 | | Awsome This would have looked so bad if RIAA actually went with this case. | |
|
 |  owenhomekeeper of the magic blue smokePremium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR | Re: Awsome What about the RIAA doesn't look bad?
Is there any single thing they could do that would make themselves NOT look like a bunch of thugs? Nope. Regardless of what act of contrition they make, they will still be an inconceivably large pile of self-serving, contentious, ill-willed, terroristic sh!t bags. They prey on the lack of one's ability to fight back. And for that, they are foulest of the foul.
F the RIAA and everything they stand for. I hope they all rot in hell. And the same goes for the MPAA!
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
|
| | | | Re: Awsome Let's not beat around the bush -- the RIAA **STILL SUCKS**. | |
|
| | | I've been listening to this RIAA crap for years now. I'm sick of these righteous bastards! I have friends who are musicians and artists and most of them get little in return for thier product... it's the execs who get the profits and that sickens me too... I won't be buying one more CD until the RIAA falls!
People need to be outraged!!!
Enough. | |
|
| |  joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA
 ·Comcast
| Re: Awsome said by vatorman :
I've been listening to this RIAA crap for years now. I'm sick of these righteous bastards! I have friends who are musicians and artists and most of them get little in return for thier product... it's the execs who get the profits and that sickens me too... I won't be buying one more CD until the RIAA falls!
People need to be outraged!!!
Enough.
Looking forward to the day that Artists negotiate directly with Apple. Cut out the RIAA middleman altogether. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Awsome said by joetaxpayer:said by vatorman :
I've been listening to this RIAA crap for years now. I'm sick of these righteous bastards! I have friends who are musicians and artists and most of them get little in return for thier product... it's the execs who get the profits and that sickens me too... I won't be buying one more CD until the RIAA falls!
People need to be outraged!!!
Enough.
Looking forward to the day that Artists negotiate directly with Apple. Cut out the RIAA middleman altogether. Exactly what does the RIAA have to do with an artists contract and their money? Sounds like someone is looking for a scapegoat to excuse their activities. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Awsome sounds like someone is either uneducated, or doesn't know any musicians, or possibly both. | |
|
| | | god its good to live on the equator. | |
|
 ChiyoSave Me Konata-ChanPremium
join:2003-02-20
Charlotte, NC
kudos:1 | a newer kinder RIAA?? Yeah, it's all a PR ploy the AA's haven't changed one bit, this little act will only last until the next round of lawsuits. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Bright House
| Re: a newer kinder RIAA?? said by Chiyo:Yeah, it's all a PR ploy the AA's haven't changed one bit, this little act will only last until the next round of lawsuits. Yeah, this all coming from the same people who told college kids to "dropout" to pay their settlements. They really take kindly to "sensitive" issues. I wish the family would counter sue.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
|
 tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | [A]n abundance of sensitivity More like an abundance of "Whoops! People might notice we're doing wrong!" | |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T Southeast
| i wait IM waiting on the day when the RI** really screws up big and someone with alot money has nothing else better to do but get a few high lawyers and do the same to them as they do to us.
IMO people need to QUIT buying music and let the RIAA drown in it lawsuits that just barly pay the lawyers fees.
I feel for the family looks like a few lawyers would take this on just to get there name in the paper if you ask me. | |
|
| | | Re: i wait Dude, they can check your assets before they sue...
So short of having a trunk full of cash buried in the back yard this will continue to be the big bully beating up on kids | |
|
| | | | Re: i wait Anyone can check anyone's assets online.
Point is they(RI**) are so stupid in the lawsuits that they WILL slip up and thats what im waiting on. They have did so may slip ups in the past i cant count them so its coming. | |
|
| | | If people quit buying music, then the RIAA will just claim that the losses are due to massive piracy and will lobby for laws requiring all Americans to purchase at least one CD a month. (Ok, that last part is a stretch, but they do want to mandate a tax on CD-R's, CD-RW drives, and hard drives. At least with the "everyone must buy one CD a month" idea people actually get something in return.  ) | |
|
| |  AmnChodePremium
join:2001-03-27
San Antonio, TX | Re: i wait Want? From my understanding they already get a small "set-aside" from all blanks and recorders....it's only like a few pennies per disc, but that adds up quick.... | |
|
| | | | | Re: i wait They only get their "piracy tax" from the so-called "Music CD-Rs". If you buy a plain old box of non-music CD-R discs, the RIAA doesn't get anything. I also don't think that they get anything from CD Rewritable sales. Of course, this only applies to the US. I'm not sure about other countries.
