| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"NJD" wrote in message ... In article , says... Their kid was downloading in ignorance. Do you apply this to all law breakers? It was a kid sitting at a computer. Get real. 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? George --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/2004 |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
"NJD" wrote in message ... In article , says... Their kid was downloading in ignorance. Do you apply this to all law breakers? It was a kid sitting at a computer. Get real. 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? George --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/2004 |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
"NJD" wrote in message ... In article , says... Their kid was downloading in ignorance. Do you apply this to all law breakers? It was a kid sitting at a computer. Get real. 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? George --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/2004 |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:38:23 -0700, Doc wrote:
If they're to be believed, they weren't stealing. Their kid was downloading in ignorance. --------------------------------snip---------------------------------- Just playing devil's advocate here. The RIAA claims they're only going after individuals who were downloading MANY THOUSANDS of song -- not casual users grabbing a dozen songs here, and a dozen songs there. One user who settled last year admitted that he had downloaded well over 20,000 songs, then passed them on to thousands of friends via P2P in college. I think Scott Dorsey's got the right idea -- this is an immensely-complicated problem for which there are no quick and easy answers. I do think the RIAA should pick their battles more carefully, but I also see their point that people who steal should be punished... to a point. --MFW |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:38:23 -0700, Doc wrote:
If they're to be believed, they weren't stealing. Their kid was downloading in ignorance. --------------------------------snip---------------------------------- Just playing devil's advocate here. The RIAA claims they're only going after individuals who were downloading MANY THOUSANDS of song -- not casual users grabbing a dozen songs here, and a dozen songs there. One user who settled last year admitted that he had downloaded well over 20,000 songs, then passed them on to thousands of friends via P2P in college. I think Scott Dorsey's got the right idea -- this is an immensely-complicated problem for which there are no quick and easy answers. I do think the RIAA should pick their battles more carefully, but I also see their point that people who steal should be punished... to a point. --MFW |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:38:23 -0700, Doc wrote:
If they're to be believed, they weren't stealing. Their kid was downloading in ignorance. --------------------------------snip---------------------------------- Just playing devil's advocate here. The RIAA claims they're only going after individuals who were downloading MANY THOUSANDS of song -- not casual users grabbing a dozen songs here, and a dozen songs there. One user who settled last year admitted that he had downloaded well over 20,000 songs, then passed them on to thousands of friends via P2P in college. I think Scott Dorsey's got the right idea -- this is an immensely-complicated problem for which there are no quick and easy answers. I do think the RIAA should pick their battles more carefully, but I also see their point that people who steal should be punished... to a point. --MFW |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
EggHd wrote: Their kid was downloading in ignorance. Do you apply this to all law breakers? No, but there are degrees of accountability in the law. And if it is the 14 year old they are suing, then they better get ready to be waxed, because no court in the nation would hold a judgment of that nature for a first time minor offender. -- Nathan 'What if the hokey pokey is really what it's all about?' |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
EggHd wrote: Their kid was downloading in ignorance. Do you apply this to all law breakers? No, but there are degrees of accountability in the law. And if it is the 14 year old they are suing, then they better get ready to be waxed, because no court in the nation would hold a judgment of that nature for a first time minor offender. -- Nathan 'What if the hokey pokey is really what it's all about?' |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
EggHd wrote: Their kid was downloading in ignorance. Do you apply this to all law breakers? No, but there are degrees of accountability in the law. And if it is the 14 year old they are suing, then they better get ready to be waxed, because no court in the nation would hold a judgment of that nature for a first time minor offender. -- Nathan 'What if the hokey pokey is really what it's all about?' |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just part of the big ****ing dance I guess...
