God Bless The RIAA

[reddred]

"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

[reddred]

"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

[reddred]

"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

[reddred]

> wrote in message ...
> "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
>

Shoplifting is a criminal offense that can be processed through the regular
justice system. Cops, robbers, judges and juries, etc.,

The only recourse for copyright violation is through civil litigation.
That's because it's a different kind of thing. A fine distinction, but a
distinction in US law nonetheless.

jb

[reddred]

> wrote in message ...
> "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
>

Shoplifting is a criminal offense that can be processed through the regular
justice system. Cops, robbers, judges and juries, etc.,

The only recourse for copyright violation is through civil litigation.
That's because it's a different kind of thing. A fine distinction, but a
distinction in US law nonetheless.

jb

[reddred]

> wrote in message ...
> "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
>

Shoplifting is a criminal offense that can be processed through the regular
justice system. Cops, robbers, judges and juries, etc.,

The only recourse for copyright violation is through civil litigation.
That's because it's a different kind of thing. A fine distinction, but a
distinction in US law nonetheless.

jb

[raptor]

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."

[George]

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

[George]

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

[George]

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

[Troy]

........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

[Troy]

........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

[Troy]

........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

[Doc]

"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

If they're to be believed, they weren't stealing. Their kid was downloading
in ignorance. The mother's probably some ignorant hick who doesn't know what
Kazaa or an mp3 is. Not everybody is wrapped up in the tech world. To a lot
of people, 4 grand isn't a "way out", it's a way to foreclosure.

This is complete bull****. I keep hoping the RIAA ****es off some
billionaire or some lawyer who doesn't need to spend a boatload on lawyer
fees and can afford to actually test these lawsuits in court and see if it
stands up. 150K for a single download? Even 4k is absurd. They can't
possibly prove damages of that magnitude from one person.

I've said all along the "industry losses" from file sharing are a complete
myth, especially compared to whatever they've surely spent on legal fees
alone.

[Doc]

"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

If they're to be believed, they weren't stealing. Their kid was downloading
in ignorance. The mother's probably some ignorant hick who doesn't know what
Kazaa or an mp3 is. Not everybody is wrapped up in the tech world. To a lot
of people, 4 grand isn't a "way out", it's a way to foreclosure.

This is complete bull****. I keep hoping the RIAA ****es off some
billionaire or some lawyer who doesn't need to spend a boatload on lawyer
fees and can afford to actually test these lawsuits in court and see if it
stands up. 150K for a single download? Even 4k is absurd. They can't
possibly prove damages of that magnitude from one person.

I've said all along the "industry losses" from file sharing are a complete
myth, especially compared to whatever they've surely spent on legal fees
alone.

[Doc]

"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

If they're to be believed, they weren't stealing. Their kid was downloading
in ignorance. The mother's probably some ignorant hick who doesn't know what
Kazaa or an mp3 is. Not everybody is wrapped up in the tech world. To a lot
of people, 4 grand isn't a "way out", it's a way to foreclosure.

This is complete bull****. I keep hoping the RIAA ****es off some
billionaire or some lawyer who doesn't need to spend a boatload on lawyer
fees and can afford to actually test these lawsuits in court and see if it
stands up. 150K for a single download? Even 4k is absurd. They can't
possibly prove damages of that magnitude from one person.

I've said all along the "industry losses" from file sharing are a complete
myth, especially compared to whatever they've surely spent on legal fees
alone.

[Bob Olhsson]

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.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[Bob Olhsson]

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.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[Bob Olhsson]

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.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[hank alrich]

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?

--
ha

[hank alrich]

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?

--
ha

[hank alrich]

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?

--
ha

[NJD]

In article >,
says...
> 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.

Oh yeah, she's real lucky.

You must not have teenage children.

--Nick

[NJD]

In article >,
says...
> 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.

Oh yeah, she's real lucky.

You must not have teenage children.

--Nick

[NJD]

In article >,
says...
> 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.

Oh yeah, she's real lucky.

You must not have teenage children.

--Nick

[George]

In article >,
(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?
>
> --
> ha

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"
No sympathy here, sorry.
George

[George]

In article >,
(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?
>
> --
> ha

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"
No sympathy here, sorry.
George

[George]

In article >,
(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?
>
> --
> ha

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"
No sympathy here, sorry.
George

[EggHd]

<< Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>

Do you apply this to all law breakers?





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>

Do you apply this to all law breakers?





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>

Do you apply this to all law breakers?





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[NJD]

In article >,
says...
> 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"
> No sympathy here, sorry.

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!

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?!).

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!

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. 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?

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.

Someone needs to file a class action suit against the RIAA and its
members for these unethical lawsuits against entirely innocent parents.
The sooner they are all put out of business, the better off we all will
be.

--Nick

[NJD]

In article >,
says...
> 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"
> No sympathy here, sorry.

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!

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?!).

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!

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. 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?

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.

Someone needs to file a class action suit against the RIAA and its
members for these unethical lawsuits against entirely innocent parents.
The sooner they are all put out of business, the better off we all will
be.

--Nick

[NJD]

In article >,
says...
> 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"
> No sympathy here, sorry.

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!

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?!).

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!

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. 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?

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.

Someone needs to file a class action suit against the RIAA and its
members for these unethical lawsuits against entirely innocent parents.
The sooner they are all put out of business, the better off we all will
be.

--Nick

[NJD]

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.

[NJD]

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.

[NJD]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

NJD > wrote:
>
>It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before
>digitizing it. Morons!

And how do you propose this be done?

If you can find a copy protection system that works, you can be a millionaire
easily.

>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.

Again, how do you propose it be done? If you can find a method by which
material can be listened without copying, I'm all ears. Believe me, so
is the recording industry. Remember the notch filter schemes? Remember
SCMS? I assure you that the recording industry was not trying their best.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

NJD > wrote:
>
>It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before
>digitizing it. Morons!

And how do you propose this be done?

If you can find a copy protection system that works, you can be a millionaire
easily.

>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.

Again, how do you propose it be done? If you can find a method by which
material can be listened without copying, I'm all ears. Believe me, so
is the recording industry. Remember the notch filter schemes? Remember
SCMS? I assure you that the recording industry was not trying their best.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

NJD > wrote:
>
>It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before
>digitizing it. Morons!

And how do you propose this be done?

If you can find a copy protection system that works, you can be a millionaire
easily.

>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.

Again, how do you propose it be done? If you can find a method by which
material can be listened without copying, I'm all ears. Believe me, so
is the recording industry. Remember the notch filter schemes? Remember
SCMS? I assure you that the recording industry was not trying their best.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[NJD]

In article >, says...
> NJD > wrote:
> >
> >It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before
> >digitizing it. Morons!
>
> And how do you propose this be done?
>
> If you can find a copy protection system that works, you can be a millionaire
> easily.
>
> >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.
>
> Again, how do you propose it be done? If you can find a method by which
> material can be listened without copying, I'm all ears. Believe me, so
> is the recording industry. Remember the notch filter schemes? Remember
> SCMS? I assure you that the recording industry was not trying their best.
> --scott
>

[NJD]

In article >, says...
> NJD > wrote:
> >
> >It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before
> >digitizing it. Morons!
>
> And how do you propose this be done?
>
> If you can find a copy protection system that works, you can be a millionaire
> easily.
>
> >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.
>
> Again, how do you propose it be done? If you can find a method by which
> material can be listened without copying, I'm all ears. Believe me, so
> is the recording industry. Remember the notch filter schemes? Remember
> SCMS? I assure you that the recording industry was not trying their best.
> --scott
>

[NJD]

In article >, says...
> NJD > wrote:
> >
> >It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before
> >digitizing it. Morons!
>
> And how do you propose this be done?
>
> If you can find a copy protection system that works, you can be a millionaire
> easily.
>
> >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.
>
> Again, how do you propose it be done? If you can find a method by which
> material can be listened without copying, I'm all ears. Believe me, so
> is the recording industry. Remember the notch filter schemes? Remember
> SCMS? I assure you that the recording industry was not trying their best.
> --scott
>

[NJD]

In article >, says...
> NJD > wrote:
> >
> >It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before
> >digitizing it. Morons!
>
> And how do you propose this be done?

You need to change your business model. Search Google for old
discussions where I've tried to be helpful.

> If you can find a copy protection system that works, you can be a millionaire
> easily.
> >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.
>
> Again, how do you propose it be done? If you can find a method by which
> material can be listened without copying, I'm all ears. Believe me, so
> is the recording industry. Remember the notch filter schemes? Remember
> SCMS? I assure you that the recording industry was not trying their best.

That's your problem.

Going after innocent parents is unethical and everyone with a semblance
of a brain knows it. With these tactics, the industry has asked the
entire world to hate them and have been marvelously successful in that
effort.

I myself have switched sides in this argument VERY recently. These
lawsuits are truly despicable.

