RIAA = Music Gestapo?

[DSE 3]

Quote

To me the RIAA____________(insert any industry representative organization here) is symptomatic of a desperate music industry that has become way out of touch with its consumers.

Fixed it for ya.

RIAA doesn't represent you, Walt, so they really don't give a damn about what *you* think. On the other hand, they do represent me. While I have issues with certain aspects of what they might say and occasionally do, I'm very glad they are there for me and my publishers.
I feel the NGSA is way out of hand too, but then again, I'm not a member of their organization, and they aren't tasked with representing me, either, although their products do very directly affect my quality of life.

I do still believe in the old-fashioned concept of asking permission before taking something that doesn't belong to me, particularly if one is making a profit with someone else' creative work, and putting out to where that creative person has lost control over their work.
Quaint, I know, but asking permission and/or paying for things is how some of us were raised.

Murrays, as far as that article, I can't give it any credibility. If they took one aspect of a website grossley out of context, for all I know they did the same thing with what this attorney said.
For the record, by current law, you have the right to copy music from a CD to your computer for your own personal use, and/or put it on your portable music device for your own use. The only time (at present) that you can run afoul of the law in copying CDs is if you bypass copy protection on the CD. Very, very few CDs have DRM on them. That was a failed experiment on the part of a few big labels. DRM is not currently in heavy use, as the music industry is experimenting with trusting consumers to do the right thing. In most genre's, it's working. In the film/video world, it's a different story. DRM is on everything, if for no other reason than to provide a platform from which a copyright lawsuit may be launched.

Isn't it sad how someone who owns something has to fight so fucking hard to continue to own what they created? The Skyride threads are almost hilarious when related to this subject. "F***ing Skyride, they stole my pictures to use on their website" screams the tandem guy that illegally ripped a Van Halen or Tom Petty CD to use in his tandem video.
I read the gun threads about blowing away an intruder for coming through the door because they might steal a television worth a few hundred bucks, but when an artist undertakes actions, sometimes desperate and foolish, to protect that which they have created to put bread on their table, they're labeled as "Gestapo," "Greedy," etc. Doesn't matter whether we're talking software engineers, musicians, or directors/writers...any creative work that has a digital distribution model...they're at risk of piracy.
Next time you see Norm Kent, Joe Jennings, Mike McGowan, ask em' why they bother to put big copyright watermarks on their work when it goes online.

Happy new year!

[kelpdiver 2]

You're wrong on this, DSE. The RIAA lawyer made exactly that argument in a case as cited, and it got a lot of coverage for the attempt.

Of course, there are a lot of bullshit motions thrown up against the wall in court, hoping to get something to stick. But there's little doubt that the legal tactics used have been highly unethical in their attempt to control file sharing piracy (yes, it is).

The RIAA won't back off even the obviously misdirected cases because they want to scare the general public into compliance. "Even if we have no case we'll waste our money and your's in court. We got more $$ than you, so settle up." I think they'd buy themselves a lot more credibility if they would admit it when they fuck up. They make Mickey Mouse's lawyers seem reasonable.

[DSE 3]

Til I see a specific citation of litigation over an authorized use, I'm not buying.
I haven't followed this particular case, I merely look at the newsletter action reports (kinda like the "new" in Parachutist) and it is presented differently there. After some searching, it's presented in pretty much the same context as Engadget reports it. Illegal downloading, not ripping.
The industry has some stupidity, but until I see the actual filing, I'm not buying it that he's being sued for simply ripping. Microsoft and Apple would have been easier targets.

[waltappel 1]

As despicable as I think the RIAA is, I think the claim that in the Arizona case they are stating that ripping songs off of a CD to a hard drive is a violation is a real stretch. The motion refers to making them available for distribution by putting them in a shared folder that is accessible over a peer-to-peer network, i.e., kazaa.

Read the brief here.

Walt

[DSE 3]

Thanks for that, Walt. hadn't seen this, and have spent the last 20 mins searching for info that goes more deeply than what is reported in the newsletter.
For clarification, if you're gonna call the RIAA despicable, recognize that the RIAA is just a coalition of record labels, like the MPAA is a coalition of movie studios, like AMA is a coalition of doctors, etc. RIAA does what the labels demand, and for the most part, the labels do what its artists want (in the broad view).
Who here has recorded, written, or produced for an RIAA-membership label?

