Re: sure it is! in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17251593 en Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:17:38 EDT Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:17:38 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17266000 guitarzan :
said by KrK See Profile :

Sure. The Republicans aren't responsible for anything, even the things they pushed for, just because they tricked some Democrat congress critter into voting for it as well.
Editing you post, nah I fixed it for you. Did you forget all the posts here after the 2000 presidential election, where many people claimed they were moving out of the U.S.A., it was the same mood, if not worse than you accuse me of ;)

Now there you go, you are twisting reality. The Democrats were NOT tricked into signing anything the Republicans pushed for. The Democrats signed the agenda just as willingly, no trick there nor for that matter any treat.

said by KrK See Profile :

Your blind partisanship forces you to apologize (or make excuses?) for the Bush regime, to twist everything in your mind to some Democrats fault, or to harken back twenty years to Whitewater and blame Bill Clinton.
I did neither for the Bush regime, concerning the NSA wiretapping, I threw blazing fire balls just as hard as the next person. Sorry if you missed those posts. However, president Bush's policy on Iraq, I support fully and really, really hope the Democrats do not do something stupid.

»www.worldnetdaily.com/news/print···ID=52747

quote:
Terror leaders reject Nancy Pelosi's comments on Iraqi insurgency

Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."


said by KrK See Profile :

Even I know the Democrat party has a lot of flaws, but you insist the Republicans can do no wrong.
I agree on this point, however IMO the Republicans have less character flaws
said by KrK See Profile :

Well, I'll leave you to your fantasy world.
OK, and I will leave you to yours.
said by KrK See Profile :

Dude, really. Take a deep breath. Calm down. You're so obviously uber-pissed off at the election results it's affecting your emotional state right now.
You're right I am uber-pissed off at the election results, my emotional state is just fine.

Conservative Democrats, as long as their feet are held to the fire, will govern right of center. Just don't turn your back on them to long or they'll stab you, it's their nature.

Now the liberal Democrats or Republicans. I honestly and truly hate their politics, I hate them as politicians, I hate them as people. I hate their frickin guts, I hate their liberal agenda.

IMO the liberals are responsible for the division, that has this country so deeply divided by their politics. It all started with those two hill-billy bums, the Clintons.

Dude, I hate to lose at anything, what I hate even more is to see our country lose, more importantly the people of our great nation lose. Why should American be forced to stoop to compete globally with third world outhouse hole countries at their level?

They should try to compete at the U.S.A.'s level. All because of some pissants, who would sell this country down the drain to gain power and influence. »www.getusout.org/
--
Its the Democrats fault. In fact it is the Speaker of House Polosi fault. Everything is the Democrats fault. Everything. Just like Everything was the Republicans Fault when they were in power.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17266000 Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:58:31 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17265962 NormanS : AFAIK, the only "usage" that can be regulated without infringement is criminal conduct. Not the criminality of merely owning a firearm, as happens to be the case in California, WRT certain models, such as the Colt AR-15, but the ancillary use, as in using a firearm while robbing a bank.

By the same token, it is within the authority of the state to restrict access to firearms by persons who are not fit, by reason of mental deficiency, or demonstrated tendency to resort to violence without cause.

But either way, the states have imposed a far heavier hand on the possession of firearms than the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits. The "Militia Clause" is not a restrictive clause, just a suggestive clause. Hunting and target shooting are equally valid legal uses of firearms; as is self defense.

I am not opposed to licensing, in principle, if the government would treat the license as a "shall issue", as is the case with driver's licenses. However, government officials have demonstrated a "give them an inch and they will take a mile" approach to compromise; so I won't compromise.

