Thcranky1
join:2003-03-02
Wichita, KS
| reply to Anonynona
Re: I was just sittin here thinkin about R.I.A.A.'s...
OK sorry it took so long to respond to you. Believe me, having seen and read it, I would have jumped right on my rebuttle because you are so apparently delusional as well as just plain misinformed and quite particularly, suffering from some sort of psychosis. I say this for your benefit completely in the hopes that this could actually be the reason for thinking in such a fashion as you so confusingly attempted to document for me. You are so inconsistent in almost every sentence following another. I'm going to state for the record that I know you are a Democrat and a Liberal. I'm absolutely 100% certain of this. Here's the reasons why. As most if not all Democrats do You changed your position a multitude of times. Sometimes even mid-sentence at times!
--casum point--
You began your response by making an enormously fraudulant generalization of what I said. I ask you specifically to point out where I said that the R.I.A.A. was to blame. I said nothing like that. You are merely trying to lead the reader along with confecture. What I actually pondered was the idea that it might be more appropriate to place blame for file sharing on the company or individuals that made the tools necessary for the public to be able to perform such tasks as copying media. It is quite evident that the Recording Industry specifically built hardware that was able to copy media from one disk to another blank disk for a perfect replica of the original media. So just for review, the RIAA made CD media and also made a player to play this media. They made it available to the public for a monetary price, which then becomes a binding monatary transaction for a good or service in exchange for a specified and agreed monatary amount. They then made a device to record copies of this CD media. These devices became available to the public for a monatary price as well. So it seems logical that after buying something it becomes yours by ownership. So now the public owns CD's as well as devices to play and copy these CD's. These devices were distributed to the public by none other then the RIAA. So I ask again, is it appropriate for the RIAA to now say that the public is wrong for having done exactly what the RIAA made available and enabled the public to be able to do?
You on the other hand state completely inappropriate examples of things that are neither similar in action to what I discribed but have no relevance in this discussion whatsoever. .
Your attempt to compare my suggestion of the RIAA's problems with file sharing, being the direct result of the products sold by the RIAA to the public and if so then blaming the RIAA as opposed to the public and your example of a car manufacturer being blamed for a driver receiving a speeding ticket is just plain nonsense. A car is not made for speeding, illegal parking, drunk driving, --yawn-- vehicular homicide, nor car jacking. I do have to stop there and ask you just how did you ge to car jacking? This is a perfect example of your inconsistence of objectivity. A car jacker doesn't have a car, they steal it from someone on the road. How could you possibly have included that in your examples when attempting to compare these analogies similar? Do you see your misguidedness here? You have gone from blaming a manufacturer of a car for things done with the car by the individual who owns that car and then you ended with blaming a manufacturer of a car for a starnger not associated with the purchase of the car stealing it. You goof!! Please tell me the association of this car jacking analogy as well as your other car examples and anything that has been discussed up to this point. Now I want you to remember that a CDRW and the media one uses in a CDRW (disks) are MADE FOR COPYING MEDIA. Also a DVD Burner is MADE FOR BURNING DVD'S. Are you following with me here? CARS are NOT made for ANY of your EXAMPLES but BURNERS are MADE for the PURPOSE of BURNING MEDIA from an original SOURCE. Quite a Godzilla-sized difference between your analogies and what I was talking about. Wouldn't you agree now that you see things from outside a ring of bong smoke?
Now let's move on to your gun example. Honestly I'm not sure what your point was here but that's kinda how I viewed almost your entire document. You said, and I quote, "the analogy that you made is the same as saying guns don't kill people, people do" gun manufacturers should be more to blame than the human being that should have a brain. The entire blame is and should be on the shoulders of those who simply don't know the difference between right and wrong." LOL!! How do you correlate my stating that the BURNING of a CD, which is exactly what the product was specifically manufactured for, by the manufacturer, for the people who bought it with their own money, and your quote of "guns don't kill people, people do?" Where's the relevance? [ I will however pause here to tell you that the quote is 100% accurate ] but DUDE I'm awestruck!!! How is there any similarity whatsoever between a CDRW being used to burn a CD like it was made to do and your gun quote? In no way could a gun ever kill anything EVER!!! But just when I think you have completely misinterpreted things you surprise me yet again and you flip around and then say and I quote, "gun manufacturers SHOULD be more to blame than the human being that should have a brain." To be quite truthful here this is the closest thing I can see to your claim that I said the blame should be on the RIAA, which remember, I did NOT say but merely asked a question about it. That certainly is NOT stating a belief either way to where the blame should be cast. Correct? In addition, I want you to recall that the COLT MANUFACTURING CO. was sued by the victim's families of the Cullumbine shootings!! Think about this now!! The victims families sued a company that makes firearms, meaning that these families cast blame on COLT ARMS for the deaths of their loved one's. Do you see where I'm going with this? OK. Now are you ready for a real kick in the pants!!! There was NOT 1 COLT FIREARM used in the SHOOTINGS!! What's up with that shit? I thought that would bunch yer pants up a bit, so I have support additionally by this suit in that the RIAA very well COULD be to blame after you consider the COLT/COLLUMBINE lawsuit. Yer losing all over the place here!! LOL!!
