| Author |
Message |
Shawn Hirn
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Stop the MPAA and RIAA |
|
|
In article <1131717114.351675.198940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Doesn't make it right or legal, and don't be surprised when they say
enough is enough and put the boot down on your neck for it (so to
speak).
And to think that marketing a CD turns out to be 3 cents a copy is just
ludicrious. You think advertising is free?
You can agree or disagree with the industry's approach (and the actual
cost of a CD), but the industry's historical stupidity is absolutely
not in question. They kept CD prices artificially high for many
years, until their customers finally found an alternative and told the
manufacturers to stuff it. Now they're paying the price for decades
of arrogance.
An industry's poor approach to marketing does not justify the stealing
of their product.
|
True. There are others who just don't care. No one ever said life
is fair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Shawn Hirn
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Stop the MPAA and RIAA |
|
|
In article <1131542363.272688.62630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
None of this gives you the right to rip them off. They will pay for
any illegal activities they have done.
Stop trying to justify illegal behavior with other illegal behavior.
|
Legally, you are speaking the truth. The reality is that these record
companies have to learn the golden rule. They have ripped off consumers
for decades. They are simply getting the same treatment they dealt upon
consumers. Does that make it right to rip off the recording industry? Of
course not, but the reality is, that life is not fair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Real Bev
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:08 am Post subject:
Re: Stop the MPAA and RIAA |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
| Quote: | The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
So now we're back to my original question: exactly when did your
personal musical taste become the objective benchmark by which all music
(and by implication its legal protection) is judged?
1) Unauthorized copying that leaves the original intact is not theft,
Non-responsive to the question asked. I'll ask it again:
Exactly when did your personal musical taste become the objective
benchmark by which all music (and by implication its legal protection)
is judged?
|
Oh jeez. It doesn't. I would have thought that that would have been obvious.
| Quote: | copyright violation, which is a civil offense, not criminal.
Copyright violation can be both, depending on the circumstances.
Mere unauthorized duplication is a civil offense.
Unauthorized duplication and distribution for profit (bootleg movies,
for example) is a criminal offense.
|
Then arrest and try them. How many of the file-sharers do you think are
profiting from their activities?
| Quote: | Perhaps you've noticed that FBI copyright warning that pops up before
every DVD? Here's a hint: the FBI doesn't investigate civil cases. Only
criminal ones.
|
There's the Interpol warning too. Papieren, bitte?
| Quote: | As you're so fond of telling everyone else: do some research and report
back.
Burglarizing your home IS criminal, but you're still
not allowed to set lethal booby-traps for burglars.
?!?!?!
|
There are penalties for criminal offense, but they aren't all death.
File-copying might be a criminal offense, but before lobbyists convinced
lawmakers that their big-money clients would be most appreciative at election
time it wasn't.
| Quote: | I have no idea what the hell that has to do with anything but I will
point out that while an unmanned automatic booby-trap is a crime,
there's nothing criminal whatsoever about a homeowner blowing away a
burglar him or herself.
|
Depends on the state and where the homeowner managed to drag the corpse before
the cops arrived.
| Quote: | 2) There is no intrinsic sin in downloading something in order to know
whether you like or hate that particular artist/song,
And if this were a religious debate, sin might be relevant.
|
Apparently it IS a religious debate. The only reason law enforcement should
concern itself with kids sharing crap is that god says it's evil and should be
punished. Remember, it wasn't a crime until some lawmakers got paid off by
some lobbyists; and even so, aren't there a few crimes that ought to receive
higher priority? Do you worry about gang-bangers or guys spitting on the
sidewalk?
--
Cheers,
Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
-- Lionel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Real Bev
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:08 am Post subject:
Re: Stop the MPAA and RIAA |
|
|
Shawn Hirn wrote:
| Quote: | "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
And to think that marketing a CD turns out to be 3 cents a copy is just
ludicrious. You think advertising is free?
No, but its irrelevant.
|
No, we should all be thankful for advertising. It enables a whole lot of
useful stuff -- like google, for example -- to be free. I don't understand
how it works (People buy stuff because they saw an ad? REALLY?) but I'm glad
it does.
Moreover, I'm pretty sure that if google started charging even a penny a
search, use would drop off precipitously. Remember when telephone
'Information' was free? I used it every once in a while. When they started
charging for it I never used it again. I know that was their intent, and it
worked like a charm.
The downside, of course, is spam...
--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The way England treats her prisoners, she doesn't
deserve to have any." --Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in