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Thanks for that, Walt. hadn't seen this, and have spent the last 20 mins searching for info that goes more deeply than what is reported in the newsletter.
For clarification, if you're gonna call the RIAA despicable, recognize that the RIAA is just a coalition of record labels, like the MPAA is a coalition of movie studios, like AMA is a coalition of doctors, etc. RIAA does what the labels demand, and for the most part, the labels do what its artists want (in the broad view).

I certainly recognize it. The RIAA is despicable.

Walt

[DSE 3]

Quote

I certainly recognize it. The RIAA is despicable.

Walt

I've articulated what they do for me as an artist, writer, and publisher of music. Would you please articulate specifically how the RIAA has harmed you?
You seem like someone of integrity, based on your posts, so I'm really confused by your position here.

[murrays 0]

From quickly scanning the brief it appears to me that the placing of the mp3 files into the kazaa shared folder is what is found to be actionable. I didn't see anything indicating that ripping the files to the hard drive was a problem.....until the files are made available for sharing I don't think there is a problem from my reading of the brief....which supports your earlier assertion, DSE.

So, it appears to me that this was a case of incorrect reporting...something skydivers are, unfortunately, quite familiar with.


But, I have to say that I think that most people find these judgments of, recently $222,000, $40,500 in this case and so on to be extremely heavy handed and certainly do not create any sympathy for the artists the RIAA represents.

DSE, do you think more artists will take the Radiohead route and release their recordings directly to the public? Do you see similar approaches being used more and the record labels and RIAA becoming less important/influential?

--
Murray

"No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Quote

I certainly recognize it. The RIAA is despicable.

Walt

I've articulated what they do for me as an artist, writer, and publisher of music. Would you please articulate specifically how the RIAA has harmed you?
You seem like someone of integrity, based on your posts, so I'm really confused by your position here.

They have done nothing to me. It's the heavy-handed tactics against "Joe Average" that I think is crap. I realize that they are just doing their job but it's a dirty job. I view them to be much like Microsoft in their tactics.

Beyond going after people on peer-to-peer file sharing networks they are going after people who post "how to play" videos for songs as well as people who post guitar tabs. I view both of those things as being good for sales and good for the artists and composers.

IMO the term "Music Gestapo" fits. I can't say that I believe they have no legitimate claim but I do believe their tactics are over-the-line.

Walt

[DSE 3]

Quote

DSE, do you think more artists will take the Radiohead route and release their recordings directly to the public? Do you see similar approaches being used more and the record labels and RIAA becoming less important/influential?

With or without labels, RIAA will continue to exist, as it's also a representative organization of Recording Artists (Recording Industry Association of America).
Yes, I believe we'll start seeing more psuedo-direct releases, just as Madonna has pledged to do through her label for internet marketing, and as Jennifer Lopez' label experimented with via Rhapsody, and so forth. I'm involved with a band called 10 Man Push that is going this route too. I believe in this format of distribution and marketing, and have put some $$ behind my belief in it. But I am, and likely always will be, a member of the RIAA, warts and all. And expect that you'll continue to see Madonna, Garth Brooks, Radiohead (RIAA members) continue to push for protection of artists content.
The $222,000.00 judgement seems heavy-handed; tough shit. She was begged, pleaded, warned to stop uploading music. She gave the industry and artists the finger. She's no different than someone who breaks into a bank and steals our money with zero FDIC to protect the depositors. She stole thousands of dollars in creative works, and then re-distributed those works, even after receiving several letters of cease and desist.
No one can estimate the damage that is done to the label and/or artist once the music is in cyberspace. It can be huge. The Eminem and Madonna experiments proved it can easily run into the tens of millions for one song.
What will become less influential, are the big labels like Sony/BMG, Warner, etc. The boutique labels that specialize in internet marketing will rise to greater power. And most of them are members of the RIAA, because they are first and foremost, representatives of recording artists, and distributors of recorded music. I for one, am proud to be a member of the RIAA, and a proud defender of my copyrights.
I'm saddened that my job is apparently of such significantly less value than someone else', that I'm deemed "despicable."

BTW, equating uploading guitar tab to ripping/sharing songs over the internet is ludicrous. Uploading tab is a "how to play" and nothing more. The artists performance isn't stolen, the essence of the song isn't stolen. And the RIAA had nothing to do with David Taub's vids being pulled from YouTube. The Stone's publisher sent him an email indicating it "could be a violation of copyright." He pulled them himself.
I guess the Stones are despicable too, for trying to protect their creations.