I do remember at one point the RIAA pointing to a statistic about the number of blank CD discs manufactured. They then subtracted the amount they used. Their final total was trumpeted around as the amount of CD discs used for piracy. They didn't seem to think that a CD-R could be used for anything except storage of pirated music. (So I guess I really didn't use those 2 CDs to burn some photos of my brother-in-law's wedding like I thought I did. ) | |
|
| | | | | | Re: i wait And of course the they don't factor in the blank CD's bought to make legitimate copies of the CD's they own for backup copies they listen to while keeping the original tucked away safe. Then there are those who still like to create their own mix CDs from the music they own.
But what is fair use anyway? | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: i wait said by SRFireside:And of course the they don't factor in the blank CD's bought to make legitimate copies of the CD's they own for backup copies they listen to while keeping the original tucked away safe. Speaking from experience, a must when dealing with toddlers.
According to the RIAA: Fair use? No such thing.
Seriously, they've been quoted as saying that even ripping a legally purchased CD to MP3 isn't fair use (»www.boingboing.net/2006/02/15/ri···snt.html) even if you keep that MP3 to yourself and don't share it. Of course, they might "allow" you to rip the CD out of the goodness of their hearts, but it's not a "fair use right."
That's the RIAA's opinion, of course. My personal opinion is that fair use lets me do whatever I want with music I've legally purchased up to but not including sharing that music with others while still retaining a copy. I can rip it to MP3. I can copy those MP3s to multiple computers of mine. I can copy the entire CD to play in the car (keeping the original safe). I can sell or give away the CD (provided I destroy any backup copies or delete any MP3s I have). But I can't take one of my ripped MP3 files and stick it on a file sharing network. (I consider loaning the CD to a friend to be a gray area. I think it's legal, but the friend shouldn't use that chance to rip MP3s or otherwise make a copy of the CD.) | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: i wait My opinion is sharing, whether it be lending a CD to a friend or peer to peer trading, legally doesn't fall under copyright infringement. My personal views are along the same lines. Music is art. Art is meant to be shared. Copyright was created only to help compensate artists for a period of time for sales of a work, not create a commodity. Yadda yadda... you've heard it all from me before. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: i wait I sorta see where you are going with this. OK Music is Art and Art is supposed to be shared. I can't take the rembrant painting down get a nice scan of the orginal ? and plus music is shared. They allow you to stream music as long as you follow some rules. Aol music allows you to listen (normally without the AOL slogan in the background).
I haven't seen a lawsuit (correct me if I'm wrong) for a person ripping an MP3 to put on their portable MP3 player. They are attacking illegal file sharing (but they seem to attack the file sharing program more and more) which most of us agree that sharing on P2P isn't right. We agree on terms when we purchase the CD and I feel they should be printed OUTSIDE of the package or allow us to return the for a refund if we don't agree. If you don't like the terms don't buy it. Then over time they will have to come up with a solution to correct the problem. Once an artist makes song it isn't a legal right for you to have it.
Don't get me wrong I see both sides and it isn't an easy fix. My wife is a photographer and we have copyright on our images and we get upset if someones makes a photocopy of the images we provide to a client. If a customer make one or two not the end of the world and will not likley take it to court. But, you make alot of copies there can be a problem. This is stated in the contract and they agree to it BEFORE they sign it and pay us.
Sorry I get on a rant once in a while.  | |
|
| | | | | | | | markofmayhemI can haz competition?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:4 | Re: i wait Call me naive, but didn't the Supreme Court already rule on this back in the '70's??? Movie studios went nuts over VCR's and the Supreme Court ruled that a person could make as many copies as they wanted, but couldn't sell or publicly display the content. I see filesharing as public display. I agree with the 30 year old Supreme Court ruling: Once I own a "CD", I can do whatever I want with it as long as I don't sell the copy or gift it to someone else. RIAA needs to be stopped, for as I see it, they are violating the Supreme Court ruling in certain cases. As for the other cases, I can't conceive that it can be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" that an IP address can link to an actual person.