If we are in agreement, so much the better. But you must admit, for all their flaws, the Republicans usually cater to the gun owner, while the Democrats usually cater to the hoplophobes. Indeed, they are inclined to ignore that pesky "Militia Clause", as did Sen. David A. Roberti (D-LA) and Assy. Mike Roos (D-LA) in 1989, when they co-authored the "Roos-Roberti Assault Weapons Control Act" in the California State Legislature.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17265962 Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:12:12 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17265891 KrK :
said by NormanS See Profile :

You have the second amendment backwards. It isn't restricted to members of the militia, it states that, in order to have a militia, there must be an armed populace. No armed citizens, no militia. It is as simple as that.
Ok, I'm not meaning to qualify the second part with the first, or as you said, reverse it. I actually think overall we're in agreement there. I believe that is the intention of the Second Amendment, to prevent the Government from ordering a disarmament of the people to thwart their ability to assemble a militia. Where I see the tricky patch, or the grey area, if you will, is between the terms "Well regulated Militia" and the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, ie what constitutes "Infringement". I am not convinced that the Second Amendment was written with the idea of prohibiting any legal restrictions as to the usages or responsibilities of citizenry with respect to firearms.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17265891 Mon, 13 Nov 2006 02:14:42 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17265870 KrK : Wow. Nice tactic of "editing" posts btw, and then reversing reality. Sure. The Republicans aren't responsible for anything, even the things they pushed for, just because they tricked some Democrat congress critter into voting for it as well. Yeah. That lets them off the hook.

Your blind partisanship forces you to apologize (or make excuses?) for the Bush regime, to twist everything in your mind to some Democrats fault, or to harken back twenty years to Whitewater and blame Bill Clinton.

Even I know the Democrat party has a lot of flaws, but you insist the Republicans can do no wrong. Well, I'll leave you to your fantasy world. You remind me of the fanaticism of a suicide bomber. Dude, really. Take a deep breath. Calm down. You're so obviously uber-pissed off at the election results it's affecting your emotional state right now.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17265870 Mon, 13 Nov 2006 02:00:57 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17265326 guitarzan :
said by KrK See Profile :

Since the 2000 Presidential election this site has been full of all kinds of bile and sour grapes from leftwing liberal extremists who have been knashing their teeth and crying and whining and shaking their fists.
Fixed it for you. Now that us so called right wingers can put the liberals on the defense the libbys suddenly dislike the taste of their own brand of medicine.

said by KrK See Profile :

I really don't care. Rage, foam at the mouth, threaten doom and gloom... it doesn't change any of it one iota.
Obviously you care. more than you're willing to admit. Gees I just started to examine the flesh wound and have not begun to pick at the scabs. :D
said by KrK See Profile :

That makes you sound demented, and while it may be actually 100% accurate of how you feel
Demented? Hardly, it means I'll be watching every little thing they do under a microscope and hold their feet to the fire, when possible hold their feet in the fire.
said by KrK See Profile :

It's the Democrats after all who owe the Republicans Payback.
Really give me an example, other than the Foley faggmo issue or, tom Delay or even the Abramhoff issue.
Just off hand I can think of Whitewater, the Monica lewinski affair's, along with the other sex scandals.The selling out, of Lincolns bedroom to foreigners for $$. Solicitation of campaign funds from the White house. Which is a violation of law and get this it was a law Al Gore co-wrote when he was a Senator.! Yet he lied and said he didn't know...typical liberalism at its finest.
said by KrK See Profile :

Yes, the 2nd Ammendment spells out that we should have a well regulated militia. I'm not sure about how that figures into your idea of the big picture. I think it's quite telling that "Well Regulated Militia" (ie rules. Laws. Restrictions.) is the language specifically used in the 2nd Ammendment.
What? You really have no clue as to this issue you are responding about. You should study The Bill Of Rights, actually our inalienable rights are granted by our Creator, not man.

BILL of RIGHTS AMENDMENT II
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" Its a RIGHT of the PEOPLE. NOT the governments right, NOT the States right. It's the Peoples right. Were you not brain washed by the subversive nature of liberalism and Democrats, you would understand this and that ALL Rights belong to the people, not what the liberals tell you to believe.
said by KrK See Profile :

I mean I have a hard time figuring why you'd be supporting these guys who keep increasing Government size, scope, power, and undercutting and removing rights.
And you called me demented? Oh boy. Lets see, the Patriot ACT I and II. The Homeland Security ACT, Democrats not only voted in favor of those bills into law, NONE bothered to read the language contained in the passage of them.

The NSA wiretapping, Democrats including their minority leaders and whips were fully briefed on it and went along with it. I guess we all can expect to see all that revoked and repealed along with the Democratic endorsement of P2P file sharing. Feel free to delude yourself into thinking that will happen, i have lovely beachfront property in Arizona to sell you :D I'll even sell it to you a little below market value to boot.!