-- Steven Sena XS Sound Recording www.xssound.com "raptor" wrote in message om... Single mom overwhelmed by recording industry suit BY LESLIE BROOKS SUZUKAMO Pioneer Press Tammy Lafky has a computer at home but said she doesn't use it. "I don't know how," the 41-year-old woman said, somewhat sheepishly. But her 15-year-old daughter, Cassandra, does. And what Cassandra may have done, like millions of other teenagers and adults around the world, landed Lafky in legal hot water this week that could cost her thousands of dollars. Lafky, a sugar mill worker and single mother in Bird Island, a farming community 90 miles west of St. Paul, became the first Minnesotan sued by name by the recording industry this week for allegedly downloading copyrighted music illegally. The lawsuit has stunned Lafky, who earns $12 an hour and faces penalties that top $500,000. She says she can't even afford an offer by the record companies to settle the case for $4,000. The ongoing music downloading war is being fought on one side by a $12 billion music industry that says it is steadily losing sales to online file sharing. On the other side, untold millions of people - many of them too young to drive - who have been downloading free music off file-sharing sites with odd names like Kazaa and Grokster and who are accusing the music industry of price gouging and strong-arm tactics. Lafky says she doesn't download free music. Her daughter did last year when she was 14, but neither of them knew it was illegal because all of Cassandra's friends at school were doing it. "She says she can't believe she's the only one being sued," Lafky said. "She told me, 'I can't be the only one. Everybody else does it.' " A record company attorney from Los Angeles contacted Lafky about a week ago, telling Lafky she could owe up to $540,000, but the companies would settle for $4,000. "I told her I don't have the money," Lafky said. "She told me to go talk to a lawyer and I told her I don't have no money to talk to a lawyer." Lafky said she clears $21,000 a year from her job and gets no child support. The music industry isn't moved. It has sued nearly 3,000 people nationwide since September and settled with 486 of them for an average of $3,000 apiece, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major and minor labels that produce 90 percent of the recorded music in the United States. "Our goal in these cases and in this program (of lawsuits) that we're trying to achieve is to deliver the message that it's illegal and wrong," said Stanley Pierre-Louis, senior vice president for legal affairs for the RIAA. Since the music industry began its lawsuit campaign, awareness of the illegality of downloading copyrighted music has increased several-fold this year, Pierre-Louis said. "And we're trying to create a level playing field for legal online (music) services," he added. These services sell music for under a dollar a song, and some have become well known, like Apple Computer's iPod service, which advertises heavily on TV. Others are just getting off the ground. Pierre-Louis said the RIAA does not comment on individual cases like Lafky's, but he said the music industry typically finds its targets by logging onto the same file-sharing services that the file-sharers do. Its agents then comb the play lists for names of songs that are copyrighted and that they believe are being illegally shared. The record companies follow the songs when they're downloaded onto computers, and they also note how many copyrighted songs are stored on that computer's hard drive memory, because those songs are often "uploaded" or shared with others through the file-sharing service. Since January, the industry has filed 2,947 lawsuits, most against "John Does," until the record companies went to court to get names of the downloaders from their Internet service providers. Last month, the music industry filed 477 lawsuits nationwide, including two "John Doe" lawsuits against users at the University of Minnesota whose identities have not been revealed. The industry is particularly keen on stopping people who keep their computers open on the Internet for others to share. On Lafky's computer, for instance, record companies like Universal Music Group, Sony and Warner Bros. found songs by groups they publish like Bloodhound Gang, Savage Garden and Linkin Park. Also found were songs by artists Michelle Branch, MC Hammer and country stars Shania Twain and Neal McCoy, which not only were downloaded but also available to others to upload, according to the lawsuit. Federal copyright laws allow for penalties that range from $750 per infringement or song up to $30,000 per infringement, Pierre-Louis said. If a defendant is found to have committed a violation "in a willful manner," he or she can be fined $150,000 per song, he said. The record companies are willing to negotiate cases individually if someone says they cannot afford the penalties. So far, no case has gone to trial, the RIAA said. Pierre-Louis said the RIAA isn't afraid of a consumer backlash. "We're facing a daunting challenge and we have to face it head-on," he said. Tammy Lafky is facing her own challenge. She said she doesn't know what she'll do. "I told her," she said, referring to the record company lawyer, "if I had the money I would give it to you, but I don't have it." |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just part of the big ****ing dance I guess...
