding sites link to the prior thread on this guy. Could that thread be updated with the latest info.?
  67. I don't know if it's the same guy, but he seems to be the only Sean Peele in SoCal, and one of only a few in the country.
    Go to the last of the comments on this opinion piece.
  68. Howdy!
    I wonder if he ever actually delivers on a contract? Is he a complete fraud, or just an image thief?
    Enquiring minds want to know...
  69. I'm sorry, I should have said "alleged complete fraud" and "alleged image thief". One does not wish to be sued by a scoundrel.
  70. I know a class action suit (and perhaps all other forms of legal action) may be completely outside the premises of and may indeed be extremely difficult to either initiate or organise, but has anyone thought of sending a letter signed by all those affected to various local newspapers? Personally I would even try some of the larger regional and even national newspapers - the issue is actually much, much larger than Mr Peele; it's about theft and how easy it is for thieves to get away by using the ease the internet provides in setting up on-line identities...
    I may be wrong, but I have the feeling that there will be some journalists interested in researching this...
  71. Channel 4 news Utah came to my house and interviewwed me last night...
  72. My picture is still on his site...
  73. Jeff, that find was an absolute gem. If it's the same Sean Peele then the person obviously has a basic knowledge of copyrights and infringing upon them.
  74. I'm sorry, I should have said "alleged complete fraud" and "alleged image thief". One does not wish to be sued by a scoundrel.​
    Contrary to popular belief, using "alleged" doesn't protect you from a libel or slander suit. Best to either refrain from using such words, or politely request the moderator to remove them.
  75. Jeff--if you mean update the various threads in other forums, I see it as being a wasted effort, since apparently, Sean Peele will be slippery to pin down. That is a very interesting find.
    Marios--good idea. Let me think about that.
  76. Report him to the Record assocation so that they will sue him for every penny he has and shut him down for good for stealing beach boy music and posting on his site. This guy is a real phoney who can't go out create his own work and has to go out and steal other peoples work to make a living. This why you post photos in low res, to make other work usless to people who desire other people's work.
  77. I'm not sure the domain registrar is very important. They're just the record keepers. The important information in the WHOIS record is the nameservers field. They point to the actual servers on which the website is located and they don't seem to have changed. They still point to DIZINC.COM and that's a domain administered by DimeNOC.COM which in turn is a domain registered to, same as before.
    The domain registrar is just the organization who maintain the domain records and who coordinate with ICANN. They have nothing to do with the website, they do not host the servers and they are not the ones who decide if site content violates the DMCA.
    There seems to be no real reason to switch registrars. I have domains registered through a bunch of different companies. The only reason to switch is either for a better deal or to consolidate all your accounts in one place. It really has no effect on legal issues and it's no help if people are filing DMCA complaints with your server host. For that you'd have to switch server hosts.
    Changing his domain registrar isn't going to help him keep his site up or continue violating the copyright of other photographers or evade anyone trying to sue him.
  78. OK, now I'm seeing his nameservers have changed. He's moved to NS47.DOMAINCONTROL.COM and NS48.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
    The DOMAINCONTROL.COM servers are Godaddy servers. The email address for complaints is, though that's not the place to file DMCA complaints
    Their full DMCA policy and procedure for filing complaints can be found at
    They will accept email filings of DMCA complaints at, but see the above link for the information they require in DMCA complaints.
    I'd give the site a couple of days at most before they take it down if complaints are filed. Maybe less if you reference this thread!
  79. Melissa--did you call the station? And how did it go? Tell us more.
  80. Actually a few weeks back they featured me on their morning show...Good things Utah and since then the girls - who are also new anchors - have been following my blog. I posted about it on my blog and they decided to run a story on it.
    It went good although I was very nervous...I am much better behind the camera than in front of it :) They should be airing the story tonight if all goes as planned...we'll see. They focused not so much on him because when they did the story his website was down, but I did text her this morning telling her it was back up again with my image still on there. But they focused a little more about consumer/photographer awareness and why it is important to know your photographer when you book them and also to photographers to watermark their images along with metatagging...
  81. Thanks, Melissa. Any airing of his actions is a good thing.
    Do any of you who were victimized belong to PPofA?
  82. Nadine-
    No, I only meant the other thread on Sean Peele in this forum. People have posted warnings about Peele on those sites, those sites link to the other thread, so if that thread linked to this thread, people would know about the latest incarnation of Peele's site. Or if it suggested finding other threads on this site, that would cover possible future incarnations of his site that get reported. I'm thinking it helps keep the pressure on him.
    Maybe there should be a forum just for reporting his transgressions. 8^D
  83. Jeff--Ohhhh.... OK, will figure something out. Thanks.
  84. I am not a member of PPA...I should be though...
  85. It seems like Sean Peele steals only the best PN wedding pictures...any way I can get him to steal some of mine? Just wondering.... :)
  86. Peele could avoid false advertising if he appropriated for his website music the song "Creep" by Radiohead.