Time for a major reality check.Its all the damn dirty Democrats,every time, who voted to restrict and limit Freedoms and liberties and Rights of the people, first chance they get, along with raising taxes.

Hollywood has long opposed Republicans and favored Democrats along with the music bizz. yet ironically it was a Democrat who created the PMRC to "protect the children" from trashy foul mouthed musicians. Yup it was Al Gore and his wife Tipper.
ALGORE held Congressional hearings on the subject. I guess he got pissed, because, IMO he felt they didn't contribute enough campaign funds.

The Democrats controlled the House and Senate for forty years prior to losing everything in 1994 due to gun control. Sure they say they are centrist now, wait til after 01/20/2007, their pinko communist socialist side will come out in a hurry, and by God , I hope it will be forty years before they ever see the House, Senate or White house again.
--
Its the Democrats fault. In fact it is the Speaker of House Polosi fault. Everything is the Democrats fault. Everything. Just like Everything was the Republicans Fault when they were in power.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17265326 Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:30:00 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17260994 NormanS :
said by KrK See Profile :

es, the 2nd Ammendment spells out that we should have a well regulated militia. I'm not sure about how that figures into your idea of the big picture. I think it's quite telling that "Well Regulated Militia" (ie rules. Laws. Restrictions.) is the language specifically used in the 2nd Ammendment.
"Because it rained last night, I didn't go shopping." By your explanation, rain definitely is the reason I didn't go shopping. Have you ever actually gone shopping in the rain? I have.

Let's break that amendment down into two parts:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

Well what do you make of such? It is an incomplete sentence.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

Unequivocal. Indisputable. Now, if you want to know what "the people" means consider the following:

"...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Would that "the people" be the states?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Would that "the people" be the states?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Would that "the people" be the states?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Now that "the people" is clearly not the states.

You have the second amendment backwards. It isn't restricted to members of the militia, it states that, in order to have a militia, there must be an armed populace. No armed citizens, no militia. It is as simple as that.
I mean I have a hard time figuring why you'd be supporting these guys who keep increasing Government size, scope, power, and undercutting and removing rights.
Probably because they are selective about which rights they intend to abridge. Probably the only difference between the parties is whose rights they want to restrict. Both parties fail to understand the U.S. Constitution, as, indeed, to most citizens.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17260994 Sun, 12 Nov 2006 04:25:27 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17260918 KrK : Since the elections this week this site has been full of all kinds of bile and sour grapes from hardright Republicans who are knashing their teeth and crying and whining and shaking their fists.

I really don't care. Rage, foam at the mouth, threaten doom and gloom... it doesn't change any of it one iota. I mean this is a classic example:
said by guitarzan See Profile :

I have 3 times as much venon and hatred of ALL LIBERAL Democrats. Paybacks are usually hell, and its my unwavering, firm resolve to make this payback as hellish and mean spirited bashing, as humanly possible. You want to poke one eyeball out. I will settle for nothing less than two eyeballs poked out from their sockets in return.
That makes you sound demented, and while it may be actually 100% accurate of how you feel, it just proves to everyone else you're going off the deep end. Especially as it's so bass-ackwards. It's the Democrats after all who owe the Republicans Payback. I just hope they'll decide resist the option and not do what has been done to them.
I can hardly wait for them to start beating the liberal drum for gun control and the 2nd Amendment right.In case they are stupid and they are, here is a clue. A drivers liscense is a privilage, which can be takin' away or revoked.
Yes, the 2nd Ammendment spells out that we should have a well regulated militia. I'm not sure about how that figures into your idea of the big picture. I think it's quite telling that "Well Regulated Militia" (ie rules. Laws. Restrictions.) is the language specifically used in the 2nd Ammendment.
The Government does/did not grant Constitutional Rights. Therefore they have absolutely no power or authorithy to restrict, deny, or take away Rights. (Hey newly elcted Liberal Dems, You got that, you clueless f&*kers? )
Hopefully they won't be as clueless as the republicans and the current administration has been. I mean I have a hard time figuring why you'd be supporting these guys who keep increasing Government size, scope, power, and undercutting and removing rights.

