|
Stealing Is Illegal (dot com)
This Article is also being discussed here: http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-debate/536842-boycott-riaa-we-dont-disagree.html
Finally! A very well thought out and intelligently written site about the view that opposes ours. However, what I find to be ironically amusing -- is that he lists Boycott RIAA as a site that he strongly disagrees with ( http://www.stealingisillegal.com/links.php ), obviously being unaware that the only thing on here we'd disagree with is what he has left UNSAID. This site, like any others, spins the truth. However, it is the most level headed, no-BS spin I've ever seen. I really do have to give this guy props for not being unintelligent about his views.
So, I'm going to critique these views, one at a time.
FAQ'S AND ARGUMENTS:
"Is it OK to download MP3s?
It depends on where you're getting them and, most importantly, if you have the artist's authorization to download it. Generally speaking, no. If you're downloading MP3s from Kazaa, LimeWire, or other Peer-to-Peer networks, you're breaking the law. Sure, there are probably a handful of songs on those services that are actually legal (that is, the artist has granted the rights for that song to be freely distributed). But, I'd bet that 99% of those songs are completely illegal. Don't do it."
He might be surprised to find that we agree with him 100% on this. Not from any moral standpoint -- but because the RIAA will victimize you harshly. The punishment does not fit the crime when it comes to their lack of mercy. We have forever warned people to stay clear of P2P. One thing that he does not seem to take into account however -- which is the case with the VAST MAJORITY of the RIAA Lawsuits -- is the end user didn't even know they were doing anything wrong. They say "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law" and I think that statement is an excuse, in and of itself.
It's an excuse that gives intolerant administrations the full legal rights to make an example of you, to ruin your life, to ruin the lives of your family and friends -- all for the sake of detouring the people who ARE knowingly breaking the law.
He does encourage legal downloading ( http://www.stealingisillegal.com/alternatives.php ) and he really should add dmusic.com to his list ( which by the way -- hosts and supports Boycott RIAA -- and is even older than mp3.com ).
"Is it OK to use P2P networks?
Not necessarily. There are certainly legal ways to use a peer-to-peer network... but that's not what you're doing, now is it? If you're downloading copyrighted music from a peer-to-peer network (like Kazaa, Morpheus, Bearshare, Gnutella, or the like), you're breaking the law. You can, and should, be fined and/or sent to prison. Even if you're only looking for legal resources on such a network, it's far too easy to "accidentally" download something copyrighted. Don't risk it."
Again, Boycott RIAA fully agrees here. Also again -- he does not take into account that most people are not (or at least weren't until the RIAA circus came to town) literate to all of this and walked into this type of mess unknowingly.
"Is it OK to copy a CD?
Yes, but only if you bought the CD and the copy is for your own personal use. If you purchase a CD, then for as long as you own that CD, you are allowed to make and maintain copies of that CD on other media, including CD-Rs, minidiscs, cassette tapes, and even MP3 players. You may NOT, however, use any of those for commercial purposes (including selling them) or give any of them to a friend. That means that you CAN NOT make a copy of a CD for a friend, or likewise copy a friend's CD for your own use, even if it's not for a profit. (Note: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act [PDF] grants the copyright owner the right to use copy-protection technology.)"
His "NOTE" makes the REAL point! If you pay for something, you SHOULD have the right to be able to make backup copies in case the original is lost, damaged or inadvertently destroyed. HOWEVER -- being greedy, the RIAA would rather see you spend $15 after $15 after $15 for the exact same album -- and then tell you "oh well you should have taken better care of it". CDs can get damaged in a number of ways that even a paranoid careful neat freak couldn't possibly have control of.
"Is it OK to make a compilation CD?
Yes, but only if you already legally own the music you compile onto your new CD. For example, if you own 15 CDs from various artists, but like only one song from each CD, you're allowed to make your own "compilation" CD of those 15 songs. However, this only applies to music you already legally own. You are NOT allowed to borrow your friend's CD in order to make your compilation CD. Also, you are not allowed to make a copy of your compilation CD for a friend."
Refer to that previously mentioned "NOTE" again.
"Is it OK to download a movie?
