how-to block ads
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to G_Poobah
Re: That's her defence?
said by G_Poobah  :Of course, all the **AA mouthpieces will immediately go to the big companies defense, saying things like 'It's their legal right to pursue' and 'If she's not guilty then she has nothing to worry about'. Just as you, the liberal mouth piece that upholds the right of law breakers to continue to break the laws for, well, I dunno, you pick one of any reason from the liberal talking points list.
But, much like scumbag lawyers, those corporate drones don't realize it's a lot more than money to the average person. It's time away from work, which many people can't afford. It's time and effort to try and pull up records, which the rich people have but the common person doesn't. Oh look, there's the excuse already. Scumbag lawyers, why? What makes them scumbags? Becuase they are not on YOUR side? Get real. Listening to your posts are almost gut wrenching any more. You are SO far from even the farthest reaching end of the mainstream in this country. I am almost guessing that you are a mouth piece for the ACLU.
So what does it matter if you are poor or not? Should people turn their backs just because someone is poor? I don't think an investigation was done on her background before she was served with the suit. There are many poor people, and guess what, many poor people committ crimes. It's a fact of live and proven with statistics. What makes poor people commit crimes is probably because they feel they have nothing to loose? is it because they feel it's the only way to get something? Do they feel entitled like everyone else and they are going to just take somethign that's not theirs? Should we also not procecute her is she stole a movie from wal-mart? Howabout forgive her parking tickets? In your view, stealing music is lessor of a crime becuase it's not a physical product? It sure sounds like it. Music is music right? Those people are rich, right? They can afford it, right? Maybe, but it's THEIR right to be rich! Got a lesson for you.. life's not fair - get used to it. There is always going to be the haves and the have nots.
It's also about money, so even if you win the case, you still loose, since you've given up time and money, which most people can't afford. And that's the fact of life. It happens to both rich and poor. People sue in this country and people will loose. If you knew anything about the court system, they try to weed out the cases that are baseless before the actually see a judge or jury. Many cases never see the bench and are dismissed before they make it that far. There is obviously something to this case that you and I don't see but the courts are going to hear it.
How could 'allegedly' downloading a song be worse than say, speeding? I mean, everyone speeds, and the penalty for an act that could kill someone is what, 100.00 ticket? No court time, no lawyers needed. And if you do go to court to protest it, you still don't need a lawywer. Again, clueless, you are. It wasn't "downloading" it was that she was serving songs to other people so she was sharing/uploading. Even then, no matter what, breaking the law is breaking the law. Why do some people go to jail for DUI for a year while others may go for 3? You can't weigh a parking ticket against file sharing charges not to mention one is penal/civil code and the other is a civil case based on the law with an established fine.
And if your black, or a minority, or for any of a hundred discriminatory reasons, you can also get the police department punished for discrimination. How liberal America of you. With your statement, as posted, you are making the assertation that if you get a ticket and you are black, you can get a police department punished for discrimination? Where did you get your line of thinking? Man, you are so far off the map it's not even funny! Again, it's gut wrenching to listen to your thinking.
The **AA's suffer from none of those problems, they think they are above the law. Luckily, they will be taken down under the RICO act, and their assets distributed to the musicians and end users. They don't think they are "above the law" otherwise they would not have files a case, rather, would have just sent the RIAA hitment to have her wacked. The RIAA, like it or not, has EVERY right not defend themselves. but in your world, because they are the RIAA, they have not rights in this country. That thinking and about $2.50 will buy you a cup of coffee today. Instead of "luckily they will be taken down"... you should have said "I wish they would be..." because reality is ... (drum roll please) they won't! Wishfull thinking.
Face it. Music is NOT an entitlement or a right - it's a product that is sold for $. It has just as much protection as any other business for proifit in this country. Don't like it? Don't listen to music or make your own. But, this post isn't worth $.01 as is. | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| Uh, I think the whole point is that she says she DIDNT share music. Not whether sharing was right or wrong. The **AA tactics of just sueing an IP without investigating first is what is wrong.
See, you are assuming that she did it. If she did, then the law says she should be punished. But what WE are saying is that if she DIDNT do it, then the tactics the RIAA are using are sleazy, underhanded, and just plain wrong. If she is innocent, then she will be put out of a lot of time and money just to prove it. The RIAA doesnt care whether she did or not, really, they just want to scare her into settling so they can add another "file trader prosecuted" notch on thier belt. And THAT is what most of us are pissed about.
--
"There's no such thing as a soul. It's just something they made up to scare kids, like the Boogeyman or Michael Jackson." - Bart Simpson | |
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy : But, this post isn't worth $.01 as is. Deaf ears, man.
--
I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to fiberguy
A product's worth is determined by demand's willingness to pay.
If demand is no longer willing to pay, the product is worthless.
Demand is no longer willing to pay more than zero dollars and zero cents for this product.
If artists keep making their work, then they are simply being bad capitalists.
Innovation has lowered the cost of production (in this case, distribution) to zero dollars and zero cents, and now, certain "corporations," in the non-traditional sense, are offering a product for cost-of-production. Capitalism is supposed to drive the price of products down as much as possible in response to innovations that lower cost-of-production.