You, as an industry, fail because you are incompetent in the face of
technological change. So you hire your blood-sucking lawyers to go
after the average joe and thus cry out to all: "we deserve to fail
because we are assholes."

--Nick

[NJD]

In article >, says...
> NJD > wrote:
> >
> >It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before
> >digitizing it. Morons!
>
> And how do you propose this be done?

You need to change your business model. Search Google for old
discussions where I've tried to be helpful.

> If you can find a copy protection system that works, you can be a millionaire
> easily.
> >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.
>
> Again, how do you propose it be done? If you can find a method by which
> material can be listened without copying, I'm all ears. Believe me, so
> is the recording industry. Remember the notch filter schemes? Remember
> SCMS? I assure you that the recording industry was not trying their best.

That's your problem.

Going after innocent parents is unethical and everyone with a semblance
of a brain knows it. With these tactics, the industry has asked the
entire world to hate them and have been marvelously successful in that
effort.

I myself have switched sides in this argument VERY recently. These
lawsuits are truly despicable.

You, as an industry, fail because you are incompetent in the face of
technological change. So you hire your blood-sucking lawyers to go
after the average joe and thus cry out to all: "we deserve to fail
because we are assholes."

--Nick

[NJD]

In article >, says...
> NJD > wrote:
> >
> >It is they who failed to adequately copy protect their property before
> >digitizing it. Morons!
>
> And how do you propose this be done?

You need to change your business model. Search Google for old
discussions where I've tried to be helpful.

> If you can find a copy protection system that works, you can be a millionaire
> easily.
> >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.
>
> Again, how do you propose it be done? If you can find a method by which
> material can be listened without copying, I'm all ears. Believe me, so
> is the recording industry. Remember the notch filter schemes? Remember
> SCMS? I assure you that the recording industry was not trying their best.

That's your problem.

Going after innocent parents is unethical and everyone with a semblance
of a brain knows it. With these tactics, the industry has asked the
entire world to hate them and have been marvelously successful in that
effort.

I myself have switched sides in this argument VERY recently. These
lawsuits are truly despicable.

You, as an industry, fail because you are incompetent in the face of
technological change. So you hire your blood-sucking lawyers to go
after the average joe and thus cry out to all: "we deserve to fail
because we are assholes."

--Nick

[George Gleason]

"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

[George Gleason]

"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

[George Gleason]

"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

[Marc Wielage]

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

[Marc Wielage]

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

[Marc Wielage]

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

[Nahtan Tsew]

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?'

[Nahtan Tsew]

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?'

[Nahtan Tsew]

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?'

[Steven Sena]

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."

[Steven Sena]

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."

[Steven Sena]

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."

[Roach]

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
>
>

[Roach]

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
>
>

[Roach]

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
>
>

[Roach]

"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

[Roach]

"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

[Roach]

"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

[EggHd]

<< 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"

[EggHd]

<< 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"

[EggHd]

<< 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"

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"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?

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"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?

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"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?

[John L Rice]

> 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

[John L Rice]

> 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

[John L Rice]

> 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

[Mark]

I'd like to see these cases go to a jury trial and inform the jury of
their right of JURY NULLIFICATION.

Mark

[Mark]

I'd like to see these cases go to a jury trial and inform the jury of
their right of JURY NULLIFICATION.

Mark

[Mark]

I'd like to see these cases go to a jury trial and inform the jury of
their right of JURY NULLIFICATION.

Mark

[[email protected]]

"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

[[email protected]]

"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

[[email protected]]

"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

[Doc]

"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?

[Doc]

"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?

[Doc]

"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?

[Doc]

"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.

[Doc]

"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.

[Doc]

"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.

[Doc]

"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.

[Doc]

"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.

[Doc]

"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.

[Doc]

"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.

[Doc]

"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.

[Doc]

"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.

[transducr]

"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!!!

[transducr]

"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!!!

[transducr]

"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!!!

[DrBoom]

"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.

[DrBoom]

"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.

[DrBoom]

"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.

[Remixer]

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.

[Remixer]

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.

[Remixer]

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.

[Paul Stamler]

"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

[Paul Stamler]

"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

[Paul Stamler]

"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

[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

[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

[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

[Bob Cain]

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

[Bob Cain]

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

[Bob Cain]

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

[Bob Cain]

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

[Bob Cain]

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

[Bob Cain]

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

[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

[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

[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

[unitron]

"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?

[unitron]

"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?

[unitron]

"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?

[Peter Larsen]

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

[Peter Larsen]

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

[Peter Larsen]

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

[Doc]

"John L Rice" > wrote in message
...

> > 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!

Besides that you're making unsubstantiated assertions about each and every
instance, you speak as if this issue is clear cut and undebateable and the
penalties imposed utterly and unquestionably justifiable. Just because a law
or penalty exists or doesn't exist doesn't mean it's correct. The legal
system in the U.S. is highly flawed from every angle. On the one hand repeat
violent offenders are allowed out over and over yet on the other people are
hit with draconian penalties compared to their offense. One of the biggest
flaws with the system is that those with deep pockets can exploit it against
those who don't have the resources. So what are you going to say if someone
with sufficient resources does force this to court and the RIAA gets their
asses spanked all the way to the Supreme Court, even ends up having to pay
back some portion of the money they've extorted with interest? I'm betting
that they're picking and choosing who they go after to ensure this doesn't
happen. If they found out it was Bill Gates' kid, and knew that he was
strongly opposed to their position, think they'd pursue it?

Apparently since the Canadians aren't penalized similarly, it must be 100%
okee dokey past a certain latitude, aye?

I sincerely hope it happens to you some day chuckles.

> 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 . . . .>

Don't bother, you'll just hurt yourself. You'd clearly have to come up way
too far. Be content playing with your diaper trophies.

[Doc]

"John L Rice" > wrote in message
...

> > 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!

Besides that you're making unsubstantiated assertions about each and every
instance, you speak as if this issue is clear cut and undebateable and the
penalties imposed utterly and unquestionably justifiable. Just because a law
or penalty exists or doesn't exist doesn't mean it's correct. The legal
system in the U.S. is highly flawed from every angle. On the one hand repeat
violent offenders are allowed out over and over yet on the other people are
hit with draconian penalties compared to their offense. One of the biggest
flaws with the system is that those with deep pockets can exploit it against
those who don't have the resources. So what are you going to say if someone
with sufficient resources does force this to court and the RIAA gets their
asses spanked all the way to the Supreme Court, even ends up having to pay
back some portion of the money they've extorted with interest? I'm betting
that they're picking and choosing who they go after to ensure this doesn't
happen. If they found out it was Bill Gates' kid, and knew that he was
strongly opposed to their position, think they'd pursue it?

Apparently since the Canadians aren't penalized similarly, it must be 100%
okee dokey past a certain latitude, aye?

I sincerely hope it happens to you some day chuckles.

> 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 . . . .>

Don't bother, you'll just hurt yourself. You'd clearly have to come up way
too far. Be content playing with your diaper trophies.

[Doc]

"John L Rice" > wrote in message
...

> > 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!

Besides that you're making unsubstantiated assertions about each and every
instance, you speak as if this issue is clear cut and undebateable and the
penalties imposed utterly and unquestionably justifiable. Just because a law
or penalty exists or doesn't exist doesn't mean it's correct. The legal
system in the U.S. is highly flawed from every angle. On the one hand repeat
violent offenders are allowed out over and over yet on the other people are
hit with draconian penalties compared to their offense. One of the biggest
flaws with the system is that those with deep pockets can exploit it against
those who don't have the resources. So what are you going to say if someone
with sufficient resources does force this to court and the RIAA gets their
asses spanked all the way to the Supreme Court, even ends up having to pay
back some portion of the money they've extorted with interest? I'm betting
that they're picking and choosing who they go after to ensure this doesn't
happen. If they found out it was Bill Gates' kid, and knew that he was
strongly opposed to their position, think they'd pursue it?

Apparently since the Canadians aren't penalized similarly, it must be 100%
okee dokey past a certain latitude, aye?

I sincerely hope it happens to you some day chuckles.

> 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 . . . .>

Don't bother, you'll just hurt yourself. You'd clearly have to come up way
too far. Be content playing with your diaper trophies.

[Peter Larsen]

Remixer wrote:

> 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

And making such a law apply globally is real simple too. There is a
planet out there, start thinking about how to make people all over the
planet want to pay something for their music.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

Remixer wrote:

> 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

And making such a law apply globally is real simple too. There is a
planet out there, start thinking about how to make people all over the
planet want to pay something for their music.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

Remixer wrote:

> 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

And making such a law apply globally is real simple too. There is a
planet out there, start thinking about how to make people all over the
planet want to pay something for their music.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

reddred wrote:

> 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,

No. Expect it to be the permanents state of things.

