Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"EggHd" wrote in message ... Their kid was downloading in ignorance. Do you apply this to all law breakers? I'm going to have legislation put through that makes speeding, jaywalking, loitering or any other traffic violation in your state punishable by a 100K fine on the first offense. If you want to fight the ticket it'll cost you a quarter of a million dollars. Of course, this won't affect you since you always obey all regulations at all times, right? |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"EggHd" wrote in message ... Their kid was downloading in ignorance. Do you apply this to all law breakers? I'm going to have legislation put through that makes speeding, jaywalking, loitering or any other traffic violation in your state punishable by a 100K fine on the first offense. If you want to fight the ticket it'll cost you a quarter of a million dollars. Of course, this won't affect you since you always obey all regulations at all times, right? |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"George Gleason" wrote in message news:9Wutc.1497$_k3.30157@bgtnsc05- so if my son(14) is sitting at the computer and decides to share your credit card numbers you will assume it is 1 ok cause it is just a kid? and 2 your fault for not making them shareproof? By god, I think we should hang children for stealing a loaf of bread. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"George Gleason" wrote in message news:9Wutc.1497$_k3.30157@bgtnsc05- so if my son(14) is sitting at the computer and decides to share your credit card numbers you will assume it is 1 ok cause it is just a kid? and 2 your fault for not making them shareproof? By god, I think we should hang children for stealing a loaf of bread. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"George Gleason" wrote in message news:9Wutc.1497$_k3.30157@bgtnsc05- so if my son(14) is sitting at the computer and decides to share your credit card numbers you will assume it is 1 ok cause it is just a kid? and 2 your fault for not making them shareproof? By god, I think we should hang children for stealing a loaf of bread. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"George" wrote in message ... Like I said , cry me a river we all got problems The IRS claimed I owed 32,000$ tax on 19,000$ income you think I just happened to have a spare 12 grand to hire a cpa to sort this **** out some mistakes cost real god damn money to correct and it is not dependant on your income how much you need to come up with If my kid gets busted for weed , do I say "I didn't know it was wrong, all the kids were doing it" or "I can't afford 5 K$ for a lawyer" What are the penalties for a minor caught smoking dope? A small fine and a slap on the wrist? No sympathy here, sorry. Hey with such great people skills, can't imagine why you're only making 19K. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"George" wrote in message ... Like I said , cry me a river we all got problems The IRS claimed I owed 32,000$ tax on 19,000$ income you think I just happened to have a spare 12 grand to hire a cpa to sort this **** out some mistakes cost real god damn money to correct and it is not dependant on your income how much you need to come up with If my kid gets busted for weed , do I say "I didn't know it was wrong, all the kids were doing it" or "I can't afford 5 K$ for a lawyer" What are the penalties for a minor caught smoking dope? A small fine and a slap on the wrist? No sympathy here, sorry. Hey with such great people skills, can't imagine why you're only making 19K. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"George" wrote in message ... Like I said , cry me a river we all got problems The IRS claimed I owed 32,000$ tax on 19,000$ income you think I just happened to have a spare 12 grand to hire a cpa to sort this **** out some mistakes cost real god damn money to correct and it is not dependant on your income how much you need to come up with If my kid gets busted for weed , do I say "I didn't know it was wrong, all the kids were doing it" or "I can't afford 5 K$ for a lawyer" What are the penalties for a minor caught smoking dope? A small fine and a slap on the wrist? No sympathy here, sorry. Hey with such great people skills, can't imagine why you're only making 19K. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"John L Rice" wrote in message ... I think it just doesn't apply to downloading music, I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure that a parent can be held accountable for any wrong doing of their minor children. Sure, being a parent is a super hard job ( I'm not one, but can I fully appreciate the effort and sacrifice it takes to be a good parent ) but people need to take responsibility for there own actions and having a child is one of the most serious consious actions two people can ever make. Do you have any video tapes of tv shows? Once upon a time, you could have been jailed for it. Actor Roddy McDowell was, and the ensuing trial changed the law on the matter. There is parental control software that can limit what childern do on the computer when there is no one there to supervise them. And yes, if they can afford a $500 to $1200 