quote:
This insanity brought to you by Snoota:
Hey, fuck you. You buy yourself a clue. Maybe if you weren't so entrenched in your own stupidity you'd know that the RIAA was a very strong force in cleaning up bad neighborhoods. Before Napster started the MP3 craze, RIAA was in the trenches protecting old ladies in the New York Subway like that old gang The Guardian Angels that used to roam down there protecting people in the 70's and 80's.
Maybe they should go back to doing it since they apparently did it so well. It would make a lot of people happy. 
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
Damn lawyers. 
Damn them.
quote:
Azymyth stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Yes. Whoever you are, change your name.
Yes. There is an Archangel here allready. Trying to take that name by using a close misspelling is very rude.
I went gold... when did that happen. [ 09-09-2003: Message edited by: ArchAngel ]
[ 09-09-2003: Message edited by: Yuri- ]
quote:
Reynar Model 2000 was programmed to say:
I'd like to see the RIAA get anything out of a 12 year old girl. They are a smart bunch, the resources spent filing a suit against someone whom you can't get money from is really bad business.
She settled for $2000.
details
quote:
x--AzymythO-('-'Q) :
Alright. This is one of the most retarded thing I've ever heard. The definately qualifies as a Bonehead of the Year award.
Well, it is the RIAA.
Sueing thier way into the hearts of americans everywhere.
quote:
Nina had this to say about the Spice Girls:
One of these days, all the individuals the RIAA bludgeoned with lawsuits the size of Mars will chip together to file a lawsuit they can't handle. The battle will be long and brutal. Only lawyers will gain any profit out of it.Damn lawyers.
SCREW YOU NINA! GRRRRRR 
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
I guarnetee it cost more than $2,000 in lost good will and lawyers fees to sue her.
Way to be a fucking retard, RIAA!
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Absolut Blindy booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Way to be a fucking retard, RIAA!
Well, it's either fire off a chain of senseless and self-defeating lawsuits, or admit that they've been raping both artists and consumers for decades, and they can't very well do THAT now can they?
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Azizza wrote:
I still have a hard time feeling sorry for any thieves.
This applies to this girl and anyone here who pirates music.
I hate the RIAA but I still think they are more in the right than any of you.
Well, younger kids may not KNOW this is illegal, and are relying on their parents to teach them right and wrong.
I know if, when I was twelve, my parents said "Sure, go ahead and download that, its ok", I'd believe them.
I'd lay the blame on the parents here, not the kid. Until a kid is 18, its the parents JOB to teach them right from wrong, not the kids job to learn it on their own. If your parents don't TEACH you downloading and sharing music is wrong...
I mean, shit. Even I (and you know how against MP3 downloading I am) think this was a real stupid move on the part of the RIAA. They shoulda gone after the parents, if anything, here. [ 09-10-2003: Message edited by: Falaanla Marr ]
quote:
Azizzaing:
I still have a hard time feeling sorry for any thieves.
Define thief. Is the concept of a thief or a pirate absolutely constrained by the word of the law? Is morality really that limited?
Is a child who steals from thier parents, though in the eyes of the law not a thief since the child is a dependent, really not stealing? When someone drops a $10 bill in the street and you pick it up without telling them, aren't you stealing? In the eyes of the law trash is public domain - according to the letter of the law, the person who dropped the $10 is littering. They are the criminal.
Or is stealing simply the unwarranted taking of another person's possessions?
Could it not be said, then, that in extorting undue settlements from these people as a "warning to others", that the RIAA are the thieves? And the manipulaiton of music prices by way of monopoly make the RIAA the pirates?
But you sympathize with them?
quote:
Maradon! wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
A lot of stuff
interesting way of putting it that makes a good dal of sense to me.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Maradon!:
Define thief. Is the concept of a thief or a pirate absolutely constrained by the word of the law? Is morality really that limited?Is a child who steals from thier parents, though in the eyes of the law not a thief since the child is a dependent, really not stealing? When someone drops a $10 bill in the street and you pick it up without telling them, aren't you stealing? In the eyes of the law trash is public domain - according to the letter of the law, the person who dropped the $10 is littering. They are the criminal.
