In article ,
ryanm wrote:

they aren't also going to be serving some jail time.

Only since the DMCA, though, prior to that it was not a criminal
offense.

Only certain provisions of the DMCA make copyright infringement a
criminal act. And if all "crimes" are equal why don't we have the death
penalty for speeding 5mph over the limit or possession of a gram of
weed?

I don't think the next revolution will be fought because the
entertainment industry took over government, but some people are
*already* that ****ed off.

In article ,
ryanm wrote:

Unfortunately, most of the good spots in Oak Cliff have closed also.

When I mention Oak Cliff, I'm thinking, cheap real estate and trees.

There's *never* been a club scene. Maybe the Bob Marley Hideaway, for
the short while that happened. The Bronco Bowl had a good run.

They even closed Austin's BBQ, which was a damn shame.

That does suck, a lot. I spent a LOT of time there. I used to go there
with my dad, all the time. You pull up in the truck. Waitress brings
you a six-pack. The kind you have to open with a can opener. You drink
it there in the drive-in. Times have changed. Austin's BBQ *barely*
changed though, at all, ever.

A lot of the venues you mentioned have moved, too.

So have I. I have been all over the country. Tucson AZ is about the
only place I know of that still has an alive street scene, where the
street hasn't been turned into a privately owned mall, or otherwise
"gentrified." I can't even say that about Boulder. Or anyplace I can
think of.

You would almost be hard pressed to find a downtown club that hasn't
changes locations at least once in the past 5 years.

Bar of Soap?

"james" wrote in message
news:T8M8c.4429$Q45.356@fed1read02...
In article ,
J. Roberts wrote:


So, if someone steals your bike in Texas, you're permitted to shoot
them in the back as they're riding away?

Negative.

Actually, you're wrong. Check the statute:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using
deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other
means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the
land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of
death or serious bodily injury.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, under §9.4e parts 2B and 3A, if you think you're not going to get
your bike back, you can shoot them in the back. For a complete reference,
see:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm
...and click on Chapter 9, Justification Excluding Criminal
Responsibility. Sections 9.31 to 9.43 cover the use of deadly force for the
protections of health, life and property of yourself or a thrid person.

However, it's not like it's plainly *legal*. You will still probably be
arrested. You will have to appear before a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury
decides whether you were reasonable to assume your life was in danger.

Yes, that's true. You *will* be arrested, and you *may* be charged, if
not with homicide, with any of a dozen other offenses. Possible offenses
that may get you time for shooting someone are discharging a firearm in the
city limits, carrying or carrying concealed without a PC or PCC, various
endangerment statutes, etc. You can even have the charges for killing the
person dropped and still go to prison for the way you aquired, possessed,
carried, or used the firearm.

It's not very hard to meet the criteria, if someone is doing a
home-invasion burglary, but for your sake, you need to be DAMN sure it's
a burglar and not your drunk roommate.

Actually, it doesn't matter who it is, what matters is what a
*reasonable person* would believe had they been in your situation. You can
shoot your drunk friend and not go to jail if the jury believes that you
reasonably believed it was a burglar. I'm not saying you *should*, just that
you won't necessarily go to prison for it.

ryanm

"J. Roberts" wrote in message
om...
Ryan seems proud that he lives in a country (or at least a state)
where it is legal to kill someone who is escaping with stolen property
or to kill a police officer who pokes his head in your door without a
warrant (or so he thinks, anyway).

Check the statues, both are covered under justifiable use of deadly
force.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm

If you honestly believe that kind
of cowboy justice is a good thing, it seems logical to me that you
would also believe that a record company killing copyright infringers
is a good thing. It's not a straw man. It's reductio ad absurdum.

That just means your concept of logic is poorly conceived and
inconsistently implemented, that's all.

ryanm

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080262125k@trad...

What do you propose? That the law should spend money prosecuting you
and collect their two bucks? It doesn't work that way. And rarely does
the punishment fit the crime. That's just an expression.

That is precisely why this should only be a civil offense, and it should
be left to the "victim" to determine whether or not it is worth their time
to litigate. If it's not worth the two bucks to take them to court, then
yeah, they get away with it. That's how our legal system works.

This is exactly what I'm proposing. But they have to catch them first.
You don't expect them to walk into court voluntarily do you?

As long as they don't break the law (or use their tens of millions in
lobby money to have the law changed for them) to catch them, then that's
fine.

So you advocate abandoning copyright because the property it protects
is of trival value?

There was nothing wrong with the law as it was before the DMCA. The fact
is, in our legal system cases involving property of trivial value take a
back seat to the cases involving enough money to be a felony. It's just how
it is. You raised the question yourself, is it worth going after a million
people for $2 each when it costs you more than $2 each to go after them? You
can't build yourself a shortcut through the law with lobby money just
because you don't like the way the system works. Well, actually, you
obviously *can*, since the RIAA did, but you *shouldn't* be able to.

If I got a speeding ticket, I've already been punished for my crine.
However if I was organizing a drag race on a public highway and posted
about it on a newsgroup, I would be proud of my local police
department if they showed up and wrote tickets to everyone speeding
there.