-- Steven Sena XS Sound Recording www.xssound.com "raptor" wrote in message om... Single mom overwhelmed by recording industry suit BY LESLIE BROOKS SUZUKAMO Pioneer Press Tammy Lafky has a computer at home but said she doesn't use it. "I don't know how," the 41-year-old woman said, somewhat sheepishly. But her 15-year-old daughter, Cassandra, does. And what Cassandra may have done, like millions of other teenagers and adults around the world, landed Lafky in legal hot water this week that could cost her thousands of dollars. Lafky, a sugar mill worker and single mother in Bird Island, a farming community 90 miles west of St. Paul, became the first Minnesotan sued by name by the recording industry this week for allegedly downloading copyrighted music illegally. The lawsuit has stunned Lafky, who earns $12 an hour and faces penalties that top $500,000. She says she can't even afford an offer by the record companies to settle the case for $4,000. The ongoing music downloading war is being fought on one side by a $12 billion music industry that says it is steadily losing sales to online file sharing. On the other side, untold millions of people - many of them too young to drive - who have been downloading free music off file-sharing sites with odd names like Kazaa and Grokster and who are accusing the music industry of price gouging and strong-arm tactics. Lafky says she doesn't download free music. Her daughter did last year when she was 14, but neither of them knew it was illegal because all of Cassandra's friends at school were doing it. "She says she can't believe she's the only one being sued," Lafky said. "She told me, 'I can't be the only one. Everybody else does it.' " A record company attorney from Los Angeles contacted Lafky about a week ago, telling Lafky she could owe up to $540,000, but the companies would settle for $4,000. "I told her I don't have the money," Lafky said. "She told me to go talk to a lawyer and I told her I don't have no money to talk to a lawyer." Lafky said she clears $21,000 a year from her job and gets no child support. The music industry isn't moved. It has sued nearly 3,000 people nationwide since September and settled with 486 of them for an average of $3,000 apiece, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major and minor labels that produce 90 percent of the recorded music in the United States. "Our goal in these cases and in this program (of lawsuits) that we're trying to achieve is to deliver the message that it's illegal and wrong," said Stanley Pierre-Louis, senior vice president for legal affairs for the RIAA. Since the music industry began its lawsuit campaign, awareness of the illegality of downloading copyrighted music has increased several-fold this year, Pierre-Louis said. "And we're trying to create a level playing field for legal online (music) services," he added. These services sell music for under a dollar a song, and some have become well known, like Apple Computer's iPod service, which advertises heavily on TV. Others are just getting off the ground. Pierre-Louis said the RIAA does not comment on individual cases like Lafky's, but he said the music industry typically finds its targets by logging onto the same file-sharing services that the file-sharers do. Its agents then comb the play lists for names of songs that are copyrighted and that they believe are being illegally shared. The record companies follow the songs when they're downloaded onto computers, and they also note how many copyrighted songs are stored on that computer's hard drive memory, because those songs are often "uploaded" or shared with others through the file-sharing service. Since January, the industry has filed 2,947 lawsuits, most against "John Does," until the record companies went to court to get names of the downloaders from their Internet service providers. Last month, the music industry filed 477 lawsuits nationwide, including two "John Doe" lawsuits against users at the University of Minnesota whose identities have not been revealed. The industry is particularly keen on stopping people who keep their computers open on the Internet for others to share. On Lafky's computer, for instance, record companies like Universal Music Group, Sony and Warner Bros. found songs by groups they publish like Bloodhound Gang, Savage Garden and Linkin Park. Also found were songs by artists Michelle Branch, MC Hammer and country stars Shania Twain and Neal McCoy, which not only were downloaded but also available to others to upload, according to the lawsuit. Federal copyright laws allow for penalties that range from $750 per infringement or song up to $30,000 per infringement, Pierre-Louis said. If a defendant is found to have committed a violation "in a willful manner," he or she can be fined $150,000 per song, he said. The record companies are willing to negotiate cases individually if someone says they cannot afford the penalties. So far, no case has gone to trial, the RIAA said. Pierre-Louis said the RIAA isn't afraid of a consumer backlash. "We're facing a daunting challenge and we have to face it head-on," he said. Tammy Lafky is facing her own challenge. She said she doesn't know what she'll do. "I told her," she said, referring to the record company lawyer, "if I had the money I would give it to you, but I don't have it." |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just part of the big ****ing dance I guess...