You are obviously very passionate about what you believe, but it seems like it's misguided to me.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17260918 Sun, 12 Nov 2006 03:23:08 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17258110 NormanS : "dumbass"...

I am done with you. "PLONK".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17258110 Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:14:42 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17258105 NormanS :
said by flotknot See Profile :

ummm...the issue is something like 'prove that the guy who downloaded a copy of some dumbass song cost the record company 30k', not 'prove that filesharing is legal'.
I have no idea what you are responding to. None of what you are writing relates to anything that I have posted.

Downoaders are not the ones facing legal sanctions. Period. You can't identify downloaders, but you can identify uploaders.

Never have I ever stated that filesharing is "illegal". Only that people who run filesharing programs without understanding what it means to share files are, um, deficient in their knowledge of what English words mean.
The record companies pull numbers out of their asses on a regular basis ffs.
I never said otherwise. I even questioned whether a methodology to determine actual losses could be developed.
Christ on a stick!
Blasphemy! I should "plonk" you for that. Seriously...
I've dl'ed millions if each POS song is worth 30k.

Cool, aint I a badass mega-criminal. Move over Gotti/Rumsfeld/ENRON execs...my hard drive is worth millions!
If all that you have done is download the stuff, they will never catch you. They can't catch. If you have uploaded, as well, without authorization of the copyright holders, well; yes, whether you steal a penny, or ten billion pennies, you are a thief. Not that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works is theft, but it is illegal.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17258105 Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:13:58 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17257450 guitarzan :
said by flotknot See Profile :

Bhaaahaaaa!

I love stephen colbert's satire of right wing mumbo jumbo.

thanks steve.
Oh look a leftist liberal socialist from Calgary, AB Muhaaahaaaa! trying to defend the complete nit-wittery of liberal politics, which if classified as satire would be a major step up in policy that has more fruitloops than what is found in a box of fruitloop cereal.

Yet, again another classic example of the mentality of the for free, take me, buy me, show me, give me, era of the new entitlement generation. :D

Your welcome

Dr. Heywood yablowme
--
Its the Democrats fault. In fact it is the Speaker of House Polosi fault. Everything is the Democrats fault. Everything. Just like Everything was the Republicans Fault when they were in power.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17257450 Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:55:06 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17257172 flotknot : Bhaaahaaaa!

I love stephen colbert's satire of right wing mumbo jumbo.

thanks steve.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17257172 Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:05:31 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17257166 flotknot :
said by NormanS See Profile :

You overtrimmed the quote. There is more context that you deliberately omitted.
said by Capharnaum See Profile :

Commercial radio makes money off of the advertising, not off of anything paid them by the RIAA. In fact, they pay the RIAA for distribution rights.
Are you joking? If not, you are 100% wrong, at least in N.America. 'In fact', not only do the stations not pay the record companies, some record companies pay the stations. i think you are getting confused with the payments to BMI/axcap.
No defense. You did not have permission to distribute the work, therefore your distribution of the work is a violation of the copyright.
Are you a copyright lawyer? Didn't think so. Maybe you should tone down your black and white know-it-all replies. They leave little room for actual discussion.

All that is left to hash out is the degree of damage done by the unauthorized download.
Really? Wow. so its all the legal rangling has been settled then.

AFAIK, they need some kind of provable metric to estimate the number of people who downloaded from you. I don't know how I would go about it. Could be that the RIAA will be in the position of Shylock from "The Merchant of Venice" (I think), who was told by the judge that he could have his pound of flesh if he can get it without drawing a drop of blood.
Great quote! lets not forget the other one: he who has the gold makes the rules.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17257166 Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:03:32 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17257085 flotknot : What if these 'facts of law' are fascist, unreasonable, and written by bastards?

Read up on why the jury system exists, dumbass.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17257085 Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:47:01 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17257067 flotknot : ummm...the issue is something like 'prove that the guy who downloaded a copy of some dumbass song cost the record company 30k', not 'prove that filesharing is legal'.

The record companies pull numbers out of their asses on a regular basis ffs.

Christ on a stick! I've dl'ed millions if each POS song is worth 30k.