Here's a question in theoretics... if I download a song from an "evil" P2P location and already own the CD, is it a crime? If my CD is scratched, do I no longer own that song? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: i wait Ok, you're naive. (just kidding)
The Supreme Court did rule on it, but "fair use" is a very nebulous concept legally. The studios (and other copyright holders) lobbied Congress to make laws granting them more and more control over copyrighted material and pushing fair use further and further to the fringe. It was a gradual thing, and they did have some setbacks (e.g. the music and book industries' attempts to outlaw used CD/book sales) but they've gotten to the point where fair use is seriously threatened. We've gotten to the point where fair use is defined by the industry as something that they allow us to have as opposed to being defined by the courts as something that the people inherently have.
As for your theoretical question. It is a crime technically, but chances are you'd never be prosecuted for it. Remember, they only prosecute suspected uploaders regardless of the media reports.
As a real world example: My wife owns a copy of Billy Joel's Kohuept. I bought it for her when her cassette tape version broke. In a stroke of bad luck, the CD recently broke as well (cracked into 2 pieces). We never got around to ripping to music to CD. (A mistake we won't make again.)
Now I might be able to locate the songs online via a P2P network and download them, but I don't think that would be legal. At least not legal enough for me. AllOfMP3 is another option, but I have doubts about their legality too. So what I'll likely do is buy a used CD. I just checked Half.com and there's one there for under $3.50 with shipping. That beats any online downloads or even AllOfMP3 in my book. And the RIAA won't be getting another dime from this sale. (Somewhere, a RIAA executive is crying out. ) | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: i wait said by Jason Levine:As a real world example: My wife owns a copy of Billy Joel's Kohuept. I bought it for her when her cassette tape version broke. In a stroke of bad luck, the CD recently broke as well (cracked into 2 pieces). We never got around to ripping to music to CD. (A mistake we won't make again.) Now I might be able to locate the songs online via a P2P network and download them, but I don't think that would be legal. Actually what I got straight from the horses mouth, so to speak, was that downloading a song you previously purchased falls under fair use. Even if you bought a vinyl copy and downloaded an mp3 that came from a CD. This specific question was raised a couple years ago and answered by a representative of the RIAA in an interview. He also said they do not mind people lending out CDs. Now how much of this will change as they want more control is another story.
And that's your prerogative. The beauty about having such freedoms is that you can decide where to draw the line. Me? I will download music I do not own and I will share music I have that I wish others to know about (or are simply not available anymore). This is provided the music I download is something I endeavor to find the CD for if available, and that people uploading aren't just downloading entire albums from me (I'll cut that out pretty quick).
I don't agree with upload freaks who boast having terabytes of songs and movies. Everything in moderation. Might not be what you agree with, but I know we both agree that the RIAA is about as wacky as Tom Cruise in a televised interview. | |
|
| | | | | | | | >
Huh? If that were the case, we couldn't have LIBRARIES! You have the right to let anyone borrow your CDs whenver you want and its not a gray area at all. Of course, its up to them to not make copies, but the burden of such an act is on them and not you, the lender.
You can freely let anyone borrow your CDs whenever you want. | |
|
| | | | | | |  2kmaroThinkPremium,ExMod 1 BC
join:2000-07-11
ColossalCave | Re: i wait said by Librarian :
>
Huh? If that were the case, we couldn't have LIBRARIES! You have the right to let anyone borrow your CDs whenver you want and its not a gray area at all. Of course, its up to them to not make copies, but the burden of such an act is on them and not you, the lender.
You can freely let anyone borrow your CDs whenever you want.
Absolutely true.
The killer in all of this is the DMCA. Shares a tie for first place with the PATRIOT act in my book as being a knee-jerk 'solution' to a poorly understood and panic driven desire to find a solution. What everyone, not just those that would like to 'share' digital material, should do is let their representatives, local, state and most importantly, Federal, know that the DMCA needs to be repealed. Under that law, Fair Use as it applies to digial media pretty much went right out the window. The catch is that it is not illegal to make a personal copy of something you have purchased for archival, teaching or a few other legitimate reasons - it is ILLEGAL to circumvent any copy protection technology used to prevent your exercise of Fair Use. It's a circular argument used very effectively by the industry, so effectively they managed to pay enough legislators off er, lobby successfully to get the law passed. So they can then claim copyright infringement not by virtue of having copied something, but by having circumvented the encryption scheme used to prevent you from exercising Fair Use. Which very obviously, does away with Fair Use.