It is not legal to download a copyrighted (and therefore any major) movie from the Internet, even if you only keep it on your computer for an hour. It doesn't matter; it's still illegal. If you want to watch a movie, you have to go out and buy a ticket, rent it, or buy it on video or DVD. That's it. You can't just go downloading it, even if it isn't available in any of those legal ways. The only exception to the "no online movie" rule are sites like MovieLink, where you can virtually rent movies online. "
Netflix is another great way to rent online as well. What people need to understand is that laws are supposedly to protect the people -- but they are usually made to screw the poor. I can VHS or Tivo Record off of MTV or HBO and keep it for my personal use. In fact -- I have tons of tapes from the 1980's that I've kept -- and its also really neat to watch all of the old commercials and notice just how much the times have changed (including how commercial breaks used to be 2 to 4 commercials and now they are 6, 8, 10 and 12 commercials -- even on Cable or Satellite so now you get to PAY for watching commercials!). To watch commercials about the "New Apple ]['s" and the "New Commodore 64" and the "New 486DX100" or the "New for 1985 - Some Make and Model Car Here" is a really interesting flashback to a simpler time.
I can record off of the radio without violating any laws, either. So how is the Internet different than the radio or TV? Really, it's not. People simply fear change -- especially when it comes to new technology. I remember when the MPAA was trying to ban VHS Recording in the 80's and the RIAA trying to ban tape recording at the same time. They failed then and they're going to fail now. All the open availability of movies and music does is encourage people to buy CDs, DVDs and attend concerts and goto the theaters.
This doesn't mean you should break the law. But it does mean the laws need to be reformed -- and not the type of reform the RIAA and MPAA have in mind!
"Is it OK to copy a song that is no longer available?
No. The same rules always apply, even if they no longer make the CD. Can't find it new? Look for it used. Look on eBay. Look at yard sales. Still can't find it? Too bad. It's still illegal to make a copy of it for someone else."
Yep, the same rules apply. Screw the consumer. As long as your getting rich, who cares? Well, I'm thinking the consumers care. Yeah, look for a rare CD on eBay where some jerk can sell it for 25 times what it's actually worth and exploit the fact that someone wants it. Look at yard sales, where you likely won't find exactly what your looking for. Still can't find it? He's right. TOO BAD. It's still illegal to make a copy. The RIAA doesn't care about music or musicians -- they care about profit. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the RIAA's lack of morality we are fighting here on Boycott RIAA. We're not encouraging piracy. In fact -- whether your busted or not -- all piracy does is make the RIAA's and MPAA's cases for them and encourages the sales of their copyright. They're getting free advertisement at your expense.
"Is it OK to use a game emulator?
No. Copyrights apply not only to music, but also software (games) and hardware designs (including Nintendo/Sega consoles). As the The Entertainment Software Association explains: "If the sole purpose of an emulator is to allow the playing of a console game on a PC, and the owner of the copyrights in that console game has not authorized the copying, performance, display, or derivative work created when a console game is played on a PC, then the creation and use of that emulator constitutes an infringement of the copyrights in the console game." Go buy the console and the game. A lot of people spent time designing both."
I disagree here. If you OWN THE GAME you should have the right to play it on your computer if you wish to. The only problem is -- most ROM downloads ARE illegal. It's a very touchy grey area and Boycott RIAA can neither support nor disapprove of downloading ROMS. The only opinions I can give are simply that IF YOU OWN THE GAME you SHOULD have the RIGHT to also be able to play it on your PC if you wish to -- just like with movies and music. I wish the Game Industry would have these old legacy games available for $1 each download and release their own emulator software's for sale. They have done this TO A POINT but it's only been software packs of a small handful of popular games -- not necessarily the games YOU wanted and certainly not most of the ones they've made overall.
"Is it OK to use paid P2P services?
No. It is illegal to use any P2P service to copy or distribute copyrighted material, even if you paid for the program and even if said program claims to provide "100% legal downloads!"... and even if they're advertised on this site. This includes programs like Kazaa, Limewire, and WinMX. While the program itself is not illegal, the use of it to download copyrighted music IS STILL ILLEGAL, even if you paid for the program. See alternatives for a list of good and bad music services."
We agree here as well.