Cool, aint I a badass mega-criminal. Move over Gotti/Rumsfeld/ENRON execs...my hard drive is worth millions!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17257067 Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:43:34 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17256654 God : they pull the estimates out of their arses :huh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17256654 Sat, 11 Nov 2006 10:01:32 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17256533 guitarzan :
said by KrK See Profile :

That entire post could be considered being between shite and syphilis, methinks. Bit of a sore loser, eh?
Sure you can consider the post in such a manner, all liberals will consider it that way. It's apparently a correct opinion. I'm calling it as i see it. Sore looser no, a bit sad at first, until reaching the conclusion this is politics, What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

For as much Bush bashing and hatred displayed here. I have 3 times as much venon and hatred of ALL LIBERAL Democrats. Paybacks are usually hell, and its my unwavering, firm resolve to make this payback as hellish and mean spirited bashing, as humanly possible. You want to poke one eyeball out. I will settle for nothing less than two eyeballs poked out from their sockets in return.

Its the Democrats fault. In fact it is the Speaker of House Polosi fault. Everything is the Democrats fault. Everything. Just like Everything was the Republicans Fault when they were in power.
said by KrK See Profile :

Wrong. Apparently you forgot. When the Republicans were in power (and many still are) everything was Bill Clinton's fault.
Correct !! it STILL is Bill Clinton's fault along with his wife Hildabeast. As for my sig, think of that as my Anti Virus.. the definitions needs daily updating.

BTW: I see the liberal Democrats, are already itching with fleas to govern from the left. They are already talking of raising taxes, or in this case, floating trial balloons to test the waters to see when the time is "right", no pun intended to increase taxes.

I can hardly wait for them to start beating the liberal drum for gun control and the 2nd Amendment right.In case they are stupid and they are, here is a clue. A drivers liscense is a privilage, which can be takin' away or revoked.

The Government does/did not grant Constitutional Rights. Therefore they have absolutely no power or authorithy to restrict, deny, or take away Rights. (Hey newly elcted Liberal Dems, You got that, you clueless f&*kers? )

I really want to see these azzhats commit politial suicide and self sacrifice on the altar of gun control. It will be their undoing of their political careers. It will be their worst nightmare, 1994 all over again, when they not only lost control of the House but also the Senate and the presidency.

Here in all its ugly glory is the eliteism of liberals
quote:
John Kerry

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."


I love our Armed Srvices response to ketchup boy
--
Its the Democrats fault. In fact it is the Speaker of House Polosi fault. Everything is the Democrats fault. Everything. Just like Everything was the Republicans Fault when they were in power.
Armed Servic··· boy.jpg
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17256533 Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:34:03 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17256249 phattieg :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by danclan See Profile :

.10 to the artist, .60 for the manufacturing and distro, 150$ for the executives, 500$ for the lawyers, the rest covers court costs and the .30c will cover postage.
The amount of loss the RIAA quotes isn't for the cost of a single DOWNLOADED song. It is for the estimated cost of that song being uploaded to thousands of other people. The RIAA for the most part has gone after those UPLOADING songs and that is what the costs are meant to reflect.
Can someone say "unfair practice". Of course the person who stole the song broke the law, but you can't prosecute them for sharing the medium, and THEN charge them "extra" money for your losses, when you expect to "overcharge" everyone you sue for sharing the music.

Basically, it's not right, knowing that in the end, if everyone responsible gets sued, the music companies will make the cost they expected, plus extra revenue for sueing. $750 a song, compared to the average cost of an entire retail CD of $18, average CD has 18 tracks, meaning the songs REALLY worth $.99, pfft c'mon. This is why everyone is screwing the music industry in the first place, for overcharging on something the artist would probably be doing for free anyway, lord knows thats how they were discovered.

:huh:
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17256249 Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:43:30 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17254485 anon : quote:
"Many (lets say, for example) young teenagers can jump behind the wheel of a car and manage to figure out how to make the thing move. Does that mean we should just let them drive through city traffic?"

Ok, drive a one tone car that could take someones life for good; or download a song that takes money out of someones pocket? Hmmm tough one!

I should sue company's that uses automated robots cause I lose my income because a technology has forced me out of a job!

We live in the year 2006, some people like the riaa refuse to acknowledge that. When the times change businesses must change as well. Other wise the makers of the horse and buggy would be suing ford for making cars...

Ya I know, this topic is always a very opinionated subject, nature of the beast i guess....