The DMCA is such a bad law that notable organizations such as the IEEE have even come out publicly against it, not so much from the murder of Fair Use, but from all the roadblocks and potential jail sentences that could be imposed by inventors and companies trying to bring you new, useful, fun, labor and time saving devices.
--
...then THINK! again!! | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| close. The "music CDR" disks have a small royalty built into the price. If you have a stand-alone recorder that hooks into your stereo music system, it has music industry-mandated hardware controls that require you to use one of the above specially encoded music CDR blanks; a standard data CDR/RW disk won't record. Thus, the music industry continues to get royalties when you rip your own using a music recorder. That's also why a cakebox of "music" disks costs more than a box of generic (or even name-brand) data disks.
However, standard data disks don't have the royalty and computer-based recorders are not locked to royalty-encumbered media. Thus, people who use computers rather than the living room stereo to manage their music collections are not supporting the **AAs. Hence the need to "get all those pirating bastards" with their computers.
dw | |
|
| | | | They won't try to mandate a tax on CD-R's in the U.S. because they did it in Canada and they're not happy! The problem was that the tax was implimented based on the idea that people were making copies of music. As a result of that tax, copying CD's in Canada is perfectly legal! The only way that they can make it illegal is if they give back they money that they had collected up till now.
As a result, most of my friends have extensive music collections that the RIAA can't do much about. They keep trying to do media campaigns about how evil WE are, but they aren't getting anywhere! | |
|
| |
| | | | Re: i wait I was just thinking of Hogan also, but couldn't remember his name. Unfortunately, he's the rare exception. Most people sued by the RIAA get notified that they are being sued for millions of dollars in potential damages. The RIAA then tells them that they have two options 1) spend a lot of time and money fighting a lengthy court case that they could lose and wind up bankrupt for years to come 2) sign this easy little piece of paper to make it all go away for the low, low price of only $2,000-$3,000. They are highly pressured to just settle on the spot (lest the price go up should they tarry). For most people, the prospect of fighting a long, drawn out court battle is too much regardless of their guilt or innocence.
I've said it multiple times. If I was sued, I might wind up settling even if I was innocent (which I would be). Ideally, I would want to fight to clear my good name, but in the end I have too much in my life that I could lose in a long, drawn out court battle. So I would most likely settle, but would feel awful while doing so. (Of course, there's the chance that the RIAA would just drop the case if I pursued it, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to spend the time and money to take that chance.) | |
|
| | |  pb5kCan't TriforcePremium
join:2005-11-16
Glendale, AZ | Re: i wait I agree that these threats with court action amount to nothing more than a war of attrition.
IMO, if {insert multimillion entity here} wants to sue someone on a civil matter they should only be able to spend up to 10% of the defendant's net income on legal counsel (this is probably the maximum an average working person can spare). E.G. the single soccer mom who takes home $30,000 a year - sorry RIAA, you can only spend up to $3000 on legal counsel. Better take it up in small claims!
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" --
Theodore Roosevelt | |
|
| | | | | | Re: i wait That might be a good idea. My idea would amount to creating two classes of copyright infringement. Let's call these "casual" and "professional." The Professional infringer would be someone who was infringing on copyrights for profit. An example would be those folks who burn copies of CDs and DVDs and sell them on the street corners. These folks would face the full fines currently available ($750 - $150,000 per infringing incident).
The second class would be the casual infringer. This would be the person who infringed copyright but had no profit motive. An example would be someone uploading a song to a P2P network without getting the copyright holder's permission. This offense would carry a much reduced fine from the "professional" level. Let's say about $0.75 - $150 per infringing incident, but with a cap of $10,000. This would make truly innocent much more likely to fight when presented with the RIAA's "take the $3,000 settlement or else" threat. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: i wait I know this is a little off topic but...