-- Steven Sena XS Sound Recording www.xssound.com "raptor" wrote in message om... Single mom overwhelmed by recording industry suit BY LESLIE BROOKS SUZUKAMO Pioneer Press Tammy Lafky has a computer at home but said she doesn't use it. "I don't know how," the 41-year-old woman said, somewhat sheepishly. But her 15-year-old daughter, Cassandra, does. And what Cassandra may have done, like millions of other teenagers and adults around the world, landed Lafky in legal hot water this week that could cost her thousands of dollars. Lafky, a sugar mill worker and single mother in Bird Island, a farming community 90 miles west of St. Paul, became the first Minnesotan sued by name by the recording industry this week for allegedly downloading copyrighted music illegally. The lawsuit has stunned Lafky, who earns $12 an hour and faces penalties that top $500,000. She says she can't even afford an offer by the record companies to settle the case for $4,000. The ongoing music downloading war is being fought on one side by a $12 billion music industry that says it is steadily losing sales to online file sharing. On the other side, untold millions of people - many of them too young to drive - who have been downloading free music off file-sharing sites with odd names like Kazaa and Grokster and who are accusing the music industry of price gouging and strong-arm tactics. Lafky says she doesn't download free music. Her daughter did last year when she was 14, but neither of them knew it was illegal because all of Cassandra's friends at school were doing it. "She says she can't believe she's the only one being sued," Lafky said. "She told me, 'I can't be the only one. Everybody else does it.' " A record company attorney from Los Angeles contacted Lafky about a week ago, telling Lafky she could owe up to $540,000, but the companies would settle for $4,000. "I told her I don't have the money," Lafky said. "She told me to go talk to a lawyer and I told her I don't have no money to talk to a lawyer." Lafky said she clears $21,000 a year from her job and gets no child support. The music industry isn't moved. It has sued nearly 3,000 people nationwide since September and settled with 486 of them for an average of $3,000 apiece, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major and minor labels that produce 90 percent of the recorded music in the United States. "Our goal in these cases and in this program (of lawsuits) that we're trying to achieve is to deliver the message that it's illegal and wrong," said Stanley Pierre-Louis, senior vice president for legal affairs for the RIAA. Since the music industry began its lawsuit campaign, awareness of the illegality of downloading copyrighted music has increased several-fold this year, Pierre-Louis said. "And we're trying to create a level playing field for legal online (music) services," he added. These services sell music for under a dollar a song, and some have become well known, like Apple Computer's iPod service, which advertises heavily on TV. Others are just getting off the ground. Pierre-Louis said the RIAA does not comment on individual cases like Lafky's, but he said the music industry typically finds its targets by logging onto the same file-sharing services that the file-sharers do. Its agents then comb the play lists for names of songs that are copyrighted and that they believe are being illegally shared. The record companies follow the songs when they're downloaded onto computers, and they also note how many copyrighted songs are stored on that computer's hard drive memory, because those songs are often "uploaded" or shared with others through the file-sharing service. Since January, the industry has filed 2,947 lawsuits, most against "John Does," until the record companies went to court to get names of the downloaders from their Internet service providers. Last month, the music industry filed 477 lawsuits nationwide, including two "John Doe" lawsuits against users at the University of Minnesota whose identities have not been revealed. The industry is particularly keen on stopping people who keep their computers open on the Internet for others to share. On Lafky's computer, for instance, record companies like Universal Music Group, Sony and Warner Bros. found songs by groups they publish like Bloodhound Gang, Savage Garden and Linkin Park. Also found were songs by artists Michelle Branch, MC Hammer and country stars Shania Twain and Neal McCoy, which not only were downloaded but also available to others to upload, according to the lawsuit. Federal copyright laws allow for penalties that range from $750 per infringement or song up to $30,000 per infringement, Pierre-Louis said. If a defendant is found to have committed a violation "in a willful manner," he or she can be fined $150,000 per song, he said. The record companies are willing to negotiate cases individually if someone says they cannot afford the penalties. So far, no case has gone to trial, the RIAA said. Pierre-Louis said the RIAA isn't afraid of a consumer backlash. "We're facing a daunting challenge and we have to face it head-on," he said. Tammy Lafky is facing her own challenge. She said she doesn't know what she'll do. "I told her," she said, referring to the record company lawyer, "if I had the money I would give it to you, but I don't have it." |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was slamming my head against the wall about that one... The battle is
over, but the war has just begun... Rocha "Troy" wrote in message news:mkstc.569827$Pk3.86449@pd7tw1no... .......Or move to Canada and download as much as you want. George wrote in message ... 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 George |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was slamming my head against the wall about that one... The battle is