On second thought, the riaa is right. If ALL music was free it would be the end of the world... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17254485 Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:41:58 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17255192 KrK : That entire post could be considered being between shite and syphilis, methinks. Bit of a sore loser, eh?

Its the Democrats fault. In fact it is the Speaker of House Polosi fault. Everything is the Democrats fault. Everything. Just like Everything was the Republicans Fault when they were in power.
Wrong. Apparently you forgot. When the Republicans were in power (and many still are) everything was Bill Clinton's fault.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17255192 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:04:12 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17254697 NormanS : You overtrimmed the quote. There is more context that you deliberately omitted.
said by Capharnaum See Profile :

There hasn't been anything that has proven that filesharing incurs a loss of revenue. If it did, then radio would also incur a loss of revenue, since they're playing songs for free as well (but they're being paid as well by the music companies). As far as I know, radio is a promo way to raise revenues, so why wouldn't filesharing be the same?
Commercial radio makes money off of the advertising, not off of anything paid them by the RIAA. In fact, they pay the RIAA for distribution rights.
As to estimates of files shared, wouldn't the RIAA have to estimate the availability of said file (time + bandwidth)? For exemple, couldn't I use for defense that I metered the time I was using the filesharing utility and the bandwidth used (some software utilities do this) and get a figure of how many songs I have really uploaded? In such case, if the number was small, couldn't I contend that it was fair use, and that the penalties are out of line?
No defense. You did not have permission to distribute the work, therefore your distribution of the work is a violation of the copyright. All that is left to hash out is the degree of damage done by the unauthorized download.

AFAIK, they need some kind of provable metric to estimate the number of people who downloaded from you. I don't know how I would go about it. Could be that the RIAA will be in the position of Shylock from "The Merchant of Venice" (I think), who was told by the judge that he could have his pound of flesh if he can get it without drawing a drop of blood.
Now I don't use the filesharing programs anymore, but back in the glory time of Napster, people were rarely downloading my songs despite the fact I was offering a fairly large selection (200 songs?). I would upload something like one song per night of usage (two times a week).
Probably not as many HSI connections then as now. Or, maybe the stuff wasn't worth the effort.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17254697 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:37:51 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17254631 NormanS :
said by biznatch11 See Profile :

It seems to me that if the RIAA wants $750 per song, they can only sue every 750th person who downloads the song.
They aren't suing the downloaders, they are suing the uploaders.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17254631 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:29:32 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17254365 toadlife :
said by NormanS See Profile :

I hate car analogies. Mostly because they aren't a best fit.
maybe we should start one of these for DSLR.
--
Break yourself from the Windows admin nipple...


»nonadmin.editme.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17254365 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:44:40 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17253775 thender2 :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by danclan See Profile :

.10 to the artist, .60 for the manufacturing and distro, 150$ for the executives, 500$ for the lawyers, the rest covers court costs and the .30c will cover postage.
The amount of loss the RIAA quotes isn't for the cost of a single DOWNLOADED song. It is for the estimated cost of that song being uploaded to thousands of other people. The RIAA for the most part has gone after those UPLOADING songs and that is what the costs are meant to reflect.
You can't even prove that much.

You can't say how many people it was uploaded to, or that it was uploaded to anyone but the RIAA official who downloaded it. You can't say it lost them money because, in addition to not being able to prove they would have bought the album if not for downloading, you can't prove they didn't download it without knowledge the band existed, then went out and bought the album.
--
The Problem With Music.


Our Rationale


Time to rewrite the DMCA.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17253775 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:53:45 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17253752 guitarzan : Its the voice of the people that have spoken, who are now awash in complete liberal giddiness or in other words.

The I want for free, take me, buy me, show me, give me, era of the new entitlement generation, lessons learned from their new political masters (idols).

I hope the liberals expand the NSA wire tapping into the area of P2P internet file sharing. Since the election one no longer hears the cries and wailing of we are losing our right, we are losing our privacy Everything hunky dory A-OK now?

Ya, know what has me perplexed? All the posts and talk of revolt and revolution against the government from posters here, showed their true colors by casting a vote for DemocRATS, to end the war Iraq and the terrorists pouring into Iraq from Syria and Iran. OMG stop he war, we just want to violate copyright laws and download music for free.