actually read the fbi warning before a movie some time, for non profit use you face up tp 5 years in jail and a 250,000 fine! | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: i wait I know and I find that a bit excessive. If someone makes a copy of a movie and gives it to his friend he could (theoretically) be bankrupted and sent to prison for 5 years! Is one movie swap worth that much? That might be a good fine for the professional pirates, but somewhere along the way we lost all perspective when it came to normal citizens. | |
|
|  Jodokast96R.I.P Bassman442Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | Well, the MPAA has already done it. It was posted on here a few weeks ago how the owner of a software company was targeted, and he vowed to fight no matter what the cost. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | well they would have to sopena to know all of your assets. and if your that loaded its good to assume you have offshores accounts(which are of course numbered so they cant be directly linked to you).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | |  Re: i wait
said by Kearnstd:well they would have to sopena to know all of your assets. and if your that loaded its good to assume you have offshores accounts (which are of course numbered so they cant be directly linked to you). All they really need to do to get a rough idea of how much you are worth is to look at your address (which they can get from subpoena). Banks will not disclose your information unless it is to a law enforcement agency or if you authorize them to (such as when applying for a mortgage or a loan). However, just by knowing the kind of area that you live in says quite a lot about your finances.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | i find it funny that you face less penilty for stealing a CD or DVD from walmart then downloading it off the internet.
pretty sad state of law when shoplifting is a lesser crime then minor copyright infringement.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | i say copy away, crack the CSS on your DVDs. as long as its personal use its protected by fair use. might be breaking the DMCA but the feds will never know if your just making copies to play for the kids in the minivan.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| |
| | Translated RIAA quote You really have to run the RIAA's quote through a special filter to figure out the real meaning of it. Here's the result:
"Our hearts go out for the loss of settlement revenue from the Scantleberry family. We had decided to temporarily suspend the productive settlement discussions to regroup our strategy (as as a good PR attempt) once Mr. Scantleberry passed away. We were planning to claim that Mr. Scantleberry had admitted that the infringer was his stepson, so that we could force him to accept our overbearing and one-sided settlement. Out of an abundance of bad PR, we have elected to drop this particular case and hope that everyone quickly forgets about it so we can go back to suing dead grandmothers and little girls in peace."
| |
|
approval from:
ThrowDemsOut 
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. | |
|
|
See 26 replies to this post |
|
wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
1 edit | So riddle me this... I've read elsewhere that a large proportion of blank media in this country carries a levy of sorts to "compensate" artists for the "fact" that "most" users buy this media in order to record songs, supposedly depriving the "artitsts" of additional revenue. (This of course depends on your definition of "artist", and the "facts" are debatable) Given the above:
- How can the **AA claim loss of revenue when the levy has been established expressly for compensating said artists?
- If it can be shown that the artists in question are receiving just compensation via the unilateral imposition of this levy, how can the **AA justifiably sue for piracy, loss of revenue, etc.
In addition to the above, both Copyrights and Patents were established in the constitution as a contract of sorts. The artists and inventors were to be granted limited monopolies in order to benefit from their creative works. In exchange, the creative work was to eventually pass into the public domain in order to enrich society at large and to allow others to build on established foundations. Given that the **AAs and other groups have repeatedly lobbied for extension of the monopoly term (thus depriving the public of its fair and equitable access to the works), how can their actions not be considered a breaking of the social contract contemplated by the constitution which, to my mind, is theivery equivalent to or worse than that which they claim to fight?
Discuss...
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
|
| | | Re: So riddle me this... Sounds like treason to me. Earlier someone posted a pdf here about statistical significance and why the present length of copyright is bullshit and a violation of the wording of the consititution. You can't really use the media tax because most people just buy regular media to avoid the extra charge. | |
|
| | wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | Re: So riddle me this... Dunno about not using the media tax, but I don't have the facts at my fingertips, so I can't intelligently debate you.
OTOH, the person you are thinking of is, I believe, law professor Lawrence Lessig. IIRC, he was able to use a statistical model to show that the current copyright term gave the copyright holders something like 98% of the benefits of having a copyright in perpetutity.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
|
| | | said by wtansill:How can the **AA claim loss of revenue when the levy has been established expressly for compensating said artists? Possibly the same way that they claim "breakage" on shipped CDs equal to breakage on shipped records and deduct accordingly from the artist's cut.
Also the same way that they reduce the number of CDs that they ship and then claim that since less CDs have been sold, piracy must have gone up.
Also the same way that they claim to be working to protect the livelihood of the artists but then sneak in legislation to classify all singers/bands as "works for hire" effectively giving the RIAA's members complete copyright control of the songs by default (as opposed to by contract). Of course, this last one was graciously reversed by the RIAA (after artists strongly protested and the RIAA smelled a revolt in the works).
