how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
502 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
approval from:
fAcEtIOUs 
thumbs down from:
Jigsaw
| Abundance of stupidity ! The media as usual playing to the hearts of the braindead Pirates, takes aim at the RIAA for properly enforcing copyright law and pursuing criminals who steal. With any luck the RIAA will take these Pirates to court and have a $10,000 fine imposed for each and every illegal file transfer. Just because a family member dies while a criminal is robbing a bank, doesn't make the criminal any less of a criminal.
The IT news sites with their political support of Piracy need to buy a clue because it's only gonna get worse for the Pirates and those who support criminal activity. | |
|   vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Abundance of stupidity ! Unregistered, full of rhetoric... I smell my first troll today! | |
| | | Astroturf much?  | |
|  DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC
 ·Suddenlink
| Re: Abundance of stupidity !
Arggh. Not a pirate! | 
This be a pirate. | | |
said by Trybuyingaclue :
...With any luck the RIAA will take these Pirates to court...
Argg, matey, I don't believe you know what a pirate be.
--
That Snows the Goat | |
| | | | I was wondering how long it would take until everyone's favorite RIAA-supporting troll popped in here.
Taylor, I always find it fascinating that you automatically assume that the people that the RIAA is suing are guilty. Did it ever cross your mind that the RIAA might make a mistake? Like with the granny allegedly downloading rap who didn't even have a PC to run the software they claimed she was running?
I don't support piracy. I think that people shouldn't be uploading music unless they have the express permission of the artist to do so. However, I also don't like the RIAA's tactic of suing everything that moves and all but forcing people to settle regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent.
Oh and as for your bank robbery analogy, a proper analogy would be "if someone dies after being arrested (but before being tried) for bank robbery" and in that case the case is dropped.
It was only after Mr. Scantleberry passed away that the RIAA claimed that other people in the family might have been the real uploaders and only in their final statement did they point the finger at his stepson. Before that, they were planning on continuing to sue a dead man. Legal to do so? Possibly (in a civil, not criminal case). Good PR while doing so? Definitely not. | |
| | | | Re: Abundance of stupidity ! said by Jason Levine:It was only after Mr. Scantleberry passed away that the RIAA claimed that other people in the family might have been the real uploaders and only in their final statement did they point the finger at his stepson. Before that, they were planning on continuing to sue a dead man. Legal to do so? Possibly (in a civil, not criminal case). Good PR while doing so? Definitely not. Mr. Scantleberry had admitted that the infringer was his stepson, So there was a copyright infringer here. RIAA may not be loved but they had a guilty person in this case. And for whatever reason they dropped the case, the guilty person gets a pass.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Abundance of stupidity ! said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Jason Levine:It was only after Mr. Scantleberry passed away that the RIAA claimed that other people in the family might have been the real uploaders and only in their final statement did they point the finger at his stepson. Before that, they were planning on continuing to sue a dead man. Legal to do so? Possibly (in a civil, not criminal case). Good PR while doing so? Definitely not. Mr. Scantleberry had admitted that the infringer was his stepson, So there was a copyright infringer here. RIAA may not be loved but they had a guilty person in this case. And for whatever reason they dropped the case, the guilty person gets a pass. And did Mr. Scantleberry admit that it was his stepson under oath, in a deposition, or did he just happen to mention it to a RIAA lawyer? Heresay is not evidence. | |
| | | | | | Re: Abundance of stupidity ! said by vpoko:And did Mr. Scantleberry admit that it was his stepson under oath, in a deposition, or did he just happen to mention it to a RIAA lawyer? Heresay is not evidence. Evidence is in the realm of the courtroom. These cases are in the court of public opinion and in behavior modification of the copyright infringers. And evidence isn't needed for that.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Abundance of stupidity ! Excuse me, but they were persuing a LEGAL ACTION, not a PR campaign against this guy. They claimed he told them his stepson downloaded illegal music, but they could be lying through their teeth... that's what I get out of this "in the realm of public opinion". | |
| | | | | | | As vpoko stated, this case *was* in the realm of the courtroom. (At least until the RIAA dropped the case.) Evidence is needed for that.
If they had really intended to shift their focus to Mr. Scantleberry's stepson, then they would have needed evidence. That might have been in the form of some kind of recorded statement from Mr. Scantleberry fingering his stepson. Or it might have been in the form of some P2P logs showing music downloaded and then seized computer equipment showing that same music on the hard drives.
If they intended to go after Mr. Scantleberry's stepson and didn't have any evidence then they are either 1) stupid, 2) malicious, or 3) looking for a settlement from someone no matter who it may be. Now I'm pretty sure that the RIAA isn't stupid. (Control freaks, yes. Out of touch with the bad PR they're causing, yes. Stupid, no.) But #2 and #3 are frightening possibilities.