How liberal America of you.
Sorry, Fiberguy, but YOU are the liberal on this issue! You want to limit the free market and put a hold on innovation in order to continue a fossilized, outdated industry that has been deemed NOT PROFITABLE by natural innovation in a free market. You are in bed with Marx on this issue. Marx would've said "but what about Labor Time Value? Shouldn't these artists be paid for the time they put into the studio and what about the thought that went into their art?" So you agree with Marx on this matter, Fiberguy?
it's a product
EEEEH! Wrong. Let's tell him what he won!
Well Fiberguy, if art is a product explain this ...
Products are things that can make a profit.
If a product ceases making a profit, it will cease to be made.
Inherently, a product is something that exists to make a product.
Art will continue to be made regardless of if it makes a profit.
PROOF: I personally would continue to write and record music even if their was no profit to be made from doing so and it only took a loss.
THEREFORE, reducto de absurdity, art is NOT a product. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Boogeyman
Listen, there is enough evidence to bring the case before a court. She admitted that a music software program was placed on her PC didn't she? She said that someone or a friend has placed it on her machine. Someone associated with the RIAA did a download and it came from an IP address which was looked up and found to be assigned to her internet account at the time of the download.
I am not "assuming" anything. Her statement of "I didn't do it" may be her statement and may her defense, but then again, everyone has a defense in a trial. Who goes into court and says "Yup! I did it!"... those cases don't go to court, they settle out of court. There is enough evidence presented to the court in the complaint that says she did was she is being accused of. I don't care what's right or wrong, rather, my statement is purely based on the legal system as we have it in this country.
And for the record, the owner of the ISP account is responsible for ALL TRAFFIC ON THE ACCOUNT. Another reason to SECURE wireless APs, right? Not that this argument hasn't been made before right?
Now, that I have responded to you, please tell us what exactly was "sleazy" of the RIAA? Was it the fact that they did a sting to see which IP addresses were sharing music? Or was it sleazy that they found an IP address and is in fact bringing it before a court of law to protect their rights? Or do you have something else to bring to the table on this? | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to bent
said by bent :said by fiberguy : But, this post isn't worth $.01 as is. Deaf ears, man. Wow.. what substance.. care to bring something to the table? or do you consider this a contribution to conversation? My message posted was well thought out and has substance. I don't see how I have deaf ears. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to broadbander
Broadbander, I won't quote your entire post so I will bullet point your comments.
1) Capitalism is not supposes to "drive the price of products down as much as possible".. where did you learn that? It's called supply and demand. Prices go up and down freely as the market demands.
2) You say *I* am the liberal on this issue? My answer? HAHAHAHAH - I had to laugh. Liberals generally like to dictate how much money people will have and or give up. I am more conservative in this area and I believe that business is free to make money within the guidlines of the law. I was HARDLY liberal in my post..
You are trying to tell an artist what their product is worth. It's not your nor my place to do so. It's THEIR desire to price at where they think they can sell. HOWEVER, just because something is "worthless" as you claim, which it's not, still doesn't mean that you can just "take" something. Something of no value doesn't = free. It just means that someone owns something of no value, period. I actually stated that it's not our place to determine value based on the amount of time someone put into something, rather, it's up to the owner to figure out where the market will support a price point. Re-read my post again.
3)Put your buzzer back in your pants bud. I am not wrong here, again, YOU are. Art IS a product if it's for sale or someone has the desire to sell it. You think that something is only a product that sits on a shelf in a Wal-Mart? Or gas from a pump? I got news for you, I also sell my advice to people that need help with technology and also real estate. Products, services,... they can be sold. I also make digital artwork as well. So what? It's still mine to do as I please, not yours!
Your so-called "proof" is that YOU would continue to write or record music even if there was no profit to be made. SO WHAT! That's YOUR CHOICE! Some people do so and do so frequently! Others do not! Others make a living from their music. Who are you to decide what is worth something, when it is a free for all, and who should take a loss.
Your post is SOOOO far off the mark it's not even funny. Products ARE things that make profit, not 100% true, but for this I will give it to you for the lack of having to explain this further to you, BUT, just because the product don't make money any more doesn't mean the owner gives up the rights to it's posession or control either.
By the way, "a product is something that exists to make a product?!" Wow! What grade are you in? | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
3 edits | prove art is a product by disproving my argument ...
You are trying to tell an artist what their product is worth. It's not your nor my place to do so.
I'm the consumer. It is my place.
Labor does not determine price. That's Marxian. What people are willing to pay does.
In this case, people are not willing to pay anything.
Products, services,... they can be sold.
So what? It PROVES it ... ITS CALLED LOGIC. try it out, maybe someone will agree with you.
If something is a product, it is a product. Something that is a product exists to make a profit.
Do you think products don't exist to make a profit?
Art is not made exclusively to make a profit. Since I would still make art even if it was at a loss, it proves my point that art will still be made without profits.