computer, they can pop for $50 worth of blocking software. I'm writing this on a PIII computer - $99. Internet capable computers can be had all day for almost nothing. The RIAA and its litigation-prone members are collectively too clueless to realize that children have not matured to the point where they can make mature moral decisions especially when faced with such temptation in the privacy of their own homes. So the RIAA goes after the innocent, overworked, overwhelmed and struggling parents. ****ing *******s! If the RIAA is over the top with the extremity of the law suits or not is debatable but it seems to be an effective way to make the public aware that not paying for music that is controlled by a copyright and the owner of the copyright does not want to give it away freely, is illeagal. Cool, and the next record company exec who commits copyright infringement should be summarily shot. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"John L Rice" wrote in message ... I think it just doesn't apply to downloading music, I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure that a parent can be held accountable for any wrong doing of their minor children. Sure, being a parent is a super hard job ( I'm not one, but can I fully appreciate the effort and sacrifice it takes to be a good parent ) but people need to take responsibility for there own actions and having a child is one of the most serious consious actions two people can ever make. Do you have any video tapes of tv shows? Once upon a time, you could have been jailed for it. Actor Roddy McDowell was, and the ensuing trial changed the law on the matter. There is parental control software that can limit what childern do on the computer when there is no one there to supervise them. And yes, if they can afford a $500 to $1200 computer, they can pop for $50 worth of blocking software. I'm writing this on a PIII computer - $99. Internet capable computers can be had all day for almost nothing. The RIAA and its litigation-prone members are collectively too clueless to realize that children have not matured to the point where they can make mature moral decisions especially when faced with such temptation in the privacy of their own homes. So the RIAA goes after the innocent, overworked, overwhelmed and struggling parents. ****ing *******s! If the RIAA is over the top with the extremity of the law suits or not is debatable but it seems to be an effective way to make the public aware that not paying for music that is controlled by a copyright and the owner of the copyright does not want to give it away freely, is illeagal. Cool, and the next record company exec who commits copyright infringement should be summarily shot. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"John L Rice" wrote in message ... I think it just doesn't apply to downloading music, I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure that a parent can be held accountable for any wrong doing of their minor children. Sure, being a parent is a super hard job ( I'm not one, but can I fully appreciate the effort and sacrifice it takes to be a good parent ) but people need to take responsibility for there own actions and having a child is one of the most serious consious actions two people can ever make. Do you have any video tapes of tv shows? Once upon a time, you could have been jailed for it. Actor Roddy McDowell was, and the ensuing trial changed the law on the matter. There is parental control software that can limit what childern do on the computer when there is no one there to supervise them. And yes, if they can afford a $500 to $1200 computer, they can pop for $50 worth of blocking software. I'm writing this on a PIII computer - $99. Internet capable computers can be had all day for almost nothing. The RIAA and its litigation-prone members are collectively too clueless to realize that children have not matured to the point where they can make mature moral decisions especially when faced with such temptation in the privacy of their own homes. So the RIAA goes after the innocent, overworked, overwhelmed and struggling parents. ****ing *******s! If the RIAA is over the top with the extremity of the law suits or not is debatable but it seems to be an effective way to make the public aware that not paying for music that is controlled by a copyright and the owner of the copyright does not want to give it away freely, is illeagal. Cool, and the next record company exec who commits copyright infringement should be summarily shot. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Troy" wrote in message news:mkstc.569827$Pk3.86449@pd7tw1no...
.......Or move to Canada and download as much as you want. plus socialized health care! ...not bad!!! |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Troy" wrote in message news:mkstc.569827$Pk3.86449@pd7tw1no...
.......Or move to Canada and download as much as you want. plus socialized health care! ...not bad!!! |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"Troy" wrote in message news:mkstc.569827$Pk3.86449@pd7tw1no...
.......Or move to Canada and download as much as you want. plus socialized health care! ...not bad!!! |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ...