However, all that is pretty moot now since the RIAA dropped the case. So now it really is in the court of public opinion where we try the case based on what evidence we have available to us and assign "good PR" and "bad PR" accordingly.
Here are the facts as we have them:
1. The RIAA sued Larry Scantleberry for copyright infringement.
2. He passed away prior to the RIAA's discovery having been granted extensions.
3. The RIAA, upon hearing of his death, motioned for a 60 day grieving period before continuing the lawsuit against him.
4. The RIAA, having experience bad press as a result of suing a dead man, decided to drop the case making a closing accusation that it was the stepson who really did it.
This "public opinion juror" finds the RIAA guilty and sentences them to (self-inflicted) bad PR.  | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Abundance of stupidity ! said by Jason Levine:Here are the facts as we have them: 1. The RIAA sued Larry Scantleberry for copyright infringement. 2. He passed away prior to the RIAA's discovery having been granted extensions. 3. The RIAA, upon hearing of his death, motioned for a 60 day grieving period before continuing the lawsuit against him. 4. The RIAA, having experience bad press as a result of suing a dead man, decided to drop the case making a closing accusation that it was the stepson who really did it.
This "public opinion juror" finds the RIAA guilty and sentences them to (self-inflicted) bad PR. I think the RIAA is much more concerned about getting copyright infringers to change their behavior than they are in whether they are liked or not. Being feared is more their thing than being liked and their PR is aimed at increasing fear. At that they are succeeding.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Abundance of stupidity ! Unfortunately for them, using the courtrooms as a mechanism to instill fear in the populace is generally frowned upon by judges. Apparently, judges are getting more and more upset with the RIAA. Perhaps that is why the RIAA seems trial-shy even when they are sue-happy. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Abundance of stupidity ! Sorry..
Still no sympathy for thieves. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Abundance of stupidity ! Who was a thief in this case? Was is Mr. Scantleberry as the RIAA first alleged? If so, the case dies with him. Or was it his stepson as the RIAA declared as they dropped the case? If so, what was their evidence against him as they didn't seem poised to do anything but settle with Mr. Scantleberry prior to his untimely demise? | |
|
| | | | | |  tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | [...]their PR is aimed at increasing fear.
So, what you're saying is that they are terrorists? 
Seriously though, they're honestly going about "changing public opinion" the wrong way in this fight, and that's a shame. They have a pretty big opportunity they could exploit--more effectively than suing your potential customers into teh ground, anyhow. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Abundance of stupidity ! Hmm.... Maybe we could get the anti-terror folks lined up against the RIAA.
Hey, they target kids too. Let's approach the "Won't someone think of the children" faction also! | |
|
| | | | | | | | said by fAcEtIOUs:I think the RIAA is much more concerned about getting copyright infringers to change their behavior than they are in whether they are liked or not. Being feared is more their thing than being liked and their PR is aimed at increasing fear. At that they are succeeding. If they don't fear bad PR then why drop the lawsuit?
New RIAA slogan, "We will sue you to death and then sue your living relatives." | |
|
| | | | tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | I hearby claim that Tkjunkmail has, in fact, downloaded (illegaly) music.
True or false, declaring it in "the court of public opinion" does not make words true. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Abundance of stupidity ! In fact, making a declaration such as that is dangerously close to slander. Now we all know that you weren't seriously implying that TKJunkmail downloads music illegally, but what if I were to write up a press release and distribute it to major news corporations alleging that TKJunkmail had uploaded music illegally and potentially cost the recording industry millions of dollars?
TKJunkmail would likely (and rightfully) sue me for slander. During the resulting lawsuit, I would be forced to either prove that my assertions were true or be found guilty of slander. (And since I have no proof of any illegal activities on TKJunkmail's part, I would most assuredly be found guilty.)
Getting back to the RIAA's actions, they just claimed that the stepson performed some illegal actions, but haven't presented any evidence to prove it. Nor are they pursuing legal action against him. So what we are left with is an allegation that could result in harm to the stepson's reputation. Theoretically, he could sue the RIAA for slander and force them to either reveal their evidence or recant their statement (along with some monetary compensation).
Of course, this is all theoretically. Realistically they won't sue for slander because:
1. He might have actually done it. I'm not presuming that he's guilty here, but if he did do it then he wouldn't sue (unless he was stupid as well).
2. He knows that his legal resources are no match for the RIAA's legal resources.
3. His stepfather just passed away and the last thing he wants right now is to fight a huge media conglomerate in the public eye. | |
|
| | | | I find it odd that in their "60 days to grieve" motion, they still claim that he was the infringing one (now they claim he didn't do it but it was his stepson). They only mention that others may have been involved without naming names.