"Excuse: It's ok, as long as I don't sell it.
Wrong! The U.S. Copyright Law says that you can make personal copies for yourself, but not for others, even if you're giving them away! That means that you can't make a copy of a CD for a friend, send someone an MP3, share your MP3 collection, or anything of the sort. It's only for the person who bought the music."
Yep. We're fighting to make sure you always still retain the right to make personal copies for yourself. If the RIAA had its way -- you wouldn't even be allowed to do that!
"Excuse: The record companies are ripping people off!
Oh, please! You're not Robinhood, you know. Sure, the record companies are getting rich. That's what companies are supposed to do! What did you expect? Think that $15 is too much for a CD? Don't buy it! But, that doesn't give you the right to steal it! Try walking into your local Wal-Mart and stealing a TV just because you think they're charging too much for it. It's just not right, nor is it legal. Even if the physical CD doesn't cost much to make, there was a lot of work that went into making the content of that CD. However, when you get right down to it, that doesn't even matter. Even if they wanted to charge $50 for a CD, it's their legal right to do so. They made the music, and they own the copyright. They can do whatever they want with it. Who are you to tell them what to do with their property?"
Just because it's their "legal right" does not make it RIGHT! There's ALOT of unconstitutional laws. However, the "Robin Hood" route is certainly not the smart way to go. It may have worked in mid evil times, but that was then -- and this is now. If you want to steal from the rich and give to the poor -- then steal from the rich by not buying their product! Give to the poor by supporting Non-RIAA Independent Music!
"Excuse: The artists don't get the money anyway.
The artists certainly get some of the money. After all, they're agreed to some kind of contract with the record company before that CD was ever made. There are two angles to this excuse. First of all, the artist is probably pretty happy with the money they're making, even if it means that the record company is making money, too. As I said, they signed a legal agreement to get paid exactly what they're getting paid. The second part to this excuse is... what does it matter what you think? Even if you don't think the artist is getting paid as much as they should, I don't see them asking for your help. If they're getting ripped off by the recording company (and I assure you that they're not), don't you think they'd hire a lawyer and sue? I don't think they'd ask you to steal their music... do you?"
Yeah, but they didn't know they were going to get assraped and sign their souls away to the devil. So as was previously said -- If you want to steal from the rich and give to the poor -- then steal from the rich by not buying their product! Give to the poor by supporting Non-RIAA Independent Music!
"Excuse: They're so rich anyway -- they won't miss my $15.
So we're back to the Robinhood thing, are we? Fine. So who are you to decide how rich is too rich? I mean, compare yourself to some of the people less fortunate than yourself. What if they got to decide that you're too rich and that you won't miss that $20 in your pocket? Stealing is stealing, no matter how rich the owner or how poor the thief."
They WILL miss your $15! So don't give it to them! Support Non-RIAA Independent Music or hurt the RIAA profits by using services such as Rhapsody and Itunes. How does using flat-rate Internet LEGAL download services hurt the RIAA? I think George explains it well right here: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/21139
"Excuse: It's how I find out about new songs and artists.
Too bad. You'll have to find another way of finding out about music... stealing doesn't cut it. Turn on the radio. Turn on the TV. Tune to one of the free steaming sites I mentioned in my legal alternatives page. I mean, come on. How did you find out about music before you started stealing? You still remember those times, right?"
He's right. Theres also tons of NON-RIAA legal alternatives. Dmusic.com, any and all Demoscene sites, indie band sites and much more! Get on Google and look around! Theres tons of places for legal alternatives for both RIAA and Independent Music!
"Excuse: I wouldn't have bought the CD, so they didn't lose a sale.
So it's good enough to steal, but not good enough to pay for? Whatever. I don't care if you're too poor, or if you think music isn't as good as it ought to be, or whatever other stupid excuse you come up with. It just doesn't matter. If you think the music is good enough to download and listen to, then you should be out there buying the CD or downloading it legally. You may not think that they're missing out on anything just because you're too cheap to pay for what you enjoy and use, but that doesn't make it legal."
Being too poor or you think it's too high priced isn't an excuse at all. It's a valid problem. However, stealing doesn't solve this problem, so he is right about that one.