Or is stealing simply the unwarranted taking of another person's possessions?
Could it not be said, then, that in extorting undue settlements from these people as a "warning to others", that the RIAA are the thieves? And the manipulaiton of music prices by way of monopoly make the RIAA the pirates?
But you sympathize with them?
Nice try, but it won't fly in a court of law or in the court of public opinion.
quote:
x--AzizzaO-('-'Q) :
Nice try, but it won't fly in a court of law or in the court of public opinion.
Or in the court of law, at least.
In case you didn't notice, there are precious few RIAA sympathizers out there. Most people regard music piracy as the inevitable result of monopolistic market manipulation.
I see it as more than sufficient moral justification. Yes I steal music. No, that doesn't bother me. [ 09-10-2003: Message edited by: Maradon! ]
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Or in the court of law, at least.In case you didn't notice, there are precious few RIAA sympathizers out there. Most people regard music piracy as the inevitable result of monopolistic market manipulation.
I see it as more than sufficient moral justification. Yes I steal music. No, that doesn't bother me.
I think you confuse "most people" with spoiled kids and people who dont' give a damn about rules.
Sufficient Moral Justification for stealing would be if you were starving and needed to steal food and water.
Music is not a need or a right. It is a luxary. That means you can live without it. I dont' care if they charge $100.00 per CD. Don't buy it then. But you have no right to steal it.
Telling yourself and others anything different is just lying.
Hell I don't know a single person, myself included, who sympathises with the RIAA. As I have said in this thread already, I hate them too. However that doesn't make thieves anymore justified. You arn't Robin Hood.
Napster tried using this law to defend their actions and failed because they weren't actual customers, and were in various ways a commercial buisness, but there is no certanty that the RIAA will win against actual consumers in court.
Is making a file available for download handing it out?
I would say you have to actually send the file to someone to be distributing it. If it is on your personal computer, you might justifiablly have it available for download so that you personally can get it from a different computer. The fact that someone else can also come in and take it is not your fault, just like if someone came into your house and made copies of your CDs on your computer. Is that your fault?
quote:
Absolut Blindy had this to say about dark elf butts:
Here comes the fine point.Is making a file available for download handing it out?
I would say you have to actually send the file to someone to be distributing it. If it is on your personal computer, you might justifiablly have it available for download so that you personally can get it from a different computer. The fact that someone else can also come in and take it is not your fault, just like if someone came into your house and made copies of your CDs on your computer. Is that your fault?
Thats not a valid point. You can make it available for personal download with your ISPs provided space, or remote PC. Having it in the shared folder you designated by KaZaA is infact, allowing others to download what you have in there by consent. KaZaA does not label your whole harddrive as shared, unless you manuall make it do it.
quote:
Skaw's momma would never want to hear them say:
Thats not a valid point. You can make it available for personal download with your ISPs provided space, or remote PC. Having it in the shared folder you designated by KaZaA is infact, allowing others to download what you have in there by consent. KaZaA does not label your whole harddrive as shared, unless you manuall make it do it.
Yeah but unless you change it, everything you download is shared.
Some people, like my sister for example, would have no idea that they are sharing everything that has been downloaded. that's just the way the service works.
quote:
Absolut Blindy's fortune cookie read:
Yeah but unless you change it, everything you download is shared.Some people, like my sister for example, would have no idea that they are sharing everything that has been downloaded. that's just the way the service works.
I always move everything I download from the shared folder to my media folder
quote:
Azizza painfully thought these words up:
You aren't Robin Hood.
Heh heh heh. I find this funny.
quote:
It's amazing that Skaw can use a keyboard, considering they said:
I always move everything I download from the shared folder to my media folder
Well then you have nothing to worry about, do you. The people who don't even know how to FIND their shared folder in my computer might be screwed.