[auburnguy 0]

come on... who hasn't downloaded .... edited to avoid the gestapo

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[murrays 0]

Quote

come on... who hasn't downloaded a few thousand songs and hundreds of movies off of the internet?

Me.

--
Murray

"No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Quote

come on... who hasn't downloaded a few thousand songs and hundreds of movies off of the internet?

Me.

Same here.

Walt

[shropshire 0]

I've actually bought CDs after downloading, reviewing and liking stuff. It's often the only way to get exposure to new music.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[waltappel 1]

Quote

I'm saddened that my job is apparently of such significantly less value than someone else', that I'm deemed "despicable."

You seem to be putting that label on yourself. I understand that this is a very personal issue to you but being threatened with lawsuits is something that is personal for a lot of people too.

We live in a litigous society where lawsuits are commonly used as either as coercion or extortion. It's in the news every day. It's a common threat. "I'm going to sue you into oblivion, motherfucker!" has seemingly replaced, "I'm going to kick your fucking ass!".

I'm not saying there is no merit in the RIAA's cause but if you think any group whose sole purpose seems to be threatening/filing lawsuits is *not* going to be generally viewed in negative terms then I think you're being unrealistic.

Walt

[DSE 3]

Quote

come on... who hasn't downloaded a few thousand songs and hundreds of movies off of the internet?

Me.
I'm confident what keeps me awake at night is far different from that which keeps you tossing and turning.

[DSE 3]

Why is this so personal to you? Have you been threatened with a lawsuit for stealing music? Has a family member/loved one been sued for uploading stolen music? Did your boss lose his company, and subsequently your job as a result of uploading stolen music?

As far as what they represent, I *am* the RIAA. I'm a recording artist, I'm a publisher. In some relatively insignificant way, I'm a label. You're calling me "despicable" because I'm in that mix/organization. They represent me. I don't like everything about the RIAA in the same way many skydivers don't appreciate the USPA. But like the USPA, they are champions for their respective industries.
And I've sued for copyright violation. And will likely have do so again.

When multiple written requests of "Stop stealing the music, stop uploading stolen music" don't work, the damaged party has no option but to sue. To not sue means they may likely lose the right to protect themselves in other, future situations.

This issue is not entirely unique from how Don Kirlin lost his land in Colorado; he failed to stop the neighbor from illegally using it, and lost his right to the property. Had one letter of "Please stop using my property as a pathway" been sent, the Kirlins would likely have their dream lot, and probably their dream home by now, right? Would Don Kirlin have been despicable for wanting to protect his land rights? Somehow, I can't find it in myself to think so.
Honestly, can you?
Is your hatred for property rights limited to musicians and creative endeavors or is it fairly distributed amongst all property owners?

If the recording industry doesn't spend the money, time, and resources protecting their property, they run a substantial risk of losing the right to protect their property.
Maybe you'd prefer to see Warner/Sony/BMG/Virgin/et al individually go after the theives, and an individual who stole media from 30 labels would have 30 separate lawsuits against them. Wouldn't you find a greater degree of "despicable" in that scenario??

Perhaps you'd prefer that the record labels simply send Sluggo, Gino, and 50Cent over there to "kick the thief's ass?"

I don't give a damn whether the the RIAA is loved by you or not. The US military isn't particularly loved in the Middle East, either. They have a job they've sworn to do, and so does the RIAA.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Why is this so personal to you?

Simple, really. I don't like bullies--especially bullies who think that the end justifies the means for anything they want to do.

* Subpoena records from internet service providers? No problem.
* Subpoena records from universities? Definitely no problem.
* Embarass the people they are targeting by referencing (in court documents) "pornographic" files found on their computers? No problem.
* Demanding to randomly search through computers? No problem.

IMO the RIAA 's lust for beating its targets into submission knows no bounds. If you're proud of that then we just have different standards.

No, they have never threatened me nor anyone close to me with a lawsuit nor have I personally been affected by them--yet. For what it's worth I don't own an iPod nor do I *want* one. I have a few dozen songs that I have downloaded and I have paid for each of them.

So why do I think the RIAA's tactics are bad? It's my understanding that they have lobbyists not only trying to get the legal right for them to hack into computers but to exempt them from having to pay for any damages they do in the process. You don't think that's over the line? Once again, we just have different standards.

I don't think it's any stretch at all to think that the RIAA wants to establish itself as a "Big Brother" type of organization with powers to violate anyone's privacy anytime they happen to feel like it. Call me paranoid, but I'm seeing potential for abuse that far exceeds any abuses they have suffered.