"Why is the RIAA suing their customers?
Now this is an easy one! The Record Industry Association of America is suing their customers because... (are you ready for this?)... because they're breaking the law! I know, I know... it's a huge shock. Seriously, though, there are a few reasons to this. First of all, they can. If you're downloading copyrighted music, you're breaking the law. I think we've pretty much covered that. If you're still unclear about that, scroll up. So, as long as people are stealing music instead of buying it, the RIAA is going to protect it's interests the only way it can -- legally! And they'll win, too. They're right. Those stealing the music are wrong. Say what you will about the RIAA, but you'd do the same thing if you were in their position. If someone stole something from you, you'd want to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law."
Oh for Christ sake -- with this I can't agree at all. They're slaughtering sheep, not defending their property. Attacking children and ruining lives is NOT a valid course of action. Again, most of these people didn't even realize they were doing anything wrong. The RIAA however does not care what they did or did not know. Even though everyone has been RAISED to know that walking into a store and shop lifing IS ILLEGAL -- we were NOT raised to know what downloads are legal or illegal and it is very scary for people traveling that road without a guide and not knowing where or how to find a guide. The ONLY GOOD THING this fracus leading to its final stupidity will accomplish is that the RIAA has revealed themselves as the heartless monsters they are -- and it's made such a loud boom internationally that the vast majority of people are in earshot of the sound of that boom.
I also think it's a good thing because people can openly see the suffering that families have endured that should have never been brought upon them -- which is making people lose favor with the RIAA and this will inevitably bring them to their knees. I don't think Boycott RIAA will be the sword that slays this dragon. They're doing a fine job of slaying themselves. But with luck -- i'd like us to be the final nail in their proverbial coffin.
"Why did you start this site?
I started this site because I'm sick and tired of hearing excuses and lies concerning stealing intellectual property on the Internet. I'm tired of hearing people saying, "oh, it's ok if..." and it really concerns me that a lot of people just don't know that what they're doing is wrong. I'd like to believe that, in some way, most people are good and honest. Hopefully, just by knowing that what they're doing is wrong, they'll reconsider their actions instead of going along with the herd until they're all shot down. If you know something is wrong, and even illegal, then you shouldn't do it. It's really as easy as that."
I can mostly agree with this. In fact -- this site has a large problem of people coming here more than willing to "bitch for the sake of bitching" but are not willing to step up to bat and actually help take action to invoke reform. Most people might think "Well what can I do? I'm only one person!" .. well, UNITED WE STAND AND DIVIDED WE FALL! Remember those words? The RIAA is a hand full of heartless corporate fat cats. The people on the Internet number IN THE BILLIONS. Surely, together -- we can make a difference, yes?
"Why should I care?
Because it's illegal! I mean, come on. We live in a civilized society made up of laws. If you don't like the law, you should work to change it, not break it! You'd probably feel differently if you were on the other side of the table. When it comes down to it, I don't think most people would steal anything in real life. You know that it's wrong to walk into a store, grab something that isn't yours, and leave without paying. When you're online, you have a few things going for you: (1) You feel that you're anonymous (although you're not, as you might be able to tell from the RIAA lawsuits). (2) You think everyone else is doing it. (3) It's just so easy, and there is no perceived consequence to any party. Well, you're wrong. Stealing intellectual property on the Internet is the same as stealing anything else in the world. You're taking something that doesn't belong to you and breaking the law. Do the right thing, and encourage others to do the same."
No -- thats not why you should care. You should care because the rich and the heartless create bias laws that screw the poor and line their own pockets with gold. Legality and Morality often times tend to be two very different things. So no, you shouldn't care because it's illegal. You should care because it's the RIAA is in the WRONG and that STEALING only makes the point of the enemy! It's a propaganda war for the purposes of control, domination and profit. If you do things like download illegally, your just giving the enemy more amunition to fire back at you and destroy you.
So you should not download illegaly. Not because of the fact that its illegal -- but because of the fact that even such an illegal act supports them, no mater how much they claim it harms them. Because illegally downloading gives them more power. Gives them more fuel for the propaganda fire.
The more they can make their case, the better chances they have of altering copyright laws to screw us even more! So don't illegaly download because if you do -- your giving up your HUMAN RIGHTS for the sake of an 8MB file!