over, but the war has just begun... Rocha "Troy" wrote in message news:mkstc.569827$Pk3.86449@pd7tw1no... .......Or move to Canada and download as much as you want. George wrote in message ... Cry me a ****ing river will ya someone steals, gets caught is offed a way out and I am supposed to feel thier pain? served them right pay the fine and stop stealing George |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was slamming my head against the wall about that one... The battle is
over, but the war has just begun... Rocha "Troy" wrote in message news:mkstc.569827$Pk3.86449@pd7tw1no... .......Or move to Canada and download as much as you want. George wrote in message ... 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 George |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
"NJD" wrote in message
... In article , says... NJD wrote: It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before digitizing it. Morons! *snip* With these tactics, the industry has asked the entire world to hate them and have been marvelously successful in that effort. *snip* --Nick Agreed. File sharing is illigal. But why the hell are the record companies going after the people who they want to derive income from? Do they expect these people to view the record companies in good light and return to the record stores and willfully buy CD's? "They just sued me for X thousand dollars, and BOY did i learn my lesson. I'm gonna march right into my prosecutor's store and BUY this time around." Not likely. They're gonna get ****ed off at companies and find different ways to purchase their downloaded music. They're alienating the very people that are their income. And isn't the reason the record sales have dropped is because people's catalog's no longer need replacing or have already been fully replaced? For example, people had vinyl collections, then the next recorded medium came out and they went to the stores to replace them with the superior media, then the next superior medium came out (let's just skip to the CD), and people again went to the record stores to buy more of that same album on CD. THEN nothing else came out to replace CD's. The record sales derived from replacement slowed down and halted. The annual sales are only dropping to where they should be, no? Roach |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
"NJD" wrote in message
... In article , says... NJD wrote: It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before digitizing it. Morons! *snip* With these tactics, the industry has asked the entire world to hate them and have been marvelously successful in that effort. *snip* --Nick Agreed. File sharing is illigal. But why the hell are the record companies going after the people who they want to derive income from? Do they expect these people to view the record companies in good light and return to the record stores and willfully buy CD's? "They just sued me for X thousand dollars, and BOY did i learn my lesson. I'm gonna march right into my prosecutor's store and BUY this time around." Not likely. They're gonna get ****ed off at companies and find different ways to purchase their downloaded music. They're alienating the very people that are their income. And isn't the reason the record sales have dropped is because people's catalog's no longer need replacing or have already been fully replaced? For example, people had vinyl collections, then the next recorded medium came out and they went to the stores to replace them with the superior media, then the next superior medium came out (let's just skip to the CD), and people again went to the record stores to buy more of that same album on CD. THEN nothing else came out to replace CD's. The record sales derived from replacement slowed down and halted. The annual sales are only dropping to where they should be, no? Roach |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
"NJD" wrote in message
... In article , says... NJD wrote: It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before digitizing it. Morons! *snip* With these tactics, the industry has asked the entire world to hate them and have been marvelously successful in that effort. *snip* --Nick Agreed. File sharing is illigal. But why the hell are the record companies going after the people who they want to derive income from? Do they expect these people to view the record companies in good light and return to the record stores and willfully buy CD's? "They just sued me for X thousand dollars, and BOY did i learn my lesson. I'm gonna march right into my prosecutor's store and BUY this time around." Not likely. They're gonna get ****ed off at companies and find different ways to purchase their downloaded music. They're alienating the very people that are their income. And isn't the reason the record sales have dropped is because people's catalog's no longer need replacing or have already been fully replaced? For example, people had vinyl collections, then the next recorded medium came out and they went to the stores to replace them with the superior media, then the next superior medium came out (let's just skip to the CD), and people again went to the record stores to buy more of that same album on CD. THEN nothing else came out to replace CD's. The record sales derived from replacement slowed down and halted. The annual sales are only dropping to where they should be, no? Roach |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
It was a kid sitting at a computer. Get real.
I just asked a simple question. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
It was a kid sitting at a computer. Get real.
I just asked a simple question. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
It was a kid sitting at a computer. Get real.