This is about making people want to pay for the benefit of those that
made and recorded the music and as a fair pay to those that distributed
it. It needs to be understood that the way the industry works is perhaps
not all that unfair, and that at least some of the money made by "big
names" goes into giving small names a chance.

> jb


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

reddred wrote:

> 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,

No. Expect it to be the permanents state of things.

This is about making people want to pay for the benefit of those that
made and recorded the music and as a fair pay to those that distributed
it. It needs to be understood that the way the industry works is perhaps
not all that unfair, and that at least some of the money made by "big
names" goes into giving small names a chance.

> jb


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

reddred wrote:

> 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,

No. Expect it to be the permanents state of things.

This is about making people want to pay for the benefit of those that
made and recorded the music and as a fair pay to those that distributed
it. It needs to be understood that the way the industry works is perhaps
not all that unfair, and that at least some of the money made by "big
names" goes into giving small names a chance.

> jb


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

John L Rice wrote:

> 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.

You seem to assume that you can force computer literacy. If you wanna
"law" this, then "law" the "minor control software" into the OS. And you
will still end up attempting to force computer literacy or having it end
up being so difficult to disable the "minor control software" that only
a child can do it.

It may be better to "law" something about what the school should educate
children in, i. e. make them understand _why_ paying for music is a
necessity, not an option.

> John L Rice
>


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

John L Rice wrote:

> 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.

You seem to assume that you can force computer literacy. If you wanna
"law" this, then "law" the "minor control software" into the OS. And you
will still end up attempting to force computer literacy or having it end
up being so difficult to disable the "minor control software" that only
a child can do it.

It may be better to "law" something about what the school should educate
children in, i. e. make them understand _why_ paying for music is a
necessity, not an option.

> John L Rice
>


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

John L Rice wrote:

> 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.

You seem to assume that you can force computer literacy. If you wanna
"law" this, then "law" the "minor control software" into the OS. And you
will still end up attempting to force computer literacy or having it end
up being so difficult to disable the "minor control software" that only
a child can do it.

It may be better to "law" something about what the school should educate
children in, i. e. make them understand _why_ paying for music is a
necessity, not an option.

> John L Rice
>


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

Marc Wielage wrote:

> 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.

And most of that probably only ever took up disk space and bandwidth and
never got played.

> 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.

With their current approach they can win every battle, somehow, and thus
loose the war.

> --MFW


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

Marc Wielage wrote:

> 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.

And most of that probably only ever took up disk space and bandwidth and
never got played.

> 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.

With their current approach they can win every battle, somehow, and thus
loose the war.

> --MFW


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

Marc Wielage wrote:

> 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.

And most of that probably only ever took up disk space and bandwidth and
never got played.

> 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.

With their current approach they can win every battle, somehow, and thus
loose the war.

> --MFW


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> 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?

Those are one-of-a-kind violations for most people. If someone shot me
on the street (and I survived) I doubt that I'd start carrying a gun
or never going out without a bulletproof vest. If someone threw a
brick through my living room window, I doubt that I'd board up the
windows of my house.

On the other hand, if I was a mob boss, or a drug dealer invading
someone else's territory and one of those things occurred, I'd take
measures to prevent them from happening again. Some people put the
RIAA in the same category as "mob boss."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> 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?

Those are one-of-a-kind violations for most people. If someone shot me
on the street (and I survived) I doubt that I'd start carrying a gun
or never going out without a bulletproof vest. If someone threw a
brick through my living room window, I doubt that I'd board up the
windows of my house.

On the other hand, if I was a mob boss, or a drug dealer invading
someone else's territory and one of those things occurred, I'd take
measures to prevent them from happening again. Some people put the
RIAA in the same category as "mob boss."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> 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?

Those are one-of-a-kind violations for most people. If someone shot me
on the street (and I survived) I doubt that I'd start carrying a gun
or never going out without a bulletproof vest. If someone threw a
brick through my living room window, I doubt that I'd board up the
windows of my house.

On the other hand, if I was a mob boss, or a drug dealer invading
someone else's territory and one of those things occurred, I'd take
measures to prevent them from happening again. Some people put the
RIAA in the same category as "mob boss."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

"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.

I'm not intentionally playing innocent here, but it's quite possible
that some people who download music files are not aware that the
software that they're using makes the files that they've downloaded
available to others on the Internet. I've never set up a P2P program,
but from what I read, I believe the default setup (which most people
probably use) sets up a directory for downloading that's accessable to
others on the P2P network.

Of course ignorance is no excuse (honest, I didn't know that the rare
hamburgers I cooked at my restaurant had live bacteria in them and
killed those people) but we're talking about people using technology
that isn't well documented for the masses. Who's to blame for not
telling the users that they may be breaking more laws than they
realize by installing the software?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

"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.

I'm not intentionally playing innocent here, but it's quite possible
that some people who download music files are not aware that the
software that they're using makes the files that they've downloaded
available to others on the Internet. I've never set up a P2P program,
but from what I read, I believe the default setup (which most people
probably use) sets up a directory for downloading that's accessable to
others on the P2P network.

Of course ignorance is no excuse (honest, I didn't know that the rare
hamburgers I cooked at my restaurant had live bacteria in them and
killed those people) but we're talking about people using technology
that isn't well documented for the masses. Who's to blame for not
telling the users that they may be breaking more laws than they
realize by installing the software?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

"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.

I'm not intentionally playing innocent here, but it's quite possible
that some people who download music files are not aware that the
software that they're using makes the files that they've downloaded
available to others on the Internet. I've never set up a P2P program,
but from what I read, I believe the default setup (which most people
probably use) sets up a directory for downloading that's accessable to
others on the P2P network.

Of course ignorance is no excuse (honest, I didn't know that the rare
hamburgers I cooked at my restaurant had live bacteria in them and
killed those people) but we're talking about people using technology
that isn't well documented for the masses. Who's to blame for not
telling the users that they may be breaking more laws than they
realize by installing the software?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[George]

In article
le.rogers.com>,
"Roach" > wrote:

> "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.
>
>
Odd slant on the facts you have
they are NOT alienating thier income, they are stopping a theif.
There is no income involved when somwonw is stealing from you
your logic seems to indicate bank robbers should not be arrested beacuse
some day they may want a car loan.
George

[George]

In article
le.rogers.com>,
"Roach" > wrote:

> "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.
>
>
Odd slant on the facts you have
they are NOT alienating thier income, they are stopping a theif.
There is no income involved when somwonw is stealing from you
your logic seems to indicate bank robbers should not be arrested beacuse
some day they may want a car loan.
George

[George]

In article
le.rogers.com>,
"Roach" > wrote:

> "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.
>
>
Odd slant on the facts you have
they are NOT alienating thier income, they are stopping a theif.
There is no income involved when somwonw is stealing from you
your logic seems to indicate bank robbers should not be arrested beacuse
some day they may want a car loan.
George

[George]

In article et>,
"Doc" > wrote:

> "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?
>
>
>

These are not first time offenders or even the occasional downloader
these are the distribuors of tens of thousands of stolen files, who have
proven no regard for copyright law
it is not jaywalking, it is more like having keys to every car and just
stealing them when ever it suits you then giving the keys to all your
friends and even anyone who knows your address so they can steal cars as
well
George

[George]

In article et>,
"Doc" > wrote:

> "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?
>
>
>

These are not first time offenders or even the occasional downloader
these are the distribuors of tens of thousands of stolen files, who have
proven no regard for copyright law
it is not jaywalking, it is more like having keys to every car and just
stealing them when ever it suits you then giving the keys to all your
friends and even anyone who knows your address so they can steal cars as
well
George

[George]

In article et>,
"Doc" > wrote:

> "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?
>
>
>

These are not first time offenders or even the occasional downloader
these are the distribuors of tens of thousands of stolen files, who have
proven no regard for copyright law
it is not jaywalking, it is more like having keys to every car and just
stealing them when ever it suits you then giving the keys to all your
friends and even anyone who knows your address so they can steal cars as
well
George

[George]

In article >,
"reddred" > wrote:

> "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
>
>

and if you show a complete disregard for the law , then there are
penalties, thems the breaks.
George

[George]

In article >,
"reddred" > wrote:

> "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
>
>

and if you show a complete disregard for the law , then there are
penalties, thems the breaks.
George

[George]

In article >,
"reddred" > wrote:

> "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
>
>

and if you show a complete disregard for the law , then there are
penalties, thems the breaks.
George

[hank alrich]

NJD wrote:

> 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.

I've been able to teach my kids what is considered acceptable and what
is not acceptable, and therefrom they have had all the "software"
they've needed to behave responsibly. That works because they don't go
around behind me trying to uninstall what they have learned. They rely
on it as part of their approach to life.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

NJD wrote:

> 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.

I've been able to teach my kids what is considered acceptable and what
is not acceptable, and therefrom they have had all the "software"
they've needed to behave responsibly. That works because they don't go
around behind me trying to uninstall what they have learned. They rely
on it as part of their approach to life.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

NJD wrote:

> 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.