The only people being sued are those who made music files available to others, NOT people who just downloaded music. She should consider herself lucky that criminal charges weren't filed in addition. The mom actually earns MORE than the average songwriter does. Given how crapulous so many songs are, maybe a lot of those "average" songwriters should pay *us* for the aural distress. But that's another rant... Anyway, I have a rather elderly cassette tape sitting next to me: "In God We Trust, Inc.", by the Dead Kennedys. Side 1 has great tunes like "Nazi Punks **** Off", "Religious Vomit", and a really cool cover of "Rawhide". Side 2 says: "HOPE TAPING IS KILLING RECORD INDUSTRY PROFITS! WE LEFT THIS SIDE BLANK SO YOU CAN HELP". It's (c) 1981: 23 years ago, though my copy is somewhat newer than that. Man, Jello Biafra is getting old. Then again, so am I -- old enough to remember how loudly the RIAA cried about home taping back then. I, like most music-loving teenagers back in the early '80's, copied most of my music from friends & family[1]. The record labels mysteriously failed to go bust. It *might* have had something to do with the really great stuff they were recording and promoting at the time, but what do I know? These days, things sound pretty grim -- layoffs, shrinking profits (so they say), etc., etc. The big difference between then and now is NOT widespread copying, but rather a near-total lack of stuff that people with money to spend want to buy. Teeny boppers and wannabe ghetto punks are *not* most marketing directors' idea of a lucrative market, but that seems to be what the majors want to cater to. It simple, really: put out a product people want to buy, and watch the money come rolling in. Chalk up the "lost" sales to free promotion and figure out where you want to spend your next vacation. -DrBoom [1] I *think* it's safe to talk about now, though I'm sure the RIAA is lobbying for an end to the statute of limitations to go along with their near-perpetual copyrights. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ...
The only people being sued are those who made music files available to others, NOT people who just downloaded music. She should consider herself lucky that criminal charges weren't filed in addition. The mom actually earns MORE than the average songwriter does. Given how crapulous so many songs are, maybe a lot of those "average" songwriters should pay *us* for the aural distress. But that's another rant... Anyway, I have a rather elderly cassette tape sitting next to me: "In God We Trust, Inc.", by the Dead Kennedys. Side 1 has great tunes like "Nazi Punks **** Off", "Religious Vomit", and a really cool cover of "Rawhide". Side 2 says: "HOPE TAPING IS KILLING RECORD INDUSTRY PROFITS! WE LEFT THIS SIDE BLANK SO YOU CAN HELP". It's (c) 1981: 23 years ago, though my copy is somewhat newer than that. Man, Jello Biafra is getting old. Then again, so am I -- old enough to remember how loudly the RIAA cried about home taping back then. I, like most music-loving teenagers back in the early '80's, copied most of my music from friends & family[1]. The record labels mysteriously failed to go bust. It *might* have had something to do with the really great stuff they were recording and promoting at the time, but what do I know? These days, things sound pretty grim -- layoffs, shrinking profits (so they say), etc., etc. The big difference between then and now is NOT widespread copying, but rather a near-total lack of stuff that people with money to spend want to buy. Teeny boppers and wannabe ghetto punks are *not* most marketing directors' idea of a lucrative market, but that seems to be what the majors want to cater to. It simple, really: put out a product people want to buy, and watch the money come rolling in. Chalk up the "lost" sales to free promotion and figure out where you want to spend your next vacation. -DrBoom [1] I *think* it's safe to talk about now, though I'm sure the RIAA is lobbying for an end to the statute of limitations to go along with their near-perpetual copyrights. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ...
The only people being sued are those who made music files available to others, NOT people who just downloaded music. She should consider herself lucky that criminal charges weren't filed in addition. The mom actually earns MORE than the average songwriter does. Given how crapulous so many songs are, maybe a lot of those "average" songwriters should pay *us* for the aural distress. But that's another rant... Anyway, I have a rather elderly cassette tape sitting next to me: "In God We Trust, Inc.", by the Dead Kennedys. Side 1 has great tunes like "Nazi Punks **** Off", "Religious Vomit", and a really cool cover of "Rawhide". Side 2 says: "HOPE TAPING IS KILLING RECORD INDUSTRY PROFITS! WE LEFT THIS SIDE BLANK SO YOU CAN HELP". It's (c) 1981: 23 years ago, though my copy is somewhat newer than that. Man, Jello Biafra is getting old. Then again, so am I -- old enough to remember how loudly the RIAA cried about home taping back then. I, like most music-loving teenagers back in the early '80's, copied most of my music from friends & family[1]. The record labels mysteriously failed to go bust. It *might* have had something to do with the really great stuff they were recording and promoting at the time, but what do I know? These days, things sound pretty grim -- layoffs, shrinking profits (so they say), etc., etc. The big difference between then and now is NOT widespread copying, but rather a near-total lack of stuff that people with money to spend want to buy. Teeny boppers and wannabe ghetto punks are *not* most marketing directors' idea of a lucrative market, but that seems to be what the majors want to cater to. It simple, really: put out a product people want to buy, and watch the money come rolling in. Chalk up the "lost" sales to free promotion and figure out where you want to spend your next vacation. -DrBoom [1] I *think* it's safe to talk about now, though I'm sure the RIAA is lobbying for an end to the statute of limitations to go along with their near-perpetual copyrights. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
The music industry is now trying to undo the fruits of its own incompetence.