I was against the RIAA, now more power to them :D
In my dictionary, sympathy for getting nabbed for file sharing is between shite and syphilis.
--
Its the Democrats fault. In fact it is the Speaker of House Polosi fault. Everything is the Democrats fault. Everything. Just like Everything was the Republicans Fault when they were in power.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17253752 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:50:54 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17253577 Capharnaum : Even then, nothing says the downloader hasn't paid for the song. I used to be lazy and download the songs I have on cd instead of ripping the cds]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17253577 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:19:48 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17253553 Capharnaum :
said by NormanS See Profile :

•That their estimate of lost revenues is reasonable.
•That running a P2P application allows others to download the works.
There hasn't been anything that has proven that filesharing incurs a loss of revenue. If it did, then radio would also incur a loss of revenue, since they're playing songs for free as well (but they're being paid as well by the music companies). As far as I know, radio is a promo way to raise revenues, so why wouldn't filesharing be the same?

As to estimates of files shared, wouldn't the RIAA have to estimate the availability of said file (time + bandwidth)? For exemple, couldn't I use for defense that I metered the time I was using the filesharing utility and the bandwidth used (some software utilities do this) and get a figure of how many songs I have really uploaded? In such case, if the number was small, couldn't I contend that it was fair use, and that the penalties are out of line?

Now I don't use the filesharing programs anymore, but back in the glory time of Napster, people were rarely downloading my songs despite the fact I was offering a fairly large selection (200 songs?). I would upload something like one song per night of usage (two times a week).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17253553 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:15:46 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17253167 BIGMIKE : CRAP not worth the Bandwidth.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17253167 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:01:13 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17253073 Speedy8 :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by danclan See Profile :

.10 to the artist, .60 for the manufacturing and distro, 150$ for the executives, 500$ for the lawyers, the rest covers court costs and the .30c will cover postage.
The amount of loss the RIAA quotes isn't for the cost of a single DOWNLOADED song. It is for the estimated cost of that song being uploaded to thousands of other people. The RIAA for the most part has gone after those UPLOADING songs and that is what the costs are meant to reflect.
So any songs I may have been downloaded have been paid for in full by people distributing them? Sweet!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17253073 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:46:42 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17252775 Pz_ : I gotta say, love that avatar.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17252775 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:52:32 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17252381 biznatch11 : Consider this:

Person A has a song available for filesharing, which is downloaded by persons B to Z. The RIAA sues person A and gets $750, because even though the song is worth much less ($0.99 according iTunes, etc.), the RIAA has to recoup money lost because of persons B to Z downloading the song (and apparently not spending money to buy the song instead). Now what happens if the RIAA wants to sue persons B to Z for downloading the song? Can they use the defense that the RIAA has already been paid by person A?

It seems to me that if the RIAA wants $750 per song, they can only sue every 750th person who downloads the song.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17252381 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:51:22 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17252063 NormanS :
said by tsu9 See Profile :

You would be very, very surprised.

Some people can't program VCRs, either, but can plug them into the wall.
People like that should never be allowed to have cars and guns.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17252063 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:59:40 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251963 PolarBear : In that case, I agree wholly. It is amazing to what people will claim "but I didn't know!"

Because, of course, finding out one way or another is simply an absurd idea. God forbid they acquire new knowledge!

edit: typo
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251963 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:42:43 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251881 tsu9 : I wasn't arguing for an ignorance defense, but rather pointing out that ignorance is apparently quite contagious.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251881 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:29:28 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251862 PolarBear : If your VCR eats a tape from blockbuster, you are still responsible for the tape, even though you didn't know you were supposed to clean the VCR periodically.

It's not about whether or not you know if the filesharing program is indeed going to upload songs; YOU installed the program and chose to run it, thus YOU need to be responsible for what it does. Don't know what it does? Well maybe you shouldn't be installing and running software on your computer if you don't know what it does. Hell, if you are that ignorant about software, you probably shouldn't be using a computer at all.

Many (lets say, for example) young teenagers can jump behind the wheel of a car and manage to figure out how to make the thing move. Does that mean we should just let them drive through city traffic?
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251862 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:26:08 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251748 NormanS : "Filesharing". File: a set of data, including the bits which make up the music/video". Share: allowing people to obtain what I have in exchange for giving me what they have".