In short, don't attempt to apply real logic to the RIAA's actions. You'll only give yourself a headache. Instead, to think like the RIAA, you must only think of one thing: How can I establish, expand, and maintain control on everything that surrounds me? Think like the ultimate control freak and you're off to a good start in understanding the RIAA. | |
|
| | | Actually, I think it was Canada that said "Well, if the songs are already out there, it's illegal to *upload* them, but, since they're paying a tax already, we can't really make it illegal to download the stuff." Basically, if it's already out there, you can download it, but can't upload it. | |
|
 R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA | I feel for PR people Either they are the scum of the earth or they have to deal with some hairy stuff.
Just look at the example of this story. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would look at the PR statement and go "WTH?...Abundance of Sensitivity my butt", but the poor PR guy has to swallow his pride and actually repeat that to the world...
I'd rather be unemployed than do PR to an org like the RIAA. What kind of pact with the devil does one have to sign to deserve such punishment? | |
|
|  ShamayimI already have a Messiah.Premium
join:2002-09-23
2 edits | Re: I feel for PR people said by R4M0N:Either they are the scum of the earth or they have to deal with some hairy stuff. Just look at the example of this story. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would look at the PR statement and go "WTH?...Abundance of Sensitivity my butt", but the poor PR guy has to swallow his pride and actually repeat that to the world... I'd rather be unemployed than do PR to an org like the RIAA. What kind of pact with the devil does one have to sign to deserve such punishment? "Abundance of sensitivity" is a flat-out cynical statement by the RIAA showing what heartless bast@rds they are. It's the same if he'd said the RIAA has "oodles of compassion" for the family. Would anyone believe that was sincere? Scum of the earth truly describes the vile, filthy pukes in this organization.
--
"tick...tick...tick..."
»www.jtf.org/
| |
|
| Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by R4M0N:Either they are the scum of the earth or they have to deal with some hairy stuff. Just look at the example of this story. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would look at the PR statement and go "WTH?...Abundance of Sensitivity my butt", but the poor PR guy has to swallow his pride and actually repeat that to the world... I'd rather be unemployed than do PR to an org like the RIAA. What kind of pact with the devil does one have to sign to deserve such punishment? Agreed. The RIAA is clueless. No amount of damage control will repair the damage they've done with this type of absurdity. I will never knowingly purchase another CD issued through their organization. From the sounds of things, I'm certainly not alone. But, they don't understand what they've and apparently never will. Maybe they'll just dry up and blow away.
--
I thought I made a mistake once but I was wrong | |
|
| | ShamayimI already have a Messiah.Premium
join:2002-09-23 | Re: I feel for PR people said by Derspankster: Maybe they'll just dry up and blow away. Like dried dogsh!t.
--
"tick...tick...tick..." »www.jtf.org/ | |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
·Frontier FiOS
| Play Devil's Advocate For A Second Say the deceased was wronged some how by the RIAA and was entitled to legal recourse. Do you think the family/estate would drop the case after he died? Unfortunately in this day an age, the estate probably would have still gone after the RIAA.
Yes the RIAA was cold in their approach. And yes they could have gone after the living. But like it or not it appears as if the deceased was legally responsible for the acts of his stepson and was in the process of settling with the RIAA. Does him dying suddenly make what his stepson did go away?
--
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
 RLDIts All About Choice.
join:2001-07-05
North Richland Hills, TX | one acronym.... R.I.C.O. I firmly believe the *aa tactics would fall under the RICO Act if they were truly and honestly investigated. But, the lobbyists are not going to let honesty happen.
With the extortion to P2Pers, over inflated pricing for packaging, recording, marketing an so on forced on the artists (another form of extortion: "We know your art is good and can make a lot of money. So; here is 5mil to get you started but it'll cost you the rights to your music and this much for packaging, recording, marketing, and bribing radio stations to play your (sic) music. So, you'll make a good 50k a piece out of your art.")
Its amazing that we let these corporations, lobbyists, politicians, and ourselves keep drowning the people with feces from the septic tank.
--
R.L.Dempsey
Mac OS/X & Linux (by Choice)
OS/2 Warp & eCS (for utility)
friggin windoze (by necessity) | |
|
| | Here's a ? If you have a file sharing program on your computer and you DO NOT share, just leech and then if you like the songs you go out and buy the cd, and the RIAA one day says we have discovered illegally d/l'd music on your computer, couldn't they in turn be sued for invasion of privacy and or some federal law reguarding unauthorized computer hacking/entry and has this happened before? | |
|
|
|