I just asked a simple question. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
news:0001HW.BCDBCEDF01189A10F070D5B0@news- should pick their battles more carefully, but I also see their point that people who steal should be punished... to a point. I agree something has to be done. But one thing the RIAA has proven without a doubt: they are HORRIBLY out of touch with both music lovers AND technology. Therefore they really serve no good purpose (IMO). The line from the article that really hit me was: "And we're trying to create a level playing field for legal online (music) services," he added (he being Stanley Pierre-Louis, senior vice president for legal affairs for the RIAA). Excuse me? Didn't they do every thing they could to throw up road blocks to what (pay for downloading) has now been proven an unqualified success? |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
news:0001HW.BCDBCEDF01189A10F070D5B0@news- should pick their battles more carefully, but I also see their point that people who steal should be punished... to a point. I agree something has to be done. But one thing the RIAA has proven without a doubt: they are HORRIBLY out of touch with both music lovers AND technology. Therefore they really serve no good purpose (IMO). The line from the article that really hit me was: "And we're trying to create a level playing field for legal online (music) services," he added (he being Stanley Pierre-Louis, senior vice president for legal affairs for the RIAA). Excuse me? Didn't they do every thing they could to throw up road blocks to what (pay for downloading) has now been proven an unqualified success? |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
news:0001HW.BCDBCEDF01189A10F070D5B0@news- should pick their battles more carefully, but I also see their point that people who steal should be punished... to a point. I agree something has to be done. But one thing the RIAA has proven without a doubt: they are HORRIBLY out of touch with both music lovers AND technology. Therefore they really serve no good purpose (IMO). The line from the article that really hit me was: "And we're trying to create a level playing field for legal online (music) services," he added (he being Stanley Pierre-Louis, senior vice president for legal affairs for the RIAA). Excuse me? Didn't they do every thing they could to throw up road blocks to what (pay for downloading) has now been proven an unqualified success? |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
And I cry no tears for the despicable Recording Industry and its money
grubbing members. They richly deserve their recent decline. I cheer ever step of the Recording Industry's continued demise. It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before digitizing it. Morons! So . . . if someone throws a brick through the window of your car or house and steals your posessions or walks up to you in the street and shoots you, then are you a moron for not protecting yourself better? It is they who fail to recognize that a parent cannot monitor, let alone control, everything their children do on a computer (how much control did your parents have over you in a much easier time?!). 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. 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. 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. It's a lot cheaper than paying for media ads that people 'convieniently' say they never saw. And just a word of freindly advice, any one who has done a lot of illegal downloading should probably not engage in any online debates about the subject because if the RIAA trys to sue them and the person tries to use the 'I didn't know' sympathy ploy, it will be quite expensive and embarassig when they do a Google search and call up proof of their awarness of the situation. Hell, I've installed software to prevent my kids from accessing certain things and they typically find a way around it within a few weeks. hhhmmm, what was that term you used to descibe someone who makes a failed attempt to prevent people from doing something undesirable? I spend way too much time controlling what my kids do on the computer already and there is just NO WAY that I can close every loop hole and maintain a day job at the same time. How much less able is a person who is not a computer expert? Sure there are ways. That kids can copy music is the FAULT OF THE RECORDING INDUSTRY. Those stupid jackasses didn't protect their product! And now they want to sue parents for their own dumb mistake? No wonder they are so univerally despised. I hope your day job doesn't involve making important or risky decisions. With logic like that . . . .whew! John L Rice |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
And I cry no tears for the despicable Recording Industry and its money
grubbing members. They richly deserve their recent decline. I cheer ever step of the Recording Industry's continued demise. It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before digitizing it. Morons! So . . . if someone throws a brick through the window of your car or house and steals your posessions or walks up to you in the street and shoots you, then are you a moron for not protecting yourself better? It is they who fail to recognize that a parent cannot monitor, let alone control, everything their children do on a computer (how much control did your parents have over you in a much easier time?!). 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. 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. 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. It's a lot cheaper than paying for media ads that people 'convieniently' say they never saw. And just a word of freindly advice, any one who has done a lot of illegal downloading should probably not engage in any online debates about the subject because if the RIAA trys to sue them and the person tries to use the 'I didn't know' sympathy ploy, it will be quite expensive and embarassig when they do a Google search and call up proof of their awarness of the situation. Hell, I've installed software to prevent my kids from accessing certain things and they typically find a way around it within a few weeks. hhhmmm, what was that term you used to descibe someone who makes a failed attempt to prevent people from doing something undesirable? I spend way too much time controlling what my kids do on the computer already and there is just NO WAY that I can close every loop hole and maintain a day job at the same time. How much less able is a person who is not a computer expert? Sure there are ways. That kids can copy music is the FAULT OF THE RECORDING INDUSTRY. Those stupid jackasses didn't protect their product! And now they want to sue parents for their own dumb mistake? No wonder they are so univerally despised. I hope your day job doesn't involve making important or risky decisions. With logic like that . . . .whew! John L Rice |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