  87. Why are you guys stressing over Mr. Peele? He's just taking stuff from you that he doesn't have but thinks he deserve.
    It's called postmodern morality.
  88. I am always a bit surprised when I see a thread like this that no one says they thought to contact an attorney who specializes in this type of law. Intellectual property rights, copywrite, patents and trademark is a niche area of practice. Most attorneys know almost nothing about it. Yet, if you know anything about the letters received by those who have posted copywrited music on Napster or its ilk, you will know that such a letter tends to scare the bejeebers out of the recipient.
    Has anyone offended by this fellow even called such a specialist to get a quote? If there are numbers of you, has anyone considered pooling the claims for a joint letter and to spread the cost?
    If most attorneys are unfamiliar with this narrow area of practice, what makes all of the amateurs, well meaning they may be, something to rely upon?
    Just my $.02. Dave Ralph
  89. Good story!
    Just a comment on copyright registration. First the registration doesn't necessarily have to be done prior to the infringement. According the the US copyright office:
    If registration is made within three months after publication
    of the work or prior to an infringement of the work,
    statutory damages and attorney’s fees will be available to
    the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an
    award of actual damages and profits is available to the
    copyright owner.​
    So if the infringement occurs less than three months after initial publication it seems you can still register copyright and sue for statutory damages.
    Second the cost of registration isn't particularly high if you do it right. You don't have to register each image individually. You can register a collection of unpublished works as long as they are by the same author and you can do it electronically. It's $35 for each collection. I don't know if they accept DVDs but I know they accept CDs. I don't think you have to send the full size file either.
    The reason people haven't sued is probably (a) it's work and (b) lawyers aren't cheap. Unless you have a registered image infringed and the infringer has assets to cover statutory damages, it's not worth the effort.
  90. Thanks, Bob. Unfortunately, most of the images used on Sean Peele's site are from around 2007/2008.
    I am putting this thread back on 'sticky status' in hopes of more people seeing Melissa's news story. Way to go, Melissa. I only hope there can be more attention brought to this matter.
    In fact, if any of you have posted in other forums or sites, please go back and amend or add to your posts. The more people know about this, the chances are higher we will get wind of the 'next' website he puts up.
  91. Thanks Nadine! They have the video up on the link now. I also sent it to the ABC's affiliate channel in San Diego's news too.
  92. Melissa--that is fantastic! Perhaps some of you can use the link to get coverage at your local news organizations. Anything that spreads the word makes our chances better at keeping tabs on Sean Peele.
  93. I've been lurking on this thread and the previous one featuring Mr. Peele's electronic escapades. And I wonder: does anyone know if he is a legitimate wedding photographer actually soliciting work through these sites? Does he actually do weddings, actually have clients? Has anyone called up about booking a wedding and spoken to the man? I read a lot of comments ending with "but he's never written/called me back."
    It strikes me that his offenses are so egregious and seemingly intentional that perhaps he's some sort of troll who finds it amusing to intentionally antagonize all us PN folks. You know, as if this is the new "film vs. digital" way to get everyone riled up.
  94. Skip--check the previous thread, looking for Roberta Ganz. She is getting married in June and talked to Sean Peele about wedding photography. She and her fiance actually gave him a deposit, which she did get back, by the way. She asked him directly about the images on his site not being his, and he told her they were.
    At the beginning of the previous incident, Todd Laffler, the photographer who first knew about the issue, was able to speak to Sean Peele over the phone. He is now, understandably, not answering his phone.
  95. It appears is now off the air.
    I wonder when his THIRD plagiarized site will appear. This guy is guilty of first degree scum-baggery. Apparently getting caught with his fingers in the cookie jar is not enough to deter him from breaking the law.
  96. Thanks Nadine! It was definitely nerve racking as I am much better behind the camera instead of in front of it :) I just want him to be done once and for all.
    Skip - I do have to wonder about that. I think he is finding some kind of humor in all of this...he must be or why else would he just keep on going?
    Scott - It went down sometime yesterday after he spent time and energy getting switched...I think it was due to all of the takedown notices we sent...Hopefully! I would have to agree about him getting caught not being is frustrating that the images have to be registered to have rights, but that is pretty much the way it is and he knows it!
  97. Just a thought but have any of you photographers who has had their images used by this guy thought about talking to your state Attorney General's office? Might be worth a call to see if they can assist? Maybe a "official" letter will get this individual to see the errors of his ways?

    Here in Nebraska our AG's office are quite helpful in a number of issues so mayhap a call or e-mail to the appropriate AG will be worth it.
  98. Bummer. I have been too busy to get on here and keep up.
    Glad his site is off line again though.
  99. tdj


    Marc made a valid, and often overlooked, observation; Mr. Peele's unauthorized use of copyrighted music. We have several competitors that are using copyrighted music on their sites without consent. It seems they don't have a problem using music that doesn't belong to them. I see one of them each month, and he said "well, I purchased the CD..." Sad.

Share This Page