Record execs were so busy being full of themselves and snorting coke that they failed to take steps to block the computer industry from willfully reducing the value of the IP on a music CD to $0. It would have been a simple matter to legislate against the manufacture of devices that could rip CDA files from a music CD. Sure there would still be piracy but not by millions of 14 year olds who can now, enabled by Gates and Jobs, rip and copy a CD in a few minutes. The label execs failed in their fiduciary responsibility to share holders. Meanwhile, some indies are putting out CDs that are actually worth buying with great booklets, bonus DVDs and mastering that doesn't sound like a cat in a blender. Because of their ineptitude, label execs have lost the distribution of music to the computer industry which you can be sure has Digital Rights Management in place. You'll still be able to rip and copy audio CDs but not legally downloaded DRM protected files beyond the purchased license. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
The music industry is now trying to undo the fruits of its own incompetence.
Record execs were so busy being full of themselves and snorting coke that they failed to take steps to block the computer industry from willfully reducing the value of the IP on a music CD to $0. It would have been a simple matter to legislate against the manufacture of devices that could rip CDA files from a music CD. Sure there would still be piracy but not by millions of 14 year olds who can now, enabled by Gates and Jobs, rip and copy a CD in a few minutes. The label execs failed in their fiduciary responsibility to share holders. Meanwhile, some indies are putting out CDs that are actually worth buying with great booklets, bonus DVDs and mastering that doesn't sound like a cat in a blender. Because of their ineptitude, label execs have lost the distribution of music to the computer industry which you can be sure has Digital Rights Management in place. You'll still be able to rip and copy audio CDs but not legally downloaded DRM protected files beyond the purchased license. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
The music industry is now trying to undo the fruits of its own incompetence.
Record execs were so busy being full of themselves and snorting coke that they failed to take steps to block the computer industry from willfully reducing the value of the IP on a music CD to $0. It would have been a simple matter to legislate against the manufacture of devices that could rip CDA files from a music CD. Sure there would still be piracy but not by millions of 14 year olds who can now, enabled by Gates and Jobs, rip and copy a CD in a few minutes. The label execs failed in their fiduciary responsibility to share holders. Meanwhile, some indies are putting out CDs that are actually worth buying with great booklets, bonus DVDs and mastering that doesn't sound like a cat in a blender. Because of their ineptitude, label execs have lost the distribution of music to the computer industry which you can be sure has Digital Rights Management in place. You'll still be able to rip and copy audio CDs but not legally downloaded DRM protected files beyond the purchased license. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ... The only people being sued are those who made music files available to others, NOT people who just downloaded music. She should consider herself lucky that criminal charges weren't filed in addition. The mom actually earns MORE than the average songwriter does. That's a good point, but as NY Attorney-General Spitzer has been showing in the last few months, one of the reasons for that is that the large companies that comprise the RIAA have been cheating their musicians and writers out of the money. I'd feel a lot better about lawsuits like this if they weren't being filed by the very people who are cheating their own artists up one side and down the other. And, by the way, I also don't buy the idea that downloading is responsible for the alleged dropoff in sales. I'm convinced that if the dropoff exists at all, it's because people are buying self-published discs direct from bands and solo musicians, rather than the pablum supplied by the majors. Peace, Paul |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ... The only people being sued are those who made music files available to others, NOT people who just downloaded music. She should consider herself lucky that criminal charges weren't filed in addition. The mom actually earns MORE than the average songwriter does. That's a good point, but as NY Attorney-General Spitzer has been showing in the last few months, one of the reasons for that is that the large companies that comprise the RIAA have been cheating their musicians and writers out of the money. I'd feel a lot better about lawsuits like this if they weren't being filed by the very people who are cheating their own artists up one side and down the other. And, by the way, I also don't buy the idea that downloading is responsible for the alleged dropoff in sales. I'm convinced that if the dropoff exists at all, it's because people are buying self-published discs direct from bands and solo musicians, rather than the pablum supplied by the majors. Peace, Paul |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ... The only people being sued are those who made music files available to others, NOT people who just downloaded music. She should consider herself lucky that criminal charges weren't filed in addition. The mom actually earns MORE than the average songwriter does. That's