I've been able to teach my kids what is considered acceptable and what
is not acceptable, and therefrom they have had all the "software"
they've needed to behave responsibly. That works because they don't go
around behind me trying to uninstall what they have learned. They rely
on it as part of their approach to life.

--
ha

[Tommy B]

No , but her 15 year old daughter can be made to work it off, in someway.
What about as an intern in for record label? She can learn and pay off her
debt. I bet she'll do real well there.
First lesson: How we steal from the Artists.

Tom





"hank alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
> 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?
>
> --
> ha

[Tommy B]

No , but her 15 year old daughter can be made to work it off, in someway.
What about as an intern in for record label? She can learn and pay off her
debt. I bet she'll do real well there.
First lesson: How we steal from the Artists.

Tom





"hank alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
> 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?
>
> --
> ha

[Tommy B]

No , but her 15 year old daughter can be made to work it off, in someway.
What about as an intern in for record label? She can learn and pay off her
debt. I bet she'll do real well there.
First lesson: How we steal from the Artists.

Tom





"hank alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
> 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?
>
> --
> ha

[Mike]

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

Racketeering, anit-competition/anti-trust behavior, extortion and all
the other things that are the primary practice of the RIAA are illegal
and some carry a sentence of life in prison.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Mike]

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

Racketeering, anit-competition/anti-trust behavior, extortion and all
the other things that are the primary practice of the RIAA are illegal
and some carry a sentence of life in prison.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Mike]

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

Racketeering, anit-competition/anti-trust behavior, extortion and all
the other things that are the primary practice of the RIAA are illegal
and some carry a sentence of life in prison.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[reddred]

"John L Rice" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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

CD's should be phased out.


> 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.
>

I didn't say it would stop, I'm only talking about increasing profit and
rebuilding a stable business.

jb

[reddred]

"John L Rice" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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

CD's should be phased out.


> 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.
>

I didn't say it would stop, I'm only talking about increasing profit and
rebuilding a stable business.

jb

[reddred]

"John L Rice" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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

CD's should be phased out.


> 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.
>

I didn't say it would stop, I'm only talking about increasing profit and
rebuilding a stable business.

jb

[Tommy B]

Maybe this is braggadocio, but I've been ripped off in so many countries,
Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Norway, Mexico, This was in 79-80. I was
stupid, but I sure learned what folks ment when they said, "The record biz,
is the asshole of the entertainment indusry"

Tom




"unitron" > wrote in message
om...
> "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?

[Tommy B]

Maybe this is braggadocio, but I've been ripped off in so many countries,
Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Norway, Mexico, This was in 79-80. I was
stupid, but I sure learned what folks ment when they said, "The record biz,
is the asshole of the entertainment indusry"

Tom




"unitron" > wrote in message
om...
> "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?

[Tommy B]

Maybe this is braggadocio, but I've been ripped off in so many countries,
Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Norway, Mexico, This was in 79-80. I was
stupid, but I sure learned what folks ment when they said, "The record biz,
is the asshole of the entertainment indusry"

Tom




"unitron" > wrote in message
om...
> "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?

[reddred]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> reddred wrote:
>
> > 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,
>
> No. Expect it to be the permanents state of things.
>

Free downloads won't go away, any more than did home taping... wait a sec...
not too many people do home taping nowadays. Where did it go? On the
technological trash heap.

> This is about making people want to pay for the benefit of those that
> made and recorded the music and as a fair pay to those that distributed
> it.

I agree that is part of it.

>It needs to be understood that the way the industry works is perhaps
> not all that unfair, and that at least some of the money made by "big
> names" goes into giving small names a chance.
>

You mean the way the industry *worked*.

jb

[reddred]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> reddred wrote:
>
> > 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,
>
> No. Expect it to be the permanents state of things.
>

Free downloads won't go away, any more than did home taping... wait a sec...
not too many people do home taping nowadays. Where did it go? On the
technological trash heap.

> This is about making people want to pay for the benefit of those that
> made and recorded the music and as a fair pay to those that distributed
> it.

I agree that is part of it.

>It needs to be understood that the way the industry works is perhaps
> not all that unfair, and that at least some of the money made by "big
> names" goes into giving small names a chance.
>

You mean the way the industry *worked*.

jb

[reddred]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> reddred wrote:
>
> > 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,
>
> No. Expect it to be the permanents state of things.
>

Free downloads won't go away, any more than did home taping... wait a sec...
not too many people do home taping nowadays. Where did it go? On the
technological trash heap.

> This is about making people want to pay for the benefit of those that
> made and recorded the music and as a fair pay to those that distributed
> it.

I agree that is part of it.

>It needs to be understood that the way the industry works is perhaps
> not all that unfair, and that at least some of the money made by "big
> names" goes into giving small names a chance.
>

You mean the way the industry *worked*.

jb

[Troy]

"Apparently since the Canadians aren't penalized similarly, it must be 100%
okee dokey past a certain latitude, aye?"

We Canadians ARE "penalized" ......we pay a very high levy on ALL
media......In Canada it aint stealing if ya already charged me for it.We get
charged for it even if we are not doing it and it SUCKS.......21 per CD
alone on top of the price and taxes.




Doc > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "John L Rice" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > 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!
>
> Besides that you're making unsubstantiated assertions about each and every
> instance, you speak as if this issue is clear cut and undebateable and the
> penalties imposed utterly and unquestionably justifiable. Just because a
law
> or penalty exists or doesn't exist doesn't mean it's correct. The legal
> system in the U.S. is highly flawed from every angle. On the one hand
repeat
> violent offenders are allowed out over and over yet on the other people
are
> hit with draconian penalties compared to their offense. One of the biggest
> flaws with the system is that those with deep pockets can exploit it
against
> those who don't have the resources. So what are you going to say if
someone
> with sufficient resources does force this to court and the RIAA gets their
> asses spanked all the way to the Supreme Court, even ends up having to pay
> back some portion of the money they've extorted with interest? I'm betting
> that they're picking and choosing who they go after to ensure this doesn't
> happen. If they found out it was Bill Gates' kid, and knew that he was
> strongly opposed to their position, think they'd pursue it?
>
> Apparently since the Canadians aren't penalized similarly, it must be 100%
> okee dokey past a certain latitude, aye?
>
> I sincerely hope it happens to you some day chuckles.
>
> > 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 . . . .>
>
> Don't bother, you'll just hurt yourself. You'd clearly have to come up way
> too far. Be content playing with your diaper trophies.
>
>

[Troy]

"Apparently since the Canadians aren't penalized similarly, it must be 100%
okee dokey past a certain latitude, aye?"

We Canadians ARE "penalized" ......we pay a very high levy on ALL
media......In Canada it aint stealing if ya already charged me for it.We get
charged for it even if we are not doing it and it SUCKS.......21 per CD
alone on top of the price and taxes.




Doc > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "John L Rice" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > 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!
>
> Besides that you're making unsubstantiated assertions about each and every
> instance, you speak as if this issue is clear cut and undebateable and the
> penalties imposed utterly and unquestionably justifiable. Just because a
law
> or penalty exists or doesn't exist doesn't mean it's correct. The legal
> system in the U.S. is highly flawed from every angle. On the one hand
repeat
> violent offenders are allowed out over and over yet on the other people
are
> hit with draconian penalties compared to their offense. One of the biggest
> flaws with the system is that those with deep pockets can exploit it
against
> those who don't have the resources. So what are you going to say if
someone
> with sufficient resources does force this to court and the RIAA gets their
> asses spanked all the way to the Supreme Court, even ends up having to pay
> back some portion of the money they've extorted with interest? I'm betting
> that they're picking and choosing who they go after to ensure this doesn't
> happen. If they found out it was Bill Gates' kid, and knew that he was
> strongly opposed to their position, think they'd pursue it?
>
> Apparently since the Canadians aren't penalized similarly, it must be 100%
> okee dokey past a certain latitude, aye?
>
> I sincerely hope it happens to you some day chuckles.
>
> > 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 . . . .>
>
> Don't bother, you'll just hurt yourself. You'd clearly have to come up way
> too far. Be content playing with your diaper trophies.
>
>

[Troy]

"Apparently since the Canadians aren't penalized similarly, it must be 100%
okee dokey past a certain latitude, aye?"

We Canadians ARE "penalized" ......we pay a very high levy on ALL
media......In Canada it aint stealing if ya already charged me for it.We get
charged for it even if we are not doing it and it SUCKS.......21 per CD
alone on top of the price and taxes.