All I'm saying is I think there is a real legal fine point between having a copywritten file publically accessible and distributing it.
Look at it this way. While you are downloading a bit torrent, all the parts of the file that you have on your hard drive are accessible to everyone else downloading at the same time. You aren't choosing to distribute these, it's just a part of the downloading process using that particular program, beyond your reasonable control.
So two points that are questionable.
1) If the files shared on your computer are a part of the download process by the default settings, then it might not be the fault of the consumer that the files are publically accessible, but the legal responcibility of the program creator. And if Kazaa got sued I'd be so happy i'd pee my pants, the spyware toating assholes.
2) If there is legal justification for having your legal copies of files available on the internet. I'd say there is because you have every legal right to download a file you own to whatever computer you are at, and the burden of security should fall, again, on the PROGRAMMERS, not the USERS.
quote:
Absolut Blindy wrote this stupid crap:
you have every legal right to download a file you own to whatever computer you are at, and the burden of security should fall, again, on the PROGRAMMERS, not the USERS.
But legally, you're only allowed to have 1 backup copy of any media at one time. And it's technically piracy to install multiple installs from one copy on multiple PCs/Macs, but its way overlooked.
quote:
It's amazing that Skaw can use a keyboard, considering they said:
But legally, you're only allowed to have 1 backup copy of any media at one time. And it's technically piracy to install multiple installs from one copy on multiple PCs/Macs, but its way overlooked.
Define "back up copy."
Is it one version of the file, even if it might exist multipule times on various storage media?
Is it one copy of the file, meaning if you have it on both your MP3 player and your hard drive you are breaking the law?
Is it one complete and not in use version of the total origonal work, Ie a .iso on your hard drive?
Are you sure?
I'm not. Neither is Washington.
And Az, no i'm not. That is also still very much in question.
quote:
Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.htmlIn exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *ALL* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed
http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993-01/0018.htmlFrom House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:
"In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."
From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:
"In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."
Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html
Read. Legal trial of this concept to follow shortly, i'm sure. [ 09-10-2003: Message edited by: Absolut Blindy ]
quote:
making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use
Private is the key word. It isn't private once you start giving it out.
Tell you what. Go buy a book, get it copied and start handing out copies to everyone on the street.
See how well that goes over.
quote:
It's amazing that Azizza can use a keyboard, considering they said:
Private is the key word. It isn't private once you start giving it out.Tell you what. Go buy a book, get it copied and start handing out copies to everyone on the street.
See how well that goes over.
The proper analogy would be to make a copy of a book, set the copies in a closed box on the street, in which people looking for a copy of the book might find it and grab a copy for themselves.
In which case, can you be held criminally responcible?
quote:
Absolut Blindy had this to say about John Romero:
The proper analogy would be to make a copy of a book, set the copies in a closed box on the street, in which people looking for a copy of the book might find it and grab a copy for themselves.In which case, can you be held criminally responcible?
Yes actually you could. You distributed illegal material. You are basicly arguing that you didn't advertise it as much as someone else did.
If that makes me an evil pirate who's a horrible person and kills babies, then I have only one thing to say :
ARRR MATEY, AVAST YE SCURVY DAWGS, RAISE THA ANCHOR AND HOIST THE SAILS LUBBERS!
And I don't fear the RIAA all that much, because I don't use KaZaA or K-Lite, I use DC++, and even then I don't share my MP3's, I share my anime [ 09-10-2003: Message edited by: Khyron ]
quote:
Khyron had this to say about John Romero:
Psh. Moral High Ground. Ethics. Who cares?
People who know a hell of a lot more than you or me and are in the position to do something about it.
quote:
Azizza was probibly wasted when they said:
Yes actually you could. You distributed illegal material. You are basicly arguing that you didn't advertise it as much as someone else did.
Ok what if the person takes a book you have set out, makes a copy of it themselves, and takes it with them?