Quote

Is your hatred for property rights limited to musicians and creative endeavors or is it fairly distributed amongst all property owners?

When did you stop beating your wife? That question is about as valid as yours. I once had a cop pull me over and accuse me of trafficking drugs. He asked me to sign a paper giving him permission to search my car. I refused. He repeatedly demanded that I sign it, threatened to throw me in jail, etc., and said many times, "You wouldn't mind me searching your car if you didn't have any dope!!!!". Actually, I didn't want some slimeball looking through my car for no kind of good reason. I finally did allow him to search my car and he was seriously pissed when he didn't find anything.

My "hatred for property rights"? How about the RIAA's hatred of privacy? Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to assume guilt rather than innocence.

Guess what? I don't want you and your buddies sticking your noses up my ass and into my computer. I don't want you doing it to anyone else either. I'm just funny like that.

Quote

I don't give a damn whether the the RIAA is loved by you or not. The US military isn't particularly loved in the Middle East, either. They have a job they've sworn to do, and so does the RIAA.

I'm going to ignore the part about our military. BTW, the RIAA has gone after military people too. What I will say is that just because someone is paid to do a job doesn't make it right.

Walt

[chuckakers 370]

They now collect royalties from every source they can, including jukeboxes and even night clubs.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

They now collect royalties from every source they can, including jukeboxes and even night clubs.

That isn't RIAA that does that is it? clicky.

Walt

[Snowwhite 0]

I don't know about RIAA, but BMI and ASCAP were mostly mafioso. They held CHURCHES hostage for the music that they were "performing" and they won in court. Hundreds of thousands.

skydiveTaylorville.org
[email protected]

[DSE 3]

Quote

They now collect royalties from every source they can, including jukeboxes and even night clubs.

no, they don't. They never have.
That would be ASCAP, SESAC and BMI, and those organizations have been overseeing elevator music, bars, hospitals, churches, jukeboxes corporate on-hold music, and other licensed uses of compositions for longer than you or I have been alive. They are not involved in the RIAA at all. They're not "mafioso." Their *primary* responsibility is to see that artists are paid when their music is played on a jukebox or radio station. But if a church broadcasts/podcasts copyrighted works, then the church must pay a very small CCLI licensing fee (about 300.00 per year for the average church up to 1000 members). Why should Christian (or any other religious artist) be required to donate their music to churches who already rake in serious cash?

Quote

They held CHURCHES hostage for the music that they were "performing" and they won in court. Hundreds of thousands.

I call bullshit. Just like the original point of this thread turned out to be bullshit.

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why is this so personal to you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Simple, really. I don't like bullies--especially bullies who think that the end justifies the means for anything they want to do.

* Subpoena records from internet service providers? No problem.
* Subpoena records from universities? Definitely no problem.
* Embarass the people they are targeting by referencing (in court documents) "pornographic" files found on their computers? No problem.
* Demanding to randomly search through computers? No problem.

IMO the RIAA 's lust for beating its targets into submission knows no bounds. If you're proud of that then we just have different standards.

No, they have never threatened me nor anyone close to me with a lawsuit nor have I personally been affected by them--yet. For what it's worth I don't own an iPod nor do I *want* one. I have a few dozen songs that I have downloaded and I have paid for each of them.

So why do I think the RIAA's tactics are bad? It's my understanding that they have lobbyists not only trying to get the legal right for them to hack into computers but to exempt them from having to pay for any damages they do in the process. You don't think that's over the line? Once again, we just have different standards.

I don't think it's any stretch at all to think that the RIAA wants to establish itself as a "Big Brother" type of organization with powers to violate anyone's privacy anytime they happen to feel like it. Call me paranoid, but I'm seeing potential for abuse that far exceeds any abuses they have suffered.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is your hatred for property rights limited to musicians and creative endeavors or is it fairly distributed amongst all property owners?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When did you stop beating your wife? That question is about as valid as yours. I once had a cop pull me over and accuse me of trafficking drugs. He asked me to sign a paper giving him permission to search my car. I refused. He repeatedly demanded that I sign it, threatened to throw me in jail, etc., and said many times, "You wouldn't mind me searching your car if you didn't have any dope!!!!". Actually, I didn't want some slimeball looking through my car for no kind of good reason. I finally did allow him to search my car and he was seriously pissed when he didn't find anything.

My "hatred for property rights"? How about the RIAA's hatred of privacy? Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to assume guilt rather than innocence.