Doc > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "John L Rice" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > 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!
>
> Besides that you're making unsubstantiated assertions about each and every
> instance, you speak as if this issue is clear cut and undebateable and the
> penalties imposed utterly and unquestionably justifiable. Just because a
law
> or penalty exists or doesn't exist doesn't mean it's correct. The legal
> system in the U.S. is highly flawed from every angle. On the one hand
repeat
> violent offenders are allowed out over and over yet on the other people
are
> hit with draconian penalties compared to their offense. One of the biggest
> flaws with the system is that those with deep pockets can exploit it
against
> those who don't have the resources. So what are you going to say if
someone
> with sufficient resources does force this to court and the RIAA gets their
> asses spanked all the way to the Supreme Court, even ends up having to pay
> back some portion of the money they've extorted with interest? I'm betting
> that they're picking and choosing who they go after to ensure this doesn't
> happen. If they found out it was Bill Gates' kid, and knew that he was
> strongly opposed to their position, think they'd pursue it?
>
> Apparently since the Canadians aren't penalized similarly, it must be 100%
> okee dokey past a certain latitude, aye?
>
> I sincerely hope it happens to you some day chuckles.
>
> > 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 . . . .>
>
> Don't bother, you'll just hurt yourself. You'd clearly have to come up way
> too far. Be content playing with your diaper trophies.
>
>

[Troy]

LOL........Good idea !!!!



Tommy B > wrote in message
link.net...
> No , but her 15 year old daughter can be made to work it off, in someway.
> What about as an intern in for record label? She can learn and pay off her
> debt. I bet she'll do real well there.
> First lesson: How we steal from the Artists.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > 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?
> >
> > --
> > ha
>
>

[Troy]

LOL........Good idea !!!!



Tommy B > wrote in message
link.net...
> No , but her 15 year old daughter can be made to work it off, in someway.
> What about as an intern in for record label? She can learn and pay off her
> debt. I bet she'll do real well there.
> First lesson: How we steal from the Artists.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > 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?
> >
> > --
> > ha
>
>

[Troy]

LOL........Good idea !!!!



Tommy B > wrote in message
link.net...
> No , but her 15 year old daughter can be made to work it off, in someway.
> What about as an intern in for record label? She can learn and pay off her
> debt. I bet she'll do real well there.
> First lesson: How we steal from the Artists.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > 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?
> >
> > --
> > ha
>
>

[raptor]

(EggHd) wrote in message >...
> << Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>
>
> Do you apply this to all law breakers?
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

we are all law breakers.. i've never met a person who wasn't.. this is
a matter of perspective and common sense

[raptor]

(EggHd) wrote in message >...
> << Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>
>
> Do you apply this to all law breakers?
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

we are all law breakers.. i've never met a person who wasn't.. this is
a matter of perspective and common sense

[raptor]

(EggHd) wrote in message >...
> << Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>
>
> Do you apply this to all law breakers?
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

we are all law breakers.. i've never met a person who wasn't.. this is
a matter of perspective and common sense

[George]

In article >,
(Mike) wrote:

> 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
>
> Racketeering, anit-competition/anti-trust behavior, extortion and all
> the other things that are the primary practice of the RIAA are illegal
> and some carry a sentence of life in prison.
>
> Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

so get the attorny general to charge and prosacute them
I do not support crime on either side
George

[George]

In article >,
(Mike) wrote:

> 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
>
> Racketeering, anit-competition/anti-trust behavior, extortion and all
> the other things that are the primary practice of the RIAA are illegal
> and some carry a sentence of life in prison.
>
> Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

so get the attorny general to charge and prosacute them
I do not support crime on either side
George

[George]

In article >,
(Mike) wrote:

> 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
>
> Racketeering, anit-competition/anti-trust behavior, extortion and all
> the other things that are the primary practice of the RIAA are illegal
> and some carry a sentence of life in prison.
>
> Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

so get the attorny general to charge and prosacute them
I do not support crime on either side
George

[hank alrich]

reddred wrote:

> But those are the rules, and you win more flies with honey
> than you do with vinegar.

But since even more flies show up for **** than for honey and vinegar,
you'd think the biz would be booming.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

reddred wrote:

> But those are the rules, and you win more flies with honey
> than you do with vinegar.

But since even more flies show up for **** than for honey and vinegar,
you'd think the biz would be booming.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

reddred wrote:

> But those are the rules, and you win more flies with honey
> than you do with vinegar.

But since even more flies show up for **** than for honey and vinegar,
you'd think the biz would be booming.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Paul Stamler wrote:

> 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.

You hopeless idealist, you probably even own some of your own musical
instruments. Dinosaur!

> 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.

I agree that is happening to some extent and that the returns to the
artists selling directly are a far greater percentage of the gross
receipt than if they were getting out via traditional biz distribution.

But I also think the major's sales drop is real and that it does reflect
massive dissatisfaction with the bulk of what is offered. When I travel
highways today in the US I usually cannot find a commercial radio
channel that doesn't suck.

I still run into way more terrific music than I can afford to buy. It's
amazing how much great music is coming through the fog.

Somebody take Britney, please; I'll take Eliz Gilkyson, thank you.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Paul Stamler wrote:

> 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.

You hopeless idealist, you probably even own some of your own musical
instruments. Dinosaur!

> 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.

I agree that is happening to some extent and that the returns to the
artists selling directly are a far greater percentage of the gross
receipt than if they were getting out via traditional biz distribution.

But I also think the major's sales drop is real and that it does reflect
massive dissatisfaction with the bulk of what is offered. When I travel
highways today in the US I usually cannot find a commercial radio
channel that doesn't suck.

I still run into way more terrific music than I can afford to buy. It's
amazing how much great music is coming through the fog.

Somebody take Britney, please; I'll take Eliz Gilkyson, thank you.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Paul Stamler wrote:

> 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.

You hopeless idealist, you probably even own some of your own musical
instruments. Dinosaur!

> 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.

I agree that is happening to some extent and that the returns to the
artists selling directly are a far greater percentage of the gross
receipt than if they were getting out via traditional biz distribution.

But I also think the major's sales drop is real and that it does reflect
massive dissatisfaction with the bulk of what is offered. When I travel
highways today in the US I usually cannot find a commercial radio
channel that doesn't suck.

I still run into way more terrific music than I can afford to buy. It's
amazing how much great music is coming through the fog.

Somebody take Britney, please; I'll take Eliz Gilkyson, thank you.

--
ha

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
(raptor) wrote:

> (EggHd) wrote in message
> >...
> > << Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>
> >
> > Do you apply this to all law breakers?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
> > "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
>
> we are all law breakers.. i've never met a person who wasn't.. this is
> a matter of perspective and common sense

Not all laws are rational or obvious. It's easy for the enforcement community
to declare, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," but look at what happens in a
courtroom: they argue over the actual meaning and intent of the laws we're
supposed to follow. Even the professionals don't know what the laws really
mean. The whole rule-of-law idea has been subverted by enactment of
self-serving, politically-motivated, poorly thought-through edicts that serve
mainly a temporary expediency for some powerful constituency.

It's certainly not as cut-and-dried as many would have you believe. The
heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA show their desperation. There are valid
arguments on both sides and some middle ground must be established if this is
ever to be resolved.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
(raptor) wrote:

> (EggHd) wrote in message
> >...
> > << Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>
> >
> > Do you apply this to all law breakers?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
> > "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
>
> we are all law breakers.. i've never met a person who wasn't.. this is
> a matter of perspective and common sense

Not all laws are rational or obvious. It's easy for the enforcement community
to declare, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," but look at what happens in a
courtroom: they argue over the actual meaning and intent of the laws we're
supposed to follow. Even the professionals don't know what the laws really
mean. The whole rule-of-law idea has been subverted by enactment of
self-serving, politically-motivated, poorly thought-through edicts that serve
mainly a temporary expediency for some powerful constituency.

It's certainly not as cut-and-dried as many would have you believe. The
heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA show their desperation. There are valid
arguments on both sides and some middle ground must be established if this is
ever to be resolved.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
(raptor) wrote:

> (EggHd) wrote in message
> >...
> > << Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>
> >
> > Do you apply this to all law breakers?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
> > "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
>
> we are all law breakers.. i've never met a person who wasn't.. this is
> a matter of perspective and common sense

Not all laws are rational or obvious. It's easy for the enforcement community
to declare, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," but look at what happens in a
courtroom: they argue over the actual meaning and intent of the laws we're
supposed to follow. Even the professionals don't know what the laws really
mean. The whole rule-of-law idea has been subverted by enactment of
self-serving, politically-motivated, poorly thought-through edicts that serve
mainly a temporary expediency for some powerful constituency.

It's certainly not as cut-and-dried as many would have you believe. The
heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA show their desperation. There are valid
arguments on both sides and some middle ground must be established if this is
ever to be resolved.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[hank alrich]

raptor wrote:

> (EggHd) wrote...

> > << Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>

> > Do you apply this to all law breakers?

> we are all law breakers.. i've never met a person who wasn't.. this is
> a matter of perspective and common sense

I'll smoke to that, but not while speeding, too.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

raptor wrote:

> (EggHd) wrote...

> > << Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>

> > Do you apply this to all law breakers?