"The truth about Fair Use.
"Fair Use" is the exception to the copyright law. Thanks to a wonderful little thing called freedom of speech, it's believed that we should be allow to use portions of a copyrighted work if you're critiquing or commenting on that work. For example, if you were writing a review of a new CD, you are allowed to use a short clip (not a full song) from that CD during your review. You don't have to ask the permission of the copyright holder to do this. Fair use also allows limited use of copyrighted ideas for the purpose of parody (making fun of the original).
There are four basic checks to see if a particular situation falls under "Fair Use". (1) First, what is the purpose and character of use? Did you add anything useful or of value to the work? (2) What is the nature of the copyrighted work? For example, if the work is unpublished, you'll probably get into trouble by using it. (3) What is the amount and substantiality of the portion taken? This may be the most important one. It's illegal to use too much of, or the most important parts of, any copyrighted work. A very small clip or quote is usually acceptable. (4) Finally, what effect does the use make on the potential market? If your use will deprive the copyright owner of income, you're likely to get into trouble. Sharing a song with a friend is not considered fair use."
Thats how it SHOULD work but it DOESNT. In all actuality -- remixes are legal under these laws but if you make a remix and have it available for download, they can still nail you to a cross. Even if you have that short clip available -- the RIAA retains the right to determine how long of a clip is too long and they can change their minds at will. They can say one persons 30 second clip is legal and that someone elses 10 second clip is illegal. Why? Because they hold the copyright and they are legally allowed to govern that copyright in any way they see fit! Thats why its UNFAIR USE as it stands at the moment. They can bend the fair use laws as easily as you bend gum everytime you chew it in your mouth.
Why? Because they have the money to outlast you in a court battle. It doesn't mater that the fair use laws say you can use that 30 second clip. They don't want you to and they have the right to take you to court over it. If you don't have the money to fight that battle -- YOU LOSE!
So to end this article -- stealingisillegal.com has good intensions -- but the road to hell is paved with them!
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 6:32 AM
I just thought of a funny parrelel to the RIAA's views. Sure, it's a slight exageration, but it still makes a valid point.
If you purhace an RIAA Toilet, you and your household has the right to urinate and deficate in that toilet. You are required to have your own storage facility for the waste just as homes in rual areas do.
The local city nor a private organization can not impliment a networked sewer syste, to remove this waste for you free of charge. Creating or using such a waste removal system without the consent of the RIAA Toilet Company is illegal -- because you are using their toilet in an unauthorized manor that violates their patent on the toilets.
You are to use Crapsody or Iwaste and any other authorized means of waste removel -- and in most cases you will be charged some sort of re-occuring fee to be able to use these waste removal networks.
It does not mater that you have purchased the toilet. It does not mater that the money is not made everytime you flush -- but when you actually purchase the toilet itself.
Only you and your household are allowed to use this toilet. No guests (friends or otherwise) are allowed to use your toilet -- even if you do have a self-contained waste storage system -- that you've also paid more money to have implimented.
If your friend wishes to use the bathroom -- he or she must walk or drive to a public rest room where the store or entity has paid to be on Crapsody or Iwaste. The only time your friends can use yout toilet is if they are doing so at your house provided you are also paying a re-occuring fee to use Crapsohdy or Iwaste.
You are also not allowed to used an auautorized water source to be able to flush your RIAA Commode. It must also be through an RIAA Toilet Company approved source of water -- which may also mean you will need that as a second supplier -- aside from your fresh water supplier you currently use for your drinking water.The installation of this secondary system is also at your dollar as well.
The retail stores that sell these RIAA Toilets -- for $100 each, only make $1 off of the sale and have signed a contract agreeing that in the sales of these toilets -- they can not make more than $1 within this sale. Even if the retail shop has bought the individual parts and assembled the toilets themselves -- they still can only make $1. The only other money they can make from these sales is a labor charge for assembly of the toilets, and the RIAA Toilet Company also gets a majority percentage of this labor charge as well.
You also can not paint your toilet any different color if you dont like the available colors the toilets are provided in. |
|
pmmusic
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 9:52 AM
Twarrior...
sounds like GM to Me. Only Genuine parts in an officially sanctioned Mr.Goodwrench(R) facility.