Here is their exact wording about "others involved":
2. Prior to Mr. Scantlebury's passing, Plaintiffs believed that there was potential to resolve the case. While at the time of Mr. Scantlebury's death, he had not responded to Plaintiffs' discovery (he had asked for and received extensions), he had indicated that others, in addition to Mr. Scantlebury, were involved in the infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights.
So from that statement, Mr. Scantlebury hadn't really responded to them but gave them reason to suspect that other people might have been involved. That could be something as innocuous as saying "I didn't do it. Maybe someone in my family did. I'll have to ask my stepson."
Yet from the RIAA's latest statement, Mr. Scantlebury admitted to them that the infringer wasn't really him, but his stepson.
We can't cross-examine the dead, so we only have the RIAA's claim that Mr. Scantleberry had fingered his stepson. Does the RIAA have a recorded statement? Do they have any proof other than "the dead guy told us before he passed away"? If they don't, then they don't have a case, know it, and decided to drop it before they get any more bad publicity. | |
|
| | Hiya Taylor! Have you seen the new Superman movie yet? It's was okay. Not at grand as they hyped it out to be, but still worth matinee price. I'm putting my money on the Pirates of the Caribbean sequel to be a fun movie to watch. Have you seen that one yet? | |
|  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
3 edits | non-trolling remarks retained - didn't leave much. Folks, lets not stoop to the level we are accusing the OP of having already reached. If you can't say something intelligent (and non-flaming/trolling) then just don't say anything.
2k was here
| |
| | |  2kmaroThinkPremium,ExMod 1 BC
join:2000-07-11
ColossalCave | said by Trybuyingaclue :
The media as usual playing to the hearts of the braindead Pirates, takes aim at the RIAA for properly enforcing copyright law and pursuing criminals who steal. With any luck the RIAA will take these Pirates to court and have a $10,000 fine imposed for each and every illegal file transfer. Just because a family member dies while a criminal is robbing a bank, doesn't make the criminal any less of a criminal.
The IT news sites with their political support of Piracy need to buy a clue because it's only gonna get worse for the Pirates and those who support criminal activity.
Can I pick at that before shutting down this particular thread? Qualifier: I'm not a thief er, pirate. My personal opinion is that pirate is too kind a word. But nevertheless
#1 - they aren't braindead, they've been beating the "big kids" on the block for years, you can't be braindead and stay ahead of groups with the resources that the RIAA has...
#2 - Properly enforcing?? BS - how many times have we seen these cases "settled out of court" for money that goes directly into the RIAA's pocket - the alternative being that a family has to go to court to fight the allegations and ends up bankrupt just for legal fees alone. These are cases of an Army of Goliath's picking on one little David at a time, knowing that he can't throw that many rocks all at once.
#3 - Well lets see about this case, it was a son-in-law (who I would think was of legal age) that was the guilty party, why was the RIAA even stressing this poor guy out about it? Do I smell a contributing cause to his demise?
#4 - a $10,000 fine? isn't the notice on the FBI screen on most movies something like 5 yrs and $250K fine?
#5 - "it's only going to get worse for the pirates" - yes, all seemingly only to the benefit of the RIAA and similar organizations. Their Brown Shirt, Jack Booted techniques bring revulsion even to the uber-straight non-stealing people of the community. Given the choice to help the RIAA grab a pirate or to help a "pirate" skate by, based on what I've seen of the RIAA's tactics I'll side with the pirate every time.
The damned motion picture and music industries had better start remodeling their business model soon. The money they spend on anti-copyright pursuits would be much better spent looking in that direction. I've been computing for almost 30 years now, and I have no way of even estimating the amount of time, effort and money that has been poured into copy protection schemes. In every case to date, the industry has come out the big loser, the regular, law-abiding consumer a bigger loser, with once again the only winner's maybe being the lawyers. But the RIAA has even figured out how to cut them out of the picture with their "negotiating" off line. My personal opinion, is that the RIAA shouldn't even be allowed to negotiate with a member of the District Attorney's office in the room with them, directing it.
What they do is pretty much what most folks would call extortion: "Hey you, we are going to have you charged with a crime if you don't pay up now". The only thing that stops it from being blackmail is that they apparently don't come back for more later. I suppose that the one good thing we can say about the RIAA is that once they get paid off, they stay paid off?
--
...then THINK! again!! | |
| | | | Re: Abundance of stupidity ! said by 2kmaro:#4 - a $10,000 fine? isn't the notice on the FBI screen on most movies something like 5 yrs and $250K fine? Actually, I believe the law states that the fines can be $750 - $150,000 per offense. So if you upload 1,000 songs, you can be sued for $750,000 - $150,000,000. Of course, during their settlement attempts, the RIAA mentions the high end of the fines that the defendant faces. The defendants understandably choose the $3,000 settlement over the possible $150,000,000 fine. | |
|
| |
|