> we are all law breakers.. i've never met a person who wasn't.. this is
> a matter of perspective and common sense

I'll smoke to that, but not while speeding, too.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

raptor wrote:

> (EggHd) wrote...

> > << Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>

> > Do you apply this to all law breakers?

> we are all law breakers.. i've never met a person who wasn't.. this is
> a matter of perspective and common sense

I'll smoke to that, but not while speeding, too.

--
ha

[EggHd]

<< 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. >>

How dies this compare? I could see if you compared first time shoplifting of a
case of candy bars.

<< Of course, this won't affect you since you always obey all regulations at
all times, right? >>

Of course not. Why are people freaking out because I asked if they apply the
same rule of ignorance of the law to all law breakers?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< 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. >>

How dies this compare? I could see if you compared first time shoplifting of a
case of candy bars.

<< Of course, this won't affect you since you always obey all regulations at
all times, right? >>

Of course not. Why are people freaking out because I asked if they apply the
same rule of ignorance of the law to all law breakers?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< 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. >>

How dies this compare? I could see if you compared first time shoplifting of a
case of candy bars.

<< Of course, this won't affect you since you always obey all regulations at
all times, right? >>

Of course not. Why are people freaking out because I asked if they apply the
same rule of ignorance of the law to all law breakers?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< What are the penalties for a minor caught smoking dope? A small fine and a
slap on the wrist? >>

It depends how much dope they have.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< What are the penalties for a minor caught smoking dope? A small fine and a
slap on the wrist? >>

It depends how much dope they have.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< What are the penalties for a minor caught smoking dope? A small fine and a
slap on the wrist? >>

It depends how much dope they have.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[George]

In article >,
Jay Kadis > wrote:

> In article >,
> (raptor) wrote:
>
> > (EggHd) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > << Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>
> > >
> > > Do you apply this to all law breakers?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------
> > > "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
> >
> > we are all law breakers.. i've never met a person who wasn't.. this is
> > a matter of perspective and common sense
>
> Not all laws are rational or obvious. It's easy for the enforcement
> community
> to declare, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," but look at what happens in
> a
> courtroom: they argue over the actual meaning and intent of the laws we're
> supposed to follow. Even the professionals don't know what the laws really
> mean. The whole rule-of-law idea has been subverted by enactment of
> self-serving, politically-motivated, poorly thought-through edicts that serve
> mainly a temporary expediency for some powerful constituency.
>
> It's certainly not as cut-and-dried as many would have you believe. The
> heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA show their desperation. There are valid
> arguments on both sides and some middle ground must be established if this is
> ever to be resolved.
>
I believe the middle ground was the settlment offer of 1/100th(or
something there about) the peneltys allowed by law
George

[George]

In article >,
Jay Kadis > wrote:

> In article >,
> (raptor) wrote:
>
> > (EggHd) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > << Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>
> > >
> > > Do you apply this to all law breakers?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------
> > > "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
> >
> > we are all law breakers.. i've never met a person who wasn't.. this is
> > a matter of perspective and common sense
>
> Not all laws are rational or obvious. It's easy for the enforcement
> community
> to declare, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," but look at what happens in
> a
> courtroom: they argue over the actual meaning and intent of the laws we're
> supposed to follow. Even the professionals don't know what the laws really
> mean. The whole rule-of-law idea has been subverted by enactment of
> self-serving, politically-motivated, poorly thought-through edicts that serve
> mainly a temporary expediency for some powerful constituency.
>
> It's certainly not as cut-and-dried as many would have you believe. The
> heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA show their desperation. There are valid
> arguments on both sides and some middle ground must be established if this is
> ever to be resolved.
>
I believe the middle ground was the settlment offer of 1/100th(or
something there about) the peneltys allowed by law
George

[George]

In article >,
Jay Kadis > wrote:

> In article >,
> (raptor) wrote:
>
> > (EggHd) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > << Their kid was downloading in ignorance. >>
> > >
> > > Do you apply this to all law breakers?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------
> > > "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
> >
> > we are all law breakers.. i've never met a person who wasn't.. this is
> > a matter of perspective and common sense
>
> Not all laws are rational or obvious. It's easy for the enforcement
> community
> to declare, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," but look at what happens in
> a
> courtroom: they argue over the actual meaning and intent of the laws we're
> supposed to follow. Even the professionals don't know what the laws really
> mean. The whole rule-of-law idea has been subverted by enactment of
> self-serving, politically-motivated, poorly thought-through edicts that serve
> mainly a temporary expediency for some powerful constituency.
>
> It's certainly not as cut-and-dried as many would have you believe. The
> heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA show their desperation. There are valid
> arguments on both sides and some middle ground must be established if this is
> ever to be resolved.
>
I believe the middle ground was the settlment offer of 1/100th(or
something there about) the peneltys allowed by law
George

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
George > wrote:

> In article >,
> Jay Kadis > wrote:
>
[snip]

> >
> > It's certainly not as cut-and-dried as many would have you believe. The
> > heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA show their desperation. There are valid
> > arguments on both sides and some middle ground must be established if this
> > is
> > ever to be resolved.
> >
> I believe the middle ground was the settlment offer of 1/100th(or
> something there about) the peneltys allowed by law
> George

Perhaps as the laws are currently written. The middle ground to which I refer
deals with a more realistic set of regulations, ones tailored to the current
situation as opposed to what existed when the current laws were written.

I like the idea of micro-payments for downloads that go directly to the content
producer.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
George > wrote:

> In article >,
> Jay Kadis > wrote:
>
[snip]

> >
> > It's certainly not as cut-and-dried as many would have you believe. The
> > heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA show their desperation. There are valid
> > arguments on both sides and some middle ground must be established if this
> > is
> > ever to be resolved.
> >
> I believe the middle ground was the settlment offer of 1/100th(or
> something there about) the peneltys allowed by law
> George

Perhaps as the laws are currently written. The middle ground to which I refer
deals with a more realistic set of regulations, ones tailored to the current
situation as opposed to what existed when the current laws were written.

I like the idea of micro-payments for downloads that go directly to the content
producer.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
George > wrote:

> In article >,
> Jay Kadis > wrote:
>
[snip]

> >
> > It's certainly not as cut-and-dried as many would have you believe. The
> > heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA show their desperation. There are valid
> > arguments on both sides and some middle ground must be established if this
> > is
> > ever to be resolved.
> >
> I believe the middle ground was the settlment offer of 1/100th(or
> something there about) the peneltys allowed by law
> George

Perhaps as the laws are currently written. The middle ground to which I refer
deals with a more realistic set of regulations, ones tailored to the current
situation as opposed to what existed when the current laws were written.

I like the idea of micro-payments for downloads that go directly to the content
producer.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[George]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << What are the penalties for a minor caught smoking dope? A small fine and a
> slap on the wrist? >>
>
> It depends how much dope they have.
>
and we have to remember the ones being sued are not just holding a few
joints (figuritvly) for personal consumption
they have deep supply lines to distribute stolen music and thousands of
stolen files, and a history to indicate it was not a innocent one time
thing
I seriously doubt if anyone downloading music today is not aware they
are subject to being sued
or that they are infringing on copyright, they just don't care
and I see vigorous prosacution as the best way to get people to stop
Honestly I did not stop driving after drinking until I understood the
serious consiquencs of my actions , mostly being arrestd , the expense
and the loss of driving priveledes
it was not the fact my driving drunk might kill someone, it was the
legal penalties that convvinced me to change

so making the legal penalties against stealing music VERY REAL to people
will get them to change thier behavior
I support the lawsuits and the prosacutions
George

[George]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << What are the penalties for a minor caught smoking dope? A small fine and a
> slap on the wrist? >>
>
> It depends how much dope they have.
>
and we have to remember the ones being sued are not just holding a few
joints (figuritvly) for personal consumption
they have deep supply lines to distribute stolen music and thousands of
stolen files, and a history to indicate it was not a innocent one time
thing
I seriously doubt if anyone downloading music today is not aware they
are subject to being sued
or that they are infringing on copyright, they just don't care
and I see vigorous prosacution as the best way to get people to stop
Honestly I did not stop driving after drinking until I understood the
serious consiquencs of my actions , mostly being arrestd , the expense
and the loss of driving priveledes
it was not the fact my driving drunk might kill someone, it was the
legal penalties that convvinced me to change

so making the legal penalties against stealing music VERY REAL to people
will get them to change thier behavior
I support the lawsuits and the prosacutions
George

[George]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << What are the penalties for a minor caught smoking dope? A small fine and a
> slap on the wrist? >>
>
> It depends how much dope they have.
>
and we have to remember the ones being sued are not just holding a few
joints (figuritvly) for personal consumption
they have deep supply lines to distribute stolen music and thousands of
stolen files, and a history to indicate it was not a innocent one time
thing
I seriously doubt if anyone downloading music today is not aware they
are subject to being sued
or that they are infringing on copyright, they just don't care
and I see vigorous prosacution as the best way to get people to stop
Honestly I did not stop driving after drinking until I understood the
serious consiquencs of my actions , mostly being arrestd , the expense
and the loss of driving priveledes
it was not the fact my driving drunk might kill someone, it was the
legal penalties that convvinced me to change

so making the legal penalties against stealing music VERY REAL to people
will get them to change thier behavior
I support the lawsuits and the prosacutions
George

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
George > wrote:

[snip]

> >
> and we have to remember the ones being sued are not just holding a few
> joints (figuritvly) for personal consumption
> they have deep supply lines to distribute stolen music and thousands of
> stolen files, and a history to indicate it was not a innocent one time
> thing
> I seriously doubt if anyone downloading music today is not aware they
> are subject to being sued
> or that they are infringing on copyright, they just don't care

Oh, really? Do you think all those high-school students really know how
file-sharing works and that their parents are fully aware of what they're doing
on the computer? I think at best they're dimly aware that there's some problem
with file sharing, but they may well not even realize that is what they are
doing when they use these services to download.