As for my grade, I'm 31. I'll take you down philosophy baby steps for beginners like you.
PREMISE 1: Products are things that exist to make profit.
PREMISE 2: If a profit ceases to exist a product will cease to be made.
PREMISE 3: If profit ceased to existed, art would continue to be made, I know this because I would do it. I just need one example for a logical proof, genius.
Conclusion: Since art will continue to be made even if it does not profit, and since products are things that are made for profit and cease to be made if they do make profit, then art is not a product.
now disprove that with logic and we can take it another step.
If people stopped paying for consultants would there still be consultants? No.
But if people stopped paying for artists, there would still be artists and thusly, art is not a product.
And as for liberalism ... you are spouting a Marxist and Ricardian notion, labor time value. You are saying persons should be compensated for their work at a price determined by them. Now, please think of the work force and tell me if you still believe in these across all markets. Should the cook at McDonald determine the price of your particular Big Mac based on how much he wants to make AFTER company profits? You are accidentally treading on socialist waters.
Furthermore, you did not engage this ...
If artists keep making their work, then they are simply being bad capitalists.
Innovation has lowered the cost of production (in this case, distribution) to zero dollars and zero cents, and now, certain "corporations," in the non-traditional sense, are offering a product for cost-of-production.
AND I repeat ... Capitalism is supposed to drive the price of products down as much as possible in response to innovations that lower cost-of-production.
This is the case. In a perfectly competitive market (the goal of capitalism as a theory) the price for all products is the cost plus .0000000 (infinity) 1. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | Anyone else care to take care of the light work here? I am not even going to bother with him anymore. I can't fight something that makes no sense without hurting my wrists and fingers. I don't know what world he lives in, but it's not earth.
I will say one thing: Capitalism = supply vs demand, 'nough said. | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
1 edit | reply to fiberguy
What is sleazy is that they assume everyone is guilty whether they are or not. And that instead of filing each lawsuit seperately, they pervert the system by filing them in bulk and wait for the court system to sort through them. Just because someone has a p2p app installed doesnt mean they use it for copyright infringement, hell, some pc's come (or used to) pre-installed with a p2p app. And then you have people who like to backdoor someones pc and use it to share files.
And for the record, the owner of the ip is NOT responsible for all traffic on the account, if they were, then all of these computers used in DDoS attacks would get shut down as thier owners were arrested.
Like I said, I'm not saying shes innocent, I just dont like to see the whole "innocent untill proven guilty" concept thrown out the window by big business.
*EDIT - It went from innocent untill proven guilty to "guilty unless you have a massive amount of time and rescources to contradict us" | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| #1 - Yes, you are responsible for all traffic on your ISP account. Read your agreement. You take full ownership of the traffic that comes from your home. Otherwise, your ISP would be on the hook.
A virus is not 100% your fault. I am thinking that sooner or later, there will be presure placed on the PC owner to ensure that they have made good effort to protect themself from attacks. (ie: not having virus protection installed at all may be looked upon as neglegence.. it could happen someday)
Moving on, it's nice that you may an argument based on a small play of words, but yes, if you have an account with an ISP and someone comes over and uses your computer to commit a crime, they are coming after you first bud...
#2 - If you followed my thread, I was defending the rights of an entity to bring a complaint before another person where there is reason to beleive that they have been done wrong. That's the premise of our legal system. The worse that that can happen is that you loose. However, I ado agree that it sucks because some people are toast once the suit it launched simply because they must either a) hire an attorney for lots of money, or b) must settle and give in.
The system does have flaws, but don't look for the system to be fixed anytime soon. It's a fact of life that a suit brought against you, right or wrong, can screw up the lives of many people.
Bottom line, if the evidence proves that this activity DID come from here line, anyone (law abiding) still going to defend her? or still say that they had no right to bring a complaint before her?
On a side note... Even if the software was preinstalled on the PC, didn't music have to be placed in the "share" folder for it to be shared in the first place?? If the system, on it's own, found music and simply made it available to others, THEN maybe the manufacture should be on the hook here. Sounds to me that this whole thing was a little more meditaded and acted on by someone for it to happen.
I can't wait for the results of the case. | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| Just because it states so in the agreement, doesnt make it ironclad in a court of law. Its like your car, if you let someone borrow it (or it gets stolen) and is used to commit a crime, if you can prove you didnt have it at the time, they cant prosecute you for the crime. Say you are at work, but have a babysitter at home using your connection, if you can prove you were not there at the time and that that person was using the pc, they cant prosecute you.
Anyway, I dont think her babysitter or whatever did it, I was just using that as a basis for my argument.
Unless you go into the options and change it, most p2p apps I've used use your my documents folder and the windows default media folders for sharing. Most media apps I have used also defualt to using the my music folder when ripping music from your own collection. So unless they went in and changed it, whatever they had on there was shared by default.
The big problem here is that 80% of the people using the technology dont understand enough about to protect themselves from situations like this one.
--
"There's no such thing as a soul. It's just something they made up to scare kids, like the Boogeyman or Michael Jackson." - Bart Simpson | |
|