Guess what? I don't want you and your buddies sticking your noses up my ass and into my computer. I don't want you doing it to anyone else either. I'm just funny like that.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't give a damn whether the the RIAA is loved by you or not. The US military isn't particularly loved in the Middle East, either. They have a job they've sworn to do, and so does the RIAA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm going to ignore the part about our military. BTW, the RIAA has gone after military people too. What I will say is that just because someone is paid to do a job doesn't make it right.

Walt

Walt, you're right, if you're coming from the perspective that theft is acceptable.
You feel it's acceptable for people to steal, and those that they're stealing it from need to sit back on their asses and do nothing?

I'm absolutely certain that if I took any belonging of yours without permission, you'd track me down and do whatever necessary to retrieve that article, and in the process, attempt to mete out whatever punishment you felt appropriate for my theft, including "sticking your nose up my ass" to see if that's where I stashed it or beating me into submission until I revealed its location. In reading many of your posts, it's very obvious that this is EXACTLY what you'd do if that's what it took to recover your stolen property.
In the case of computers, there are only two likely places the stolen media may be stashed; The computer or MP3 player. And if it's on the MP3 player, there will be evidence of that theft still on your computer, in all likelihood.

It's really quite simple;
-Creative works are property.
-Owners of that property are entitled to being able to protect their property, just as you're entitled to locks on your home and car doors.
-Stolen property is recoverable.

It's interesting how you avoid each and every specific analogy I've drawn to the problems.

If military personnel steal music, of course the RIAA is going to go after them, "too." If a soldier beats the shit out of a civilian in a bar, guess what? The police go after that soldier, whether in Iraq or Bendover n' Squeal, Arkansas. That's really your point???

So you feel Don Kirlin deserved to lose his property because he didn't tell the squatters to quit using it? Am I correctly understanding ?

You honestly feel it's OK to steal, and expect no repercussion from your actions? C'mon...gimme a break.

A few posts ago, you inferred you'd rather the RIAA simply "Kick your ass" rather than sue the thieves. This sorta runs counter to your "I don't like bullies."

If you've stolen something and "hidden" it in your computer, OF COURSE your right to privacy is diminished, because you hid the stolen goods in the same place you "hide" your porn. If you're a drug dealer and a search warrant is issued, and in that search, bondage equipment is found, guess what? It'll be referred to in court documents and media.

I don't accept, approve, condone, nor appreciate theft. I'm sorta funny that way myself.
You understand that you're defending theft out of fear for "potential abuse" in a situation where the "potential abuser" has already been irreparably damaged?
Is that truly your position?

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Walt, you're right, if you're coming from the perspective that theft is acceptable.
You feel it's acceptable for people to steal, and those that they're stealing it from need to sit back on their asses and do nothing?

Maybe you can point out where I have said that theft is acceptable. Then again, maybe Elvis will fly out of my butt.

Quote

I'm absolutely certain that if I took any belonging of yours without permission, you'd track me down and do whatever necessary to retrieve that article, and in the process, attempt to mete out whatever punishment you felt appropriate for my theft, including "sticking your nose up my ass" to see if that's where I stashed it or beating me into submission until I revealed its location. In reading many of your posts, it's very obvious that this is EXACTLY what you'd do if that's what it took to recover your stolen property.

If you are absolutely certain that I would do that over a $1 download then we can stop the discussion here. Strangely, I'm not the least bit interested in sticking my nose up your ass or in your computer or beating you into submission or anything like that. I'm also not interested in eroding individual rights in this country any more than they have already been eroded.

I'm sure you've heard the same kinds of horrors committed in the name of "The War on Drugs". I don't see the RIAA's tactics as being all that much different. It appears to me to be an "end justifies the means" mentality that just begs for excesses and abuse.

Quote

In the case of computers, there are only two likely places the stolen media may be stashed; The computer or MP3 player. And if it's on the MP3 player, there will be evidence of that theft still on your computer, in all likelihood.

Sounds almost reasonable until you consider that my computer is often on the internet which opens the possibility of files being transferred to other computers and, by extension, the possibility of those computers transferring files to others. Gee, you'd better search all the computers on the internet! I think that is *exactly* what the RIAA is wanting to be able to do and I'm not buying into that.

Let me state this very plainly. I don't give a flying fuck about your music. I don't know or care if I have ever heard any of it and I do *not* want to give up my right to privacy because your overzealous (IMO) organization thinks that everyone is a thief. Here's a newsflash: not everyone is a thief. I know it's hard for you to accept but I'm pretty sure that's the way it is.