> and I see vigorous prosacution as the best way to get people to stop
> Honestly I did not stop driving after drinking until I understood the
> serious consiquencs of my actions , mostly being arrestd , the expense
> and the loss of driving priveledes
> it was not the fact my driving drunk might kill someone, it was the
> legal penalties that convvinced me to change
>

I wouldn't be proud of that...

> so making the legal penalties against stealing music VERY REAL to people
> will get them to change thier behavior
> I support the lawsuits and the prosacutions
> George

And do you also support the record business model as it is currently constituted?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
George > wrote:

[snip]

> >
> and we have to remember the ones being sued are not just holding a few
> joints (figuritvly) for personal consumption
> they have deep supply lines to distribute stolen music and thousands of
> stolen files, and a history to indicate it was not a innocent one time
> thing
> I seriously doubt if anyone downloading music today is not aware they
> are subject to being sued
> or that they are infringing on copyright, they just don't care

Oh, really? Do you think all those high-school students really know how
file-sharing works and that their parents are fully aware of what they're doing
on the computer? I think at best they're dimly aware that there's some problem
with file sharing, but they may well not even realize that is what they are
doing when they use these services to download.

> and I see vigorous prosacution as the best way to get people to stop
> Honestly I did not stop driving after drinking until I understood the
> serious consiquencs of my actions , mostly being arrestd , the expense
> and the loss of driving priveledes
> it was not the fact my driving drunk might kill someone, it was the
> legal penalties that convvinced me to change
>

I wouldn't be proud of that...

> so making the legal penalties against stealing music VERY REAL to people
> will get them to change thier behavior
> I support the lawsuits and the prosacutions
> George

And do you also support the record business model as it is currently constituted?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
George > wrote:

[snip]

> >
> and we have to remember the ones being sued are not just holding a few
> joints (figuritvly) for personal consumption
> they have deep supply lines to distribute stolen music and thousands of
> stolen files, and a history to indicate it was not a innocent one time
> thing
> I seriously doubt if anyone downloading music today is not aware they
> are subject to being sued
> or that they are infringing on copyright, they just don't care

Oh, really? Do you think all those high-school students really know how
file-sharing works and that their parents are fully aware of what they're doing
on the computer? I think at best they're dimly aware that there's some problem
with file sharing, but they may well not even realize that is what they are
doing when they use these services to download.

> and I see vigorous prosacution as the best way to get people to stop
> Honestly I did not stop driving after drinking until I understood the
> serious consiquencs of my actions , mostly being arrestd , the expense
> and the loss of driving priveledes
> it was not the fact my driving drunk might kill someone, it was the
> legal penalties that convvinced me to change
>

I wouldn't be proud of that...

> so making the legal penalties against stealing music VERY REAL to people
> will get them to change thier behavior
> I support the lawsuits and the prosacutions
> George

And do you also support the record business model as it is currently constituted?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[hank alrich]

George wrote:

> and we have to remember the ones being sued are not just holding a few
> joints (figuritvly) for personal consumption
> they have deep supply lines to distribute stolen music and thousands of
> stolen files, and a history to indicate it was not a innocent one time
> thing

I'd bet plenty of kids have no idea how the software they're using
actually works, and that when they download a tune it's immediately
available to everyone else who's online and using the same software.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

George wrote:

> and we have to remember the ones being sued are not just holding a few
> joints (figuritvly) for personal consumption
> they have deep supply lines to distribute stolen music and thousands of
> stolen files, and a history to indicate it was not a innocent one time
> thing

I'd bet plenty of kids have no idea how the software they're using
actually works, and that when they download a tune it's immediately
available to everyone else who's online and using the same software.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

George wrote:

> and we have to remember the ones being sued are not just holding a few
> joints (figuritvly) for personal consumption
> they have deep supply lines to distribute stolen music and thousands of
> stolen files, and a history to indicate it was not a innocent one time
> thing

I'd bet plenty of kids have no idea how the software they're using
actually works, and that when they download a tune it's immediately
available to everyone else who's online and using the same software.

--
ha

[Paul Stamler]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
. ..

> You hopeless idealist, you probably even own some of your own musical
> instruments. Dinosaur!

Guilty as charged.

> I still run into way more terrific music than I can afford to buy. It's
> amazing how much great music is coming through the fog.
>
> Somebody take Britney, please; I'll take Eliz Gilkyson, thank you.

Sigh...I've had a crush on her ever since I saw her on Austin City Limits,
back in the 80s, when she was still calling herself "Liza".

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
. ..

> You hopeless idealist, you probably even own some of your own musical
> instruments. Dinosaur!

Guilty as charged.

> I still run into way more terrific music than I can afford to buy. It's
> amazing how much great music is coming through the fog.
>
> Somebody take Britney, please; I'll take Eliz Gilkyson, thank you.

Sigh...I've had a crush on her ever since I saw her on Austin City Limits,
back in the 80s, when she was still calling herself "Liza".

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
. ..

> You hopeless idealist, you probably even own some of your own musical
> instruments. Dinosaur!

Guilty as charged.

> I still run into way more terrific music than I can afford to buy. It's
> amazing how much great music is coming through the fog.
>
> Somebody take Britney, please; I'll take Eliz Gilkyson, thank you.

Sigh...I've had a crush on her ever since I saw her on Austin City Limits,
back in the 80s, when she was still calling herself "Liza".

Peace,
Paul

[hank alrich]

George wrote:

> Honestly I did not stop driving after drinking until I understood the
> serious consiquencs of my actions , mostly being arrestd , the expense
> and the loss of driving priveledes
> it was not the fact my driving drunk might kill someone, it was the
> legal penalties that convvinced me to change

You could hardly have stated more cogently what is going haywire with
our country: people have no regard for what is right unless they can
imagine getting caught and punished for doing wrong.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

George wrote:

> Honestly I did not stop driving after drinking until I understood the
> serious consiquencs of my actions , mostly being arrestd , the expense
> and the loss of driving priveledes
> it was not the fact my driving drunk might kill someone, it was the
> legal penalties that convvinced me to change

You could hardly have stated more cogently what is going haywire with
our country: people have no regard for what is right unless they can
imagine getting caught and punished for doing wrong.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

George wrote:

> Honestly I did not stop driving after drinking until I understood the
> serious consiquencs of my actions , mostly being arrestd , the expense
> and the loss of driving priveledes
> it was not the fact my driving drunk might kill someone, it was the
> legal penalties that convvinced me to change

You could hardly have stated more cogently what is going haywire with
our country: people have no regard for what is right unless they can
imagine getting caught and punished for doing wrong.

--
ha

[EggHd]

<< I'd bet plenty of kids have no idea how the software they're using
actually works, and that when they download a tune it's immediately
available to everyone else who's online and using the same software. >>

Agreed.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< I'd bet plenty of kids have no idea how the software they're using
actually works, and that when they download a tune it's immediately
available to everyone else who's online and using the same software. >>

Agreed.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< I'd bet plenty of kids have no idea how the software they're using
actually works, and that when they download a tune it's immediately
available to everyone else who's online and using the same software. >>

Agreed.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< I like the idea of micro-payments for downloads that go directly to the
content
producer. >>

Who is the content producer?


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< I like the idea of micro-payments for downloads that go directly to the
content
producer. >>

Who is the content producer?


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< I like the idea of micro-payments for downloads that go directly to the
content
producer. >>

Who is the content producer?


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< And do you also support the record business model as it is currently
constituted? >>

You do not have to participate. It is voluntary.

Why do people have a problem with companies that protect their goods?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< And do you also support the record business model as it is currently
constituted? >>

You do not have to participate. It is voluntary.

Why do people have a problem with companies that protect their goods?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< And do you also support the record business model as it is currently
constituted? >>

You do not have to participate. It is voluntary.