Gotta love Capitalism and to heck with the free market...They are required to buy or stuff or lose warrenty, insurance, liberty etc. :) |
|
pmmusic
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 9:53 AM
oops... or = our
edit button? |
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 10:02 AM
LOL ..
I notice there is no way for users to comment or respond :P
And the largest point is STILL ignored.
This IS NOT STEALING.
Nothing has been STOLEN.
The original owners have NOT been
deprived of the use and benefit of ANY
physical property.
None.
It is Copyright Infringement.
The use of the term Stealing is not
appropriate.
It is hyperbole at best, an outright lie at worst.
I have a feeling that the author of this
site is employed by a legal firm, and
payed very well by the RIAA. |
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 10:06 AM
He is the same guy that runs ...
http://www.techguy.org/
Of course, I would never suggest that
anyone address his views there ..... |
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 10:08 AM
Someone MIGHT use the
Civilzed Debate area, under Community .. |
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 10:40 AM
I started this thread on his Tech site ..
http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-debate/536842-boycott-riaa-we-dont-disagree.html
Let's see if it lives. |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 10:47 AM
Oh Dreddsnik, you evil son of a bitch. lol... I LIKE IT! I did email him (he does have a feedback form, just not a public one) about this article. But i'm glad to see others besides myself are willing to help get the creative juices flowing and the issues seriously discussed. It's a breath of fresh air compared to the former stupidity near the beginings of my having obtained Administrative Status here. Oh -- and by the way -- you said i can get your email and phone # from Shmoo but shmoo is unavailable 99.999999999999% of the time these days. Dnote me any personal info you wish for me to have. Thanks! |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 10:53 AM
I personally hope this guy IS with the RIAA. He seems open minded. If at least SOMEONE in the RIAA can have the brains enough to realize that we aren't the enemy and show them how massively fucked up their tactics are -- then theres hope on a new frontier. Cooperation as opposed to the current "Battle of the Bands". |
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 11:25 AM
" (he does have a feedback form, just not a public one) "
That's part of the problem.
That's how the RIAA does things.
They do everything possible to keep any
facts, any REAL information, out of the
public eye, and away from any forum where
a full rational discussion can take place.
They work hard to be ceratin that ALL
publicity is heavily slanted.
Have you heard on the main ( controlled ) media about
any of the voluntary dismissals ?
... about the RIAA outright defying the
judges orders ?
... the RIAA HDD 'expert' examining the
private E-MAILS of the victim ?
Secrecy is the key, you know, that's why I
wanted, really wanted to defend our
position directly to the owner of the site,
and publicly, so others can see we are NOT a
bunch of thieves and ranters. |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 12:47 PM
gbrumb:
"So, essentially, you are calling him out. How macho. Maybe the reason there isn't a comment feature at the other site is because he doesn't want to engage in a discussion of it? I don't know but if this thread gets closed you'll have your answer."
Well, that was a very high school answer to a request for a civil, informed and intelligent conversation. I hope the Administration is more enlightened than the user base. "Calling someone out" suggests a fight or non-civil dispute. When we simply wish to hear more of what he has to say. |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 12:54 PM
Dreddsnik, I Dnoted you. |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 12:55 PM
And by Denoted I do mean "http://www.dmusic.com/users/notes/inbox/" :-) |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 12:55 PM
Dnoted*
Blast my crappy spelling! lol |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 1:18 PM
"A very well thought out and intelligently written site about the view that opposes ours."
Except that this guy is butt-stupid.
Stealing is illegal, but the Supreme Court has said that copyright infringement is not theft. It's copyright infringement.
"Why is the RIAA suing their customers?"
Not for downloading.
"Now this is an easy one! The Record Industry Association of America is suing their customers because... (are you ready for this?)... because they're breaking the law!"
Then why are they unable to prove it in court?
"I started this site because I'm sick and tired of hearing excuses and lies concerning stealing intellectual property on the Internet."
And in the process, creates a few lies of his own.
"If they're getting ripped off by the recording company (and I assure you that they're not), don't you think they'd hire a lawyer and sue?"
