"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?

"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?

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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!!!

"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!!!

"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!!!

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

"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

"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

"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?

"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?

"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?

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 *
*******************************************

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 *
*******************************************