And I cry no tears for the despicable Recording Industry and its money
grubbing members. They richly deserve their recent decline. I cheer ever step of the Recording Industry's continued demise. It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before digitizing it. Morons! So . . . if someone throws a brick through the window of your car or house and steals your posessions or walks up to you in the street and shoots you, then are you a moron for not protecting yourself better? It is they who fail to recognize that a parent cannot monitor, let alone control, everything their children do on a computer (how much control did your parents have over you in a much easier time?!). 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. 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. 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. It's a lot cheaper than paying for media ads that people 'convieniently' say they never saw. And just a word of freindly advice, any one who has done a lot of illegal downloading should probably not engage in any online debates about the subject because if the RIAA trys to sue them and the person tries to use the 'I didn't know' sympathy ploy, it will be quite expensive and embarassig when they do a Google search and call up proof of their awarness of the situation. Hell, I've installed software to prevent my kids from accessing certain things and they typically find a way around it within a few weeks. hhhmmm, what was that term you used to descibe someone who makes a failed attempt to prevent people from doing something undesirable? I spend way too much time controlling what my kids do on the computer already and there is just NO WAY that I can close every loop hole and maintain a day job at the same time. How much less able is a person who is not a computer expert? Sure there are ways. That kids can copy music is the FAULT OF THE RECORDING INDUSTRY. Those stupid jackasses didn't protect their product! And now they want to sue parents for their own dumb mistake? No wonder they are so univerally despised. I hope your day job doesn't involve making important or risky decisions. With logic like that . . . .whew! John L Rice |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd like to see these cases go to a jury trial and inform the jury of
their right of JURY NULLIFICATION. Mark |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd like to see these cases go to a jury trial and inform the jury of
their right of JURY NULLIFICATION. Mark |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd like to see these cases go to a jury trial and inform the jury of
their right of JURY NULLIFICATION. Mark |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ricky W. Hunt" writes:
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message news:0001HW.BCDBCEDF01189A10F070D5B0@news- should pick their battles more carefully, but I also see their point that people who steal should be punished... to a point. I agree something has to be done. But one thing the RIAA has proven without a doubt: they are HORRIBLY out of touch with both music lovers AND technology. Therefore they really serve no good purpose (IMO). The line from the article that really hit me was: "And we're trying to create a level playing field for legal online (music) services," he added (he being Stanley Pierre-Louis, senior vice president for legal affairs for the RIAA). Excuse me? Didn't they do every thing they could to throw up road blocks to what (pay for downloading) has now been proven an unqualified success? Why is the RIAA allowed to sue? Consider someone shoplifting from a regular store. Can the store sue for $30,000 because someone stole a (physical) CD? Can Microsoft sue if someone copies Windows? I can see a person being charged, but shouldn't the police do that? Richard |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ricky W. Hunt" writes:
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message news:0001HW.BCDBCEDF01189A10F070D5B0@news- should pick their battles more carefully, but I also see their point that people who steal should be punished... to a point. I agree something has to be done. But one thing the RIAA has proven without a doubt: they are HORRIBLY out of touch with both music lovers AND technology. Therefore they really serve no good purpose (IMO). The line from the article that really hit me was: "And we're trying to create a level playing field for legal online (music) services," he added (he being Stanley Pierre-Louis, senior vice president for legal affairs for the RIAA). Excuse me? Didn't they do every thing they could to throw up road blocks to what (pay for downloading) has now been proven an unqualified success? Why is the RIAA allowed to sue? Consider someone shoplifting from a regular store. Can the store sue for $30,000 because someone stole a (physical) CD? Can Microsoft sue if someone copies Windows? I can see a person being charged, but shouldn't the police do that? Richard |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ricky W. Hunt" writes:
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message news:0001HW.BCDBCEDF01189A10F070D5B0@news- should pick their battles more carefully, but I also see their point that people who steal should be punished... to a point. I agree something has to be done. But one thing the RIAA has proven without a doubt: they are HORRIBLY out of touch with both music lovers AND technology. Therefore they really serve no good purpose (IMO). The line from the article that really hit me was: "And we're trying to create a level playing field for legal online (music) services," he added (he being Stanley Pierre-Louis, senior vice president for legal affairs for the RIAA). Excuse me? Didn't they do every thing they could to throw up road blocks to what (pay for downloading) has now been proven an unqualified success? Why is the RIAA allowed to sue? Consider someone shoplifting from a regular store. Can the store sue for $30,000 because someone stole a (physical) CD? Can Microsoft sue if someone copies Windows? I can see a person being charged, but shouldn't the police do that? Richard |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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? |
| 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 | |||
Linear Mode