Why do people have a problem with companies that protect their goods?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << I like the idea of micro-payments for downloads that go directly to the
> content
> producer. >>
>
> Who is the content producer?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"


That depends on who produces the content, doesn't it? It could be the
independent artist or it could be the record company if they have paid for the
recording and acquired rights from the artist.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << I like the idea of micro-payments for downloads that go directly to the
> content
> producer. >>
>
> Who is the content producer?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"


That depends on who produces the content, doesn't it? It could be the
independent artist or it could be the record company if they have paid for the
recording and acquired rights from the artist.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << I like the idea of micro-payments for downloads that go directly to the
> content
> producer. >>
>
> Who is the content producer?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"


That depends on who produces the content, doesn't it? It could be the
independent artist or it could be the record company if they have paid for the
recording and acquired rights from the artist.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << And do you also support the record business model as it is currently
> constituted? >>
>
> You do not have to participate. It is voluntary.
>
> Why do people have a problem with companies that protect their goods?
>

Oh, there's a lot more to it than that. Have you talked to Howie Klein lately?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << And do you also support the record business model as it is currently
> constituted? >>
>
> You do not have to participate. It is voluntary.
>
> Why do people have a problem with companies that protect their goods?
>

Oh, there's a lot more to it than that. Have you talked to Howie Klein lately?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << And do you also support the record business model as it is currently
> constituted? >>
>
> You do not have to participate. It is voluntary.
>
> Why do people have a problem with companies that protect their goods?
>

Oh, there's a lot more to it than that. Have you talked to Howie Klein lately?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[EggHd]

<< That depends on who produces the content, doesn't it? It could be the
independent artist or it could be the record company if they have paid for the
recording and acquired rights from the artist. >>

I wanted to be sure we are on the same page.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< That depends on who produces the content, doesn't it? It could be the
independent artist or it could be the record company if they have paid for the
recording and acquired rights from the artist. >>

I wanted to be sure we are on the same page.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< That depends on who produces the content, doesn't it? It could be the
independent artist or it could be the record company if they have paid for the
recording and acquired rights from the artist. >>

I wanted to be sure we are on the same page.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Oh, there's a lot more to it than that. Have you talked to Howie Klein
lately? >>

Not sure I understand.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Oh, there's a lot more to it than that. Have you talked to Howie Klein
lately? >>

Not sure I understand.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Oh, there's a lot more to it than that. Have you talked to Howie Klein
lately? >>

Not sure I understand.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[John L Rice]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> John L Rice wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> You seem to assume that you can force computer literacy. If you wanna
> "law" this, then "law" the "minor control software" into the OS. And you
> will still end up attempting to force computer literacy or having it end
> up being so difficult to disable the "minor control software" that only
> a child can do it.

Well, somebody has to take some responsibility at some point.. Normally the
manufacturer is responsible for indicating intended use, providing
instructions and giving any warnings or restrictions of unintended,
dangerous or illeagal use. It's up to the consumer to take steps to educate
themselves on using the product, either though the materials provided by the
manufacturer, additional third party materials or through a teacher ( from a
freind/family member to a college professor, etc ).

Maybe all EULAs ( End User License Agreements ) should be written by those
'books for dummies' folks. Maybe more people would read them. ( I might read
less of them though . . . .


> It may be better to "law" something about what the school should educate
> children in, i. e. make them understand _why_ paying for music is a
> necessity, not an option.

I definitely agree that there are problems with education in the US ( at
least ), both at school and at home.


> > John L Rice
> >
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
> --
> *******************************************
> * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
> *******************************************

[John L Rice]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> John L Rice wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> You seem to assume that you can force computer literacy. If you wanna
> "law" this, then "law" the "minor control software" into the OS. And you
> will still end up attempting to force computer literacy or having it end
> up being so difficult to disable the "minor control software" that only
> a child can do it.

Well, somebody has to take some responsibility at some point.. Normally the
manufacturer is responsible for indicating intended use, providing
instructions and giving any warnings or restrictions of unintended,
dangerous or illeagal use. It's up to the consumer to take steps to educate
themselves on using the product, either though the materials provided by the
manufacturer, additional third party materials or through a teacher ( from a
freind/family member to a college professor, etc ).

Maybe all EULAs ( End User License Agreements ) should be written by those
'books for dummies' folks. Maybe more people would read them. ( I might read
less of them though . . . .


> It may be better to "law" something about what the school should educate
> children in, i. e. make them understand _why_ paying for music is a
> necessity, not an option.

I definitely agree that there are problems with education in the US ( at
least ), both at school and at home.


> > John L Rice
> >
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
> --
> *******************************************
> * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
> *******************************************

[John L Rice]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> John L Rice wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> You seem to assume that you can force computer literacy. If you wanna
> "law" this, then "law" the "minor control software" into the OS. And you
> will still end up attempting to force computer literacy or having it end
> up being so difficult to disable the "minor control software" that only
> a child can do it.

Well, somebody has to take some responsibility at some point.. Normally the
manufacturer is responsible for indicating intended use, providing
instructions and giving any warnings or restrictions of unintended,
dangerous or illeagal use. It's up to the consumer to take steps to educate
themselves on using the product, either though the materials provided by the
manufacturer, additional third party materials or through a teacher ( from a
freind/family member to a college professor, etc ).

Maybe all EULAs ( End User License Agreements ) should be written by those
'books for dummies' folks. Maybe more people would read them. ( I might read
less of them though . . . .


> It may be better to "law" something about what the school should educate
> children in, i. e. make them understand _why_ paying for music is a
> necessity, not an option.

I definitely agree that there are problems with education in the US ( at
least ), both at school and at home.


> > John L Rice
> >
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
> --
> *******************************************
> * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
> *******************************************

[George Gleason]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << I'd bet plenty of kids have no idea how the software they're using
> actually works, and that when they download a tune it's immediately
> available to everyone else who's online and using the same software. >>
>
> Agreed.
>
I don't agree
this is everywhere , news, internet, MTV
ask the kids .
They know it is wrong, but its cheaper than buying
by the time they are old enough to be file shareing enough to draw attention
they are well aware of the issues involved in it
Just beacuse I can is not a good enough reason to steal.
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

[George Gleason]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << I'd bet plenty of kids have no idea how the software they're using
> actually works, and that when they download a tune it's immediately
> available to everyone else who's online and using the same software. >>
>
> Agreed.
>
I don't agree
this is everywhere , news, internet, MTV
ask the kids .
They know it is wrong, but its cheaper than buying
by the time they are old enough to be file shareing enough to draw attention
they are well aware of the issues involved in it
Just beacuse I can is not a good enough reason to steal.
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

[George Gleason]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << I'd bet plenty of kids have no idea how the software they're using
> actually works, and that when they download a tune it's immediately
> available to everyone else who's online and using the same software. >>
>
> Agreed.
>
I don't agree
this is everywhere , news, internet, MTV
ask the kids .
They know it is wrong, but its cheaper than buying
by the time they are old enough to be file shareing enough to draw attention
they are well aware of the issues involved in it
Just beacuse I can is not a good enough reason to steal.
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

[George Gleason]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
. ..
> George wrote:
>
> > Honestly I did not stop driving after drinking until I understood the
> > serious consiquencs of my actions , mostly being arrestd , the expense
> > and the loss of driving priveledes
> > it was not the fact my driving drunk might kill someone, it was the
> > legal penalties that convvinced me to change
>
> You could hardly have stated more cogently what is going haywire with
> our country: people have no regard for what is right unless they can
> imagine getting caught and punished for doing wrong.
>

I am not proud of my history, but as my wife always says
I always do the wrong thing and even when I do the right thing I do it for
the wrong reason
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

[George Gleason]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
. ..
> George wrote:
>
> > Honestly I did not stop driving after drinking until I understood the
> > serious consiquencs of my actions , mostly being arrestd , the expense
> > and the loss of driving priveledes
> > it was not the fact my driving drunk might kill someone, it was the
> > legal penalties that convvinced me to change
>
> You could hardly have stated more cogently what is going haywire with
> our country: people have no regard for what is right unless they can
> imagine getting caught and punished for doing wrong.
>

I am not proud of my history, but as my wife always says
I always do the wrong thing and even when I do the right thing I do it for
the wrong reason
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

[George Gleason]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
. ..
> George wrote:
>
> > Honestly I did not stop driving after drinking until I understood the
> > serious consiquencs of my actions , mostly being arrestd , the expense
> > and the loss of driving priveledes
> > it was not the fact my driving drunk might kill someone, it was the
> > legal penalties that convvinced me to change
>
> You could hardly have stated more cogently what is going haywire with
> our country: people have no regard for what is right unless they can
> imagine getting caught and punished for doing wrong.
>

I am not proud of my history, but as my wife always says
I always do the wrong thing and even when I do the right thing I do it for
the wrong reason
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