It sounds like those people are worse than ignorant; they lack a basic grasp of the English language. Perhaps we should insist on a literacy test before selling people computers. Geez! I have to prove my competence before California will allow be to drive a car on their freeways, or buy a gun!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251748 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:03:24 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251726 NormanS :
said by mlundin See Profile :

said by NormanS See Profile :

The RIAA only needs to prove two things:

•That their estimate of lost revenues is reasonable.
•That running a P2P application allows others to download the works.
That depends on who's sitting on the jury.
Ideally, that should only depend upon the facts of law.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251726 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:00:02 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251593 iotastorm : Actually, people will install the program with default settings not knowing or realizing that whatever they download gets stuck in a shared folder and shared again.
They just wanna get free music, etc.
I knew someone like that, called me because his connection was soooo slow, found their little file-sharing program (e-donk I think) was sharing anything they downloaded and was filling up the upstream bandwidth. They had no idea that would happen, (User in need of clue).
Not saying is good of bad just adding insight for mix.
PIBKAC (Problem Isolated - Between Keyboard And Chair)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251593 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:36:13 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251520 mlundin :
said by NormanS See Profile :

The RIAA only needs to prove two things:

•That their estimate of lost revenues is reasonable.
•That running a P2P application allows others to download the works.
That depends on who's sitting on the jury.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251520 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:23:21 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251329 tsu9 : You would be very, very surprised.

Some people can't program VCRs, either, but can plug them into the wall.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251329 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:54:52 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251311 NormanS :
said by Omega See Profile :

Then the RIAA needs to prove that user uploaded the song to thousands of people.
The RIAA only needs to prove two things:

•That their estimate of lost revenues is reasonable.
•That running a P2P application allows others to download the works.

They may have to settle for a lower estimate of lost revenues, depending upon what the judge in that case decides is reasonable. But it is entirely reasonable to estimate how many uploaders downloaders there are based on metrics available in any BitTorrent client. And I can think of reasonable methods to develop such metrics for the P2P apps which don't have them built in.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251311 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:52:01 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251298 NormanS : I hate car analogies. Mostly because they aren't a best fit. Better would be swimming pools and firearms. "I didn't know the gun was loaded" doesn't fly any more.

How can a person install, and run, a filesharing application without knowing what filesharing entails?
Mostly what they didn't know was that uploading copyrighted works was a violation of copyright law. As any two-bit, cheesy attorney (not to mention the really good ones) will tell you, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251298 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:48:35 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251166 Omega :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by danclan See Profile :

.10 to the artist, .60 for the manufacturing and distro, 150$ for the executives, 500$ for the lawyers, the rest covers court costs and the .30c will cover postage.
The amount of loss the RIAA quotes isn't for the cost of a single DOWNLOADED song. It is for the estimated cost of that song being uploaded to thousands of other people. The RIAA for the most part has gone after those UPLOADING songs and that is what the costs are meant to reflect.
Then the RIAA needs to prove that user uploaded the song to thousands of people.
--
My site

CT Profile 60 NE Hunter]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251166 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:22:32 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251094 wentlanc : Prove that ANYONE actually downloaded that song from the person. The person is not knowledgably uploading the song. Someone else is downloading it from them. If anything, the person who is being downloaded from is being taken advantage of.

It's a lot like leaving your car door unlocked. Does that make you a criminal?

puritan]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251094 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:09:03 EDT Re: sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251028 TKJunkMail :
said by danclan See Profile :

.10 to the artist, .60 for the manufacturing and distro, 150$ for the executives, 500$ for the lawyers, the rest covers court costs and the .30c will cover postage.
The amount of loss the RIAA quotes isn't for the cost of a single DOWNLOADED song. It is for the estimated cost of that song being uploaded to thousands of other people. The RIAA for the most part has gone after those UPLOADING songs and that is what the costs are meant to reflect.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17251028 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:58:11 EDT sure it is! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17250870 danclan : .10 to the artist, .60 for the manufacturing and distro, 150$ for the executives, 500$ for the lawyers, the rest covers court costs and the .30c will cover postage.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17250870 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:32:43 EDT