a good point, but as NY Attorney-General Spitzer has been showing in the last few months, one of the reasons for that is that the large companies that comprise the RIAA have been cheating their musicians and writers out of the money. I'd feel a lot better about lawsuits like this if they weren't being filed by the very people who are cheating their own artists up one side and down the other. And, by the way, I also don't buy the idea that downloading is responsible for the alleged dropoff in sales. I'm convinced that if the dropoff exists at all, it's because people are buying self-published discs direct from bands and solo musicians, rather than the pablum supplied by the majors. Peace, Paul |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"Doc" wrote in message nk.net... "John L Rice" wrote in message ... I think it just doesn't apply to downloading music, I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure that a parent can be held accountable for any wrong doing of their minor children. Sure, being a parent is a super hard job ( I'm not one, but can I fully appreciate the effort and sacrifice it takes to be a good parent ) but people need to take responsibility for there own actions and having a child is one of the most serious consious actions two people can ever make. Do you have any video tapes of tv shows? Once upon a time, you could have been jailed for it. Actor Roddy McDowell was, and the ensuing trial changed the law on the matter. Oooohhhh, thanks for the clarification! You are right, people shouldn't be responsible for their actions. Since I'm not perfect and I never will be, I'm going to start promoting chaos and disorder because I'll get a lot of free stuff and not have to try very hard at life etc. Sounds like smooth sailin' with no long term negative consequences! ( or there probably wont be any so why even consider it?) Woohoo . . .party on! There is parental control software that can limit what childern do on the computer when there is no one there to supervise them. And yes, if they can afford a $500 to $1200 computer, they can pop for $50 worth of blocking software. I'm writing this on a PIII computer - $99. Internet capable computers can be had all day for almost nothing. Get a job already. The RIAA and its litigation-prone members are collectively too clueless to realize that children have not matured to the point where they can make mature moral decisions especially when faced with such temptation in the privacy of their own homes. So the RIAA goes after the innocent, overworked, overwhelmed and struggling parents. ****ing *******s! If the RIAA is over the top with the extremity of the law suits or not is debatable but it seems to be an effective way to make the public aware that not paying for music that is controlled by a copyright and the owner of the copyright does not want to give it away freely, is illeagal. Cool, and the next record company exec who commits copyright infringement should be summarily shot. YabbaDabbaDooooo! burger . . . .itchy part . . hurmph . . that stinks . . I'll kick you . . . .pretty bird . . . .la-di-dah la-di-dahhhhhh . . . attempting to re-adjust mental level to better communicate with you. . . ..please stand by . . . . John L Rice |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"Doc" wrote in message nk.net... "John L Rice" wrote in message ... I think it just doesn't apply to downloading music, I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure that a parent can be held accountable for any wrong doing of their minor children. Sure, being a parent is a super hard job ( I'm not one, but can I fully appreciate the effort and sacrifice it takes to be a good parent ) but people need to take responsibility for there own actions and having a child is one of the most serious consious actions two people can ever make. Do you have any video tapes of tv shows? Once upon a time, you could have been jailed for it. Actor Roddy McDowell was, and the ensuing trial changed the law on the matter. Oooohhhh, thanks for the clarification! You are right, people shouldn't be responsible for their actions. Since I'm not perfect and I never will be, I'm going to start promoting chaos and disorder because I'll get a lot of free stuff and not have to try very hard at life etc. Sounds like smooth sailin' with no long term negative consequences! ( or there probably wont be any so why even consider it?) Woohoo . . .party on! There is parental control software that can limit what childern do on the computer when there is no one there to supervise them. And yes, if they can afford a $500 to $1200 computer, they can pop for $50 worth of blocking software. I'm writing this on a PIII computer - $99. Internet capable computers can be had all day for almost nothing. Get a job already. The RIAA and its litigation-prone members are collectively too clueless to realize that children have not matured to the point where they can make mature moral decisions especially when faced with such temptation in the privacy of their own homes. So the RIAA goes after the innocent, overworked, overwhelmed and struggling parents. ****ing *******s! If the RIAA is over the top with the extremity of the law suits or not is debatable but it seems to be an effective way to make the public aware that not paying for music that is controlled by a copyright and the owner of the copyright does not want to give it away freely, is illeagal. Cool, and the next record company exec who commits copyright infringement should be summarily shot. YabbaDabbaDooooo! burger . . . .itchy part . . hurmph . . that stinks . . I'll kick you . . . .pretty bird . . . .la-di-dah la-di-dahhhhhh . . . attempting to re-adjust mental level to better communicate with you. . . ..please stand by . . . . John L Rice |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"Doc" wrote in message nk.net... "John L Rice" wrote in message ... I think it just doesn't apply to downloading music, I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure that a parent can be held accountable for any wrong doing of their minor children. Sure, being a parent is a super hard job ( I'm not one, but can I fully appreciate the effort and sacrifice it takes to be a good parent ) but people need to take responsibility for there own actions and having a child is one of the most serious consious actions two people can ever make. Do you have any video tapes of tv shows? Once upon a time, you could have been jailed for it. Actor Roddy McDowell was, and the ensuing trial changed the law on the matter. Oooohhhh, thanks for the clarification! You are right, people shouldn't be responsible for their actions. Since I'm not perfect and I never will be, I'm going to start promoting chaos and disorder because I'll get a lot of free stuff and not have to try very hard at life etc. Sounds like smooth sailin' with no long term negative consequences! ( or there probably wont be any so why even consider it?) Woohoo . . .party on! There is parental control software that can limit what childern do on the computer when there is no one there to supervise them. And yes, if they can afford a $500 to $1200 computer, they can pop for $50 worth of blocking software. I'm writing this on a PIII computer - $99. Internet capable computers can be had all day for almost nothing. Get a job already. The RIAA and its litigation-prone members are collectively too clueless to realize that children have not matured to the point where they can make mature moral decisions especially when faced with such temptation in the privacy of their own homes. So the RIAA goes after the innocent, overworked, overwhelmed and struggling parents. ****ing *******s! If the RIAA is over the top with the extremity of the law suits or not is debatable but it seems to be an effective way to make the public aware that not paying for music that is controlled by a copyright and the owner of the copyright does not want to give it away freely, is illeagal. Cool, and the next record company exec who commits copyright infringement should be summarily shot. YabbaDabbaDooooo! burger . . . .itchy part . . hurmph . . that stinks . . I'll kick you . . . .pretty bird . . . .la-di-dah la-di-dahhhhhh . . . attempting to re-adjust mental level to better communicate with you. . . ..please stand by . . . . John L Rice |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
hank alrich wrote: George wrote: Cry me a ****ing river will ya someone steals, gets caught is offed a way out and I am supposed to feel thier pain? served them right pay the fine and stop stealing A single mother who gets twelve bucks an hour is supposed to casually pay four grand? Hello, George? Probably not when all is said and done, but what she is really supposed to do is be noticed by all the other single mothers with 14 year olds online that make 12 bucks an hour. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
hank alrich wrote: George wrote: Cry me a ****ing river will ya someone steals, gets caught is offed a way out and I am supposed to feel thier pain? served them right pay the fine and stop stealing A single mother who gets twelve bucks an hour is supposed to casually pay four grand? Hello, George? Probably not when all is said and done, but what she is really supposed to do is be noticed by all the other single mothers with 14 year olds online that make 12 bucks an hour. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
hank alrich wrote: George wrote: Cry me a ****ing river will ya someone steals, gets caught is offed a way out and I am supposed to feel thier pain? served them right pay the fine and stop stealing A single mother who gets twelve bucks an hour is supposed to casually pay four grand? Hello, George? Probably not when all is said and done, but what she is really supposed to do is be noticed by all the other single mothers with 14 year olds online that make 12 bucks an hour. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Roach wrote: They're alienating the very people that are their income. I doubt that very much. They are very pointedly alienating those that don't pay for it. Damn straight they should be alienated. I buy and am not the least alienated by the RIAA going after those that don't. All these claims that it is the recording industry's responsibility to shore up weak ethics and morality by finding ways that don't tempt or don't allow is simply balderdash. The penalty of law is the way to do that. If you don't want to get busted don't steal. If you steal, expect to get busted. If this is the only way to get that message out so as to become common knowledge then so be it. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Roach wrote: They're alienating the very people that are their income. I doubt that very much. They are very pointedly alienating those that don't pay for it. Damn straight they should be alienated. I buy and am not the least alienated by the RIAA going after those that don't. All these claims that it is the recording industry's responsibility to shore up weak ethics and morality by finding ways that don't tempt or don't allow is simply balderdash. The penalty of law is the way to do that. If you don't want to get busted don't steal. If you steal, expect to get busted. If this is the only way to get that message out so as to become common knowledge then so be it. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Roach wrote: They're alienating the very people that are their income. I doubt that very much. They are very pointedly alienating those that don't pay for it. Damn straight they should be alienated. I buy and am not the least alienated by the RIAA going after those that don't. All these claims that it is the recording industry's responsibility to shore up weak ethics and morality by finding ways that don't tempt or don't allow is simply balderdash. The penalty of law is the way to do that. If you don't want to get busted don't steal. If you steal, expect to get busted. If this is the only way to get that message out so as to become common knowledge then so be it. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"reddred" wrote in message ... "EggHd" wrote in message ... It was a kid sitting at a computer. Get real. I just asked a simple question. You're being facetious. Fact is, even if there were a way to win the legal battle (about as likely as taming the ocean with a rake), they are botching the PR battle, which is what they ought to be focused on. The fact of the matter is that all over the world, where there is internet, purchasing music has become voluntary. This is probably a temporary situation, due to the time it takes to make a full technological transition, but I'm sure we all agree that it is a bad place to be in. But those are the rules, and you win more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. They need to make themselves look like the good guys (they could start by giving artists a bigger piece of the pie and ceasing litigation against children) and they need to find a way to offer people something they will pay for. It will cost money to do those things. Right, wrong or indifferent, thems the breaks. jb Do you really think that if CDs were no more than $10, even the least popular artists were making over $50k per year plus full medical, a majority of the songs on every album were perceived as great by the fans and record companies were struggling to break even ( with no company employee or exec making over $30k per year ) that all unauthorized downloading/trading of music would stop? It might diminish some but I seriously doubt it would stop. John L Rice |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"reddred" wrote in message ... "EggHd" wrote in message ... It was a kid sitting at a computer. Get real. I just asked a simple question. You're being facetious. Fact is, even if there were a way to win the legal battle (about as likely as taming the ocean with a rake), they are botching the PR battle, which is what they ought to be focused on. The fact of the matter is that all over the world, where there is internet, purchasing music has become voluntary. This is probably a temporary situation, due to the time it takes to make a full technological transition, but I'm sure we all agree that it is a bad place to be in. But those are the rules, and you win more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. They need to make themselves look like the good guys (they could start by giving artists a bigger piece of the pie and ceasing litigation against children) and they need to find a way to offer people something they will pay for. It will cost money to do those things. Right, wrong or indifferent, thems the breaks. jb Do you really think that if CDs were no more than $10, even the least popular artists were making over $50k per year plus full medical, a majority of the songs on every album were perceived as great by the fans and record companies were struggling to break even ( with no company employee or exec making over $30k per year ) that all unauthorized downloading/trading of music would stop? It might diminish some but I seriously doubt it would stop. John L Rice |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"reddred" wrote in message ... "EggHd" wrote in message ... It was a kid sitting at a computer. Get real. I just asked a simple question. You're being facetious. Fact is, even if there were a way to win the legal battle (about as likely as taming the ocean with a rake), they are botching the PR battle, which is what they ought to be focused on. The fact of the matter is that all over the world, where there is internet, purchasing music has become voluntary. This is probably a temporary situation, due to the time it takes to make a full technological transition, but I'm sure we all agree that it is a bad place to be in. But those are the rules, and you win more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. They need to make themselves look like the good guys (they could start by giving artists a bigger piece of the pie and ceasing litigation against children) and they need to find a way to offer people something they will pay for. It will cost money to do those things. Right, wrong or indifferent, thems the breaks. jb Do you really think that if CDs were no more than $10, even the least popular artists were making over $50k per year plus full medical, a majority of the songs on every album were perceived as great by the fans and record companies were struggling to break even ( with no company employee or exec making over $30k per year ) that all unauthorized downloading/trading of music would stop? It might diminish some but I seriously doubt it would stop. John L Rice |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ...