We're comparing too many disparate situations and it's starting to lose
relevance. The point is, you can't (and *shouldn't*) get a warrant for a
wire tap or any similar warrant for less than a felony. It's about
priorities. If misdemeanors justify a wire tap, then they could listen in on
your for any of a number of reasons, like suspecting you of shoplifting, and
that would be a violation of our personal liberty. There has to be a line
drawn somewhere, and you can't change the location of that line every time a
new issue comes up just because you happen to be on the other side of that
issue. The law has to be evenly applied, and that means that sometimes,
lesser crimes fall through the cracks. That's the trade off for having
freedom. Who was it that said it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than
falsely imprison one innocent man? Likewise, it's better to let a million
downloaders go free than to allow a wiretap to invade the privacy of a
single innocent person.

ryanm

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080262220k@trad...

In article a9J8c.4160$Q45.2306@fed1read02
writes:

Even more common is that machine that takes $1.50 or $2.00 off the top
*EACH TRANSACTION* and deposits into the merchant's account. People
fall for that one constantly!

Hell, ligitimate banks do that.

Yeah, I was gonna say, they call those "transaction fees" and everybody
does it, even if the end user at the ATM doesn't always see it. Every time
you pay for something with a credit card (particularly online), the bank,
the credit card company, and sometimes as many as a half dozen other middle
men all take a cut of it, usually on the order of 0.5%-3% each.

ryanm

In article ,
ryanm wrote:

So, under §9.4e parts 2B and 3A, if you think you're not going to get
your bike back, you can shoot them in the back. For a complete reference,

Okay! Thanks Ryan.

I had 7 cars stolen from my driveway. Well, technically, one of them
was stolen three times, recovered twice.

Anyway, during that period, I spent many a night sitting in the front
yard with my Browning 12Ga. At that time, it wasn't important to me
whether it was legal or not to shoot the mofos. I was waaaaaaaay too
much of a punk. I'm still a punk, but I don't have the same rage
problems.

Actually, it doesn't matter who it is, what matters is what a
*reasonable person* would believe had they been in your situation. You can
shoot your drunk friend and not go to jail if the jury believes that you
reasonably believed it was a burglar. I'm not saying you *should*, just that
you won't necessarily go to prison for it.

Yep. The other person in this thread disagrees with the *law*, and
with the fact that you approve of the law. Like I said, I believe a
state that abridges your right to defend yourself (whether it's to
defend yourself from violence by an individual or even the state
itself!) is oppressive. That's a big, giant step towards "police state"
when you take away that right. Others are free to disagree, obviously.

Bull****. Breaking into a house and threatening the life of an
occupant, yes. Stealing property? Not necessarily. Ryan is proud
that Texas law allows you to shoot someone who's rummaging through
your garbage (so he thinks). You think that's a "violent crime"?
He's proud that Texas law allows to to shoot someone who is running
away from you with your property under their arm (so he thinks).
Again, "violent crime"? I can't beleive that any reasonable person in
the modern age would defend that kind of pathetic cowboy bull****.
And not only defend it, but postulate that it somehow makes the U.S. a
better place to live than countries like Canada or Britain where
killing people at the drop of a hat is generally frowned upon.



(james) wrote in message news:_L_8c.6098$Q45.3757@fed1read02...
Breaking into a house, threatening the life of the occupant, and
stealing property is a violent crime.

In article ,
J. Roberts wrote:

Again, "violent crime"? I can't beleive that any reasonable person in
the modern age would defend that kind of pathetic cowboy bull****.

The only thing I can say is, don't test your beliefs by breaking into
houses or trespassing in pastures in Texas (or Arizona). You will find
plenty of the "pathetic cowboy bull****" that you don't believe in.
You will also find no end of otherwise "reasonable people" who support
the idea.

But yeah, robbery is a violent crime. And completely and utterly
separate from anything to do with audio media.

And not only defend it, but postulate that it somehow makes the U.S. a
better place to live than countries like Canada or Britain where
killing people at the drop of a hat is generally frowned upon.

I never said the US was a better place to live. I imagine that many
other countries are much more pleasant. But I can't say I've had a real
opportunity to find out for myself, except as tourist and student.

This'll be my last post on the subject. Spinreel.

"J. Roberts" wrote in message
om...
Bull****. Breaking into a house and threatening the life of an
occupant, yes. Stealing property? Not necessarily. Ryan is proud
that Texas law allows you to shoot someone who's rummaging through
your garbage (so he thinks). You think that's a "violent crime"?
He's proud that Texas law allows to to shoot someone who is running
away from you with your property under their arm (so he thinks).

All this "so he thinks" crap, look at the statutes. I have. You have to
know the statutes to get a permit to carry concealed. ; )

They gave me a book containing the statutes pertaining to deadly force
with the application. Not that I needed it, since they are all publicly
available he

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm

see CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY, it
outlines the justifications for deadly force. They include protecting the
life, health, and property of yourself or a 3rd party, as well as to prevent
the imminent comission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault,
aggravated sexual assault, robbery, aggravated robbery, arson, burglary,
theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. You
can, and should, stop a crime that threatens the life of bystanders if you
are armed and willing, even if it means killing the perpetrator.

Again, "violent crime"? I can't beleive that any reasonable person in
the modern age would defend that kind of pathetic cowboy bull****.
And not only defend it, but postulate that it somehow makes the U.S. a
better place to live than countries like Canada or Britain where
killing people at the drop of a hat is generally frowned upon.

I can't believe that you so easily give away your right to protect
yourself and your property to a government who obviously doesn't have your
best interests in mind. I can't believe that any reasonable person in the
modern age would allow such violations of their personal liberty just to
feel a little safer. Like Jefferson said, if you give away your liberty for
the feeling of safety, you deserve neither liberty or safety.

ryanm