I know the media focuses on the sleazy stuff but I have the impression that the typical person in the entertainment industry has more of a criminal record that the average Joe outside the industry. Maybe I'm wrong but if not, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Quote

It's really quite simple;
-Creative works are property.
-Owners of that property are entitled to being able to protect their property, just as you're entitled to locks on your home and car doors.
-Stolen property is recoverable.

It's interesting how you avoid each and every specific analogy I've drawn to the problems.

What's to discuss? I happen to agree with you on property rights. If you want I'll say it to you 100 times reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally slow so you can understand it. Anything over 100 times and I would start to think it was a waste of time.

Where I disagree is your apparent assumptions that your property rights should take precedence over everyone else's right to privacy.

Quote

If military personnel steal music, of course the RIAA is going to go after them, "too." If a soldier beats the shit out of a civilian in a bar, guess what? The police go after that soldier, whether in Iraq or Bendover n' Squeal, Arkansas. That's really your point???

Another difference in point of view where we can simply agree to disagree. I'm not a believer in fucking with our military people over chickenshit stuff--particularly in a time of war. That's just me. Let me state it very clearly: I'm perfectly willing to give our military people more of a free pass than civilians. Call me what you will--that's just the way it is.

Quote

So you feel Don Kirlin deserved to lose his property because he didn't tell the squatters to quit using it? Am I correctly understanding ?

No.

Quote

You honestly feel it's OK to steal, and expect no repercussion from your actions? C'mon...gimme a break.

Again, when did you stop beating your wife? I haven't advocated theft at all yet you insist that I have no respect for property rights and that I think theft is just fine and there should be no repercussions. You're beating a dead horse. Actually you're beating a horse that never existed. Maybe you can write a song about it.

Quote

A few posts ago, you inferred you'd rather the RIAA simply "Kick your ass" rather than sue the thieves. This sorta runs counter to your "I don't like bullies."

I'll give you points for creativity but zero for reading comprehension on that one.

Quote

If you've stolen something and "hidden" it in your computer, OF COURSE your right to privacy is diminished, because you hid the stolen goods in the same place you "hide" your porn. If you're a drug dealer and a search warrant is issued, and in that search, bondage equipment is found, guess what? It'll be referred to in court documents and media.

Pretty big "if" there. Let me see if I understand your reasoning. Start with the presumption of guilt and....never mind.

Quote

I don't accept, approve, condone, nor appreciate theft. I'm sorta funny that way myself.

On the other hand you *do* seem to approve of presuming guilt, publicly proclaiming that I think theft without repercussions is fine, the I want the RIAA to beat the shit out of me, etc. I guess you're sorta funny that way too.

Quote

You understand that you're defending theft out of fear for "potential abuse" in a situation where the "potential abuser" has already been irreparably damaged?
Is that truly your position?

I'm not defending theft. It's more of a case of wanting the punishment to fit the crime--something that the RIAA seems to consider an unimportant detail.

Walt

[bluheelrtx 0]

Quote

Here's a newsflash: not everyone is a thief. I know it's hard for you to accept but I'm pretty sure that's the way it is.

Walt

This is the only part of your post that I disagree with. I have been informally polling friends, coworkers, and acquaintances for years, and sad to say, I think it's true . . . or at least it's enough of a (vast) majority to be a fair generalization. Either that or I just happen to associate with a bunch of slime balls.

I agree with your defense of individual rights, so much so that I am willing to do whatever is necessary to defend them. It just bugs me to know that I am defending so many of the guilty ones as well.

I have one piece of unlicensed software on my PC. I have paid for every single one of the 600 albums that I own. I have not downloaded any music yet, but there are some out of print items that I am considering.

--
Jason
--
Some people never go crazy. What truly boring lives they must lead.

[TheCapt 7]

You remember that girl who went to trial in Duluth, Minnesota - the first case out of 26,000 to go to trial, and the jury awarded the labels $225,000?
That was my client. I tried the case. Presently, the judge is considering our motion to reduce the award down to $150 (24 downloads times 70 cents times nine) , but I'm not too optimistic. The labels have this machine in place with a mind of its own that continuously harvests more and more defendents who cannot afford to defend. Unfortunately this is a problem that only Congress can fix. Statutory damages have a miniumum of $750 per infringement. I was pretty bummed out, but last month I got my B license and jumped out of a balloon, so I feel better.