Now then, I've been waiting for this one! You said, and I quote, "The entire blame is and should be on the shoulders of those who simply don't know the difference between right and wrong." LOL!! Read that statement again!! You are a complete goof!! You're saying that blame should rest on those people that are not aware of the difference between right and wrong. So all people that are insane should get the death penalty for killing someone. A small child should receive blame for scallding their 4 month old sister in the tub with hot water. Now the child in it's own mind is simply mimicing what it has seen many times before when Mommy bathes him. Although 4 month old sister is burned and eventually drowned from the water rising over her head as she lays helplessly on her back. The child is later found in his room playing with tinker toys. Oblivious to the death of his sister. At the time, and for the sake of argument, Mommy was on the phone with Grandma in the kitchen rushing to get a bottle so the child could stay occupied as baby sis is bathed. The child knows no right or wrong let alone has a brain developed enough to even deductively reason and so I'm gonna have to say that your statement was wrong there too man!! LOL!! Now yer fool self moved on down even farther to say and I quote,"Copyright laws were enacted to protect the artist/composer et al against thieves (from plagiarists to pirates); there is absolutely no justification for their criminal actions." Hmm how do i say this...oh!...WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!A copyright law is for the owner of the content which is copyrighted. If you think that Van Halen ownes their songs you are more of a fool then I thought before. Van Halen sells their music to Warner Brother's in it's entireity. The only thing allowed to Van Halen is that they can legally perform the songs for a profit. But a copyright is not in any way to assist the artist. My gawd man, turn on VH-1 Behind the Music for a second. Don't smoke any bong hits during the show iether. You'll learn something. If that is too much for you how about I print on here the copyright on a Warner Brothers disk. And I quote, "Warner Bros. Records Inc. a Warner Communications Company All Rights Reserved Unauthorized Duplication is a Violation of Applicable Laws Mfg. by WEA Manufacturing" Nowhere on the disk nor on the sleeve does it say anything about Van Halen the band or individuals in the band owning anything on this album. Nowhere! Now if you'll let me I might be able to teach you something that you obviously did not know. Which is fine. We are all ignorant to some degree about something or we would all be God in our omniscients. The band sells the product or songs and the rights to the Recording Industry. However, the band gets one awsome chunk of change in the sale of the product or songs. We are talking major revenue here. However, and I implore you to take this up with your lawyer or a lawyer that you know, in no way would a legal representative for a rock band, let's just say for the sake of arguement 'Van Halen.' The Van Halen Lawyer would never under any circumstance agree to not have Van Halen's specific rights printed either on the CD itself and on the cd sleeve. It would be a foolish move for a legal councel to not have the specifications to the bands "royalties rights" listed on each and every product just like the Warner message is. Which stipulates the owner of the content of the CD. Now then, if I go to a record store and I transfer money from my hands to the store's in exchange for a cd I have as well as the store engaged in a transaction of monotary value for the sum of asking price of said product. By all the laws of the United States both State Federal and Local this was a legal binding monatary transaction. Meaning that I now own the Compact Disk!! This disk is mine and the only limitations that I am bound to adhere by, according to the copyright restrictions, are for me to make a profit off of this material. I do not own the rights to make money off the product. But there is nothing either moral, legal or any other kind of 'al' that says I cannot destroy my cd by any means I choose. I can make personal copies of my cd with no profit sale or transaction of any kind and I can draw on my disk, eat my disk, use it as a coaster or a frisbee or doggie toy. I can also copy to my hard drive on my computer. I can under all laws let anyone on the planet view the contents of my hard drive as well as disable or enable sharing of content on my hard drive. What the RIAA is trying to do is get the Supreme Court to see things their way. In other words, they are trying to sell the idea so that the opinion of how the RIAA views things is also viewed by those Supreme Court Justice. If that is successful, which it will never be, then both the RIAA and the Suprme Court see file sharing a certain way. Then the RIAA would ask that it be made law and punishments and fines be set for violators. On the strike of the gavel closing the session that made file sharing laws binding and part of the Legal code of the United States then it would be illegal. Then and only then, not before that happens!! Using their big money that the RIAA has they can pay news anchor's and certain Journalists to write articles in People Mag and maybe an Exec at CNN will allow a piece to be aired on the file sharing issue one evening, but it is still all an opinion report or video clip meant to feed very biased and one sided points of view to the masses of people and soon some simple minded individuals that always followed the pack, are manipulated into believing these reports when in all actuallity there is yet to be any Supreme Court ruling on file sharing matter, and there will not be. It would be a mockery of the US Supreme Court!! As close as Mexico and Canada's boarders is the distance where the file sharing laws would be enforced by US. Face it man, it is not a moral issue in any way because if you are to believe that Jesus Christ would waste one second of His concern or mind power over something like this you need to reread your Bible. Jesus said release yourself of your earthly possessions and come follow me. Things of the earth will remain of the earth but things that are of God will again become God's. As with the question asked of Jesus about paying taxes to Ceasar and if Jesus felt He should have to pay... He replied, Show me a coin, and who's face is on the coin? An Apostle answered, Ceasar's. Jesus simply said, "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and give to God what is God's!" Christ cares not one bit about file sharing nor is it a moral issue but yet He would simply say to each of us...apply this time you quibble over such things to the One most deserving of you time and attention.
With that, I want to bid you a good day and good luck!!
Later man--
--Thcranky1 |