The only people being sued are those who made music files available to others, NOT people who just downloaded music. She should consider herself lucky that criminal charges weren't filed in addition. The mom actually earns MORE than the average songwriter does. Maybe she's better at her job than the average songwriter is at songwriting. How much demand is there for average songs? |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ...
The only people being sued are those who made music files available to others, NOT people who just downloaded music. She should consider herself lucky that criminal charges weren't filed in addition. The mom actually earns MORE than the average songwriter does. Maybe she's better at her job than the average songwriter is at songwriting. How much demand is there for average songs? |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ...
The only people being sued are those who made music files available to others, NOT people who just downloaded music. She should consider herself lucky that criminal charges weren't filed in addition. The mom actually earns MORE than the average songwriter does. Maybe she's better at her job than the average songwriter is at songwriting. How much demand is there for average songs? |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Olhsson wrote:
The only people being sued are those who made music files available to others, NOT people who just downloaded music. She should consider herself lucky that criminal charges weren't filed in addition. The mom actually earns MORE than the average songwriter does. True. But there is in my understanding, correct this if I am wrong, the general problem with piracy suits that the damage claimed is the over the counter price of the product, and not the the actual loss of revenue, this based on how I have seen claimed loss in piracy explained in local newspapers. It is very good question whether the damage sustained by the record company is not more like the loss of revenue from airplay than like the loss of the over the counter rrp of a CD. There really is no other way to explain the sum mentioned here, that and some kind of file sharing activity where the "loss math" is x cd's not sold over the counter to [total number of downloads] people. To extend that loss math to record shops, the shops should be billed for the price of an album in case someone listens to its first track in the shop and then doesn't purchase it. It is not the principle that makes headlines, it is the loss math. It is also frivolous, in most common peoples understanding something between robbery and blackmail, to sue for 500000 dollars and offering to settle for 4000. A case like the one mentioned does music copyright respect absolutely no good. I also find it highly problematic from a public relations and respect for copyright point of view that the record companies project this as being a loss they sustain, rather than projecting it as a loss to the artists in question. Reasonable damage claims, and reasonable lawsuits would imo work a lot better in terms of earning general respect for what this is about: the livelyhood of quite ordinary people that happen to make or record music. The way the RIAA, and indeed the local piracy-buster law firm, approaches this caused only badwill for the industry, and not the goodwill that is an integral part of running a sane business. What IS required is to make the populace want to pay for the music because they see it as fair pay, a fair deal. If I should be wrong about the above, then please explain what it is that I fail to understand. Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Olhsson wrote:
The only people being sued are those who made music files available to others, NOT people who just downloaded music. She should consider herself lucky that criminal charges weren't filed in addition. The mom actually earns MORE than the average songwriter does. True. But there is in my understanding, correct this if I am wrong, the general problem with piracy suits that the damage claimed is the over the counter price of the product, and not the the actual loss of revenue, this based on how I have seen claimed loss in piracy explained in local newspapers. It is very good question whether the damage sustained by the record company is not more like the loss of revenue from airplay than like the loss of the over the counter rrp of a CD. There really is no other way to explain the sum mentioned here, that and some kind of file sharing activity where the "loss math" is x cd's not sold over the counter to [total number of downloads] people. To extend that loss math to record shops, the shops should be billed for the price of an album in case someone listens to its first track in the shop and then doesn't purchase it. It is not the principle that makes headlines, it is the loss math. It is also frivolous, in most common peoples understanding something between robbery and blackmail, to sue for 500000 dollars and offering to settle for 4000. A case like the one mentioned does music copyright respect absolutely no good. I also find it highly problematic from a public relations and respect for copyright point of view that the record companies project this as being a loss they sustain, rather than projecting it as a loss to the artists in question. Reasonable damage claims, and reasonable lawsuits would imo work a lot better in terms of earning general respect for what this is about: the livelyhood of quite ordinary people that happen to make or record music. The way the RIAA, and indeed the local piracy-buster law firm, approaches this caused only badwill for the industry, and not the goodwill that is an integral part of running a sane business. What IS required is to make the populace want to pay for the music because they see it as fair pay, a fair deal. If I should be wrong about the above, then please explain what it is that I fail to understand. Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Echo Mia-MIDI with a Phono PreAmp or TerraTec DMX 6FIRE 24/96 With Software RIAA? | Tech | |||
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting | Pro Audio | |||
New RIAA Twist? | Pro Audio | |||
RIAA lawsuits question | Pro Audio |