Only a freaking moron that knows nothing about the music business would say this. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 1:27 PM
"Maybe the reason there isn't a comment feature at the other site is because he doesn't want to engage in a discussion of it?"
No comment required. |
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 1:56 PM
" "Maybe the reason there isn't a comment feature at the other site is because he doesn't want to engage in a discussion of it?" "
I think the reason is closer to ....
" Is your position so weak, that it can not withstand debate ? "
And Yes, it was an incredibly juvenile
answer to what I really felt was a VERY
civil request.
Honestly, did I come off ignoratn or idiotic ?? ( spelling errors notwithstanding ).
I really expected more.
|
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 1:57 PM
I am not going to continue on that thread
if 'High School Boy' is the only responder.
I believe he is trying to bait me into derailing the topic.
I made my point. ( or Twarriors point
actually ). |
|
pepe512000
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 2:31 PM
Why is it we are to assume the riaa is not suing for downloading when right in their lawsuit settlement papers, they specifically note downloading.....
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
For People Who are Curious as to What an RIAA Settlement Looks Like, Here is a Judgment Based on a Settlement
Judgment Based on Settlement Stipulation in Motown v. Lisberg*
1. Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant distributed (including by updloading) and/or reproduced (including downloading) via the Internet or an online distribution system copyrighted sound recordings owned or controlled by the Plaintiffs, without Plaintiffs' authorization, in violation of U.S.C. 501. Without admitting or denying liability, Defendant has not contested plaintiffs' allegations, and has acknowledged that such conduct is wrongful.
|
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 3:35 PM
" Why is it we are to assume the riaa is not suing for downloading when right in their lawsuit settlement papers, they specifically note downloading..... "
It's worse than that.
They are also trying to get accepted that
just having copyrighted files visible in a
shared folder is equivalent to 'distributing' even though ....
A. they have yet to produce proof that
anyone downloaded from the alleged
'distributer'
B. they have yet to produce proof that
those files originated from any location
other than legitimately purchased CD's
or cassettes, or other 'legally' purchased
media.
In every CONTESTED case they do everthing in their power to avoid having
to produce any proof.
It's a game of fiscal attrition. They stall
their opponents into the financial ground.
This is a CLEAR abuse of the legal system, yet no one can ( or is willing ) to
do anything about it.
|
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 4:04 PM
pepe -- Show me a law that states downloading is a crime or that it equates to copyright infringement.
I'm kind of hung up on ""If they're getting ripped off by the recording company (and I assure you that they're not), don't you think they'd hire a lawyer and sue?"
Accounting Practices
Audits routinely detect unpaid royalties. Music industry lawyer Don Engel, who estimates that labels misreport and underpay artist royalties by 10% to 40%, says industry accounting practices are "intentionally fraudulent." Music writer Dave Marsh describes the process as "an entrenched system whose prowess and conniving makes Enron look like amateur hour." Royalties, based on complex and antiquated formulas that favor labels, are disbursed only after artists pay back advances, recording costs and other expenses.
The surviving Beatles and relatives of the band's late members have begun legal action against record company EMI to get royalties allegedly worth £30m.
Steve Vai sez:
It is unheard of in our industry for an artist to undergo an audit of a label and not discover a large percent of their royalties unpaid, that's if an artist can afford the time and money to audit their label. One in every thousand artists have the resources to audit. There are stock calculations that labels make in order to justify "creative accounting", and when the artist does find outstanding funds that are rightfully due them, labels "negotiate" what the artist will actually receive as a settlement, and most of the time it's not more than a third of what is found. Artists have very little to no recourse.
From 1998:
This past April, after a five-year lawsuit, the Kingsmen triumphed in court over the record company that had stiffed them. And they did so using a novel, and improbable, strategy that could serve as a model for abused bands in the future—and put the fear of Louie into some sectors of the recording industry.
The week before Peggy Lee died, she finally won a class- action suit against her former label. Lee and several hundred other artists and their heirs were awarded $4.75 million in unpaid royalties, miscalculated royalties and unauthorized deductions from royalties. Current acts, including Courtney Love and the Dixie Chicks, have lawsuits pending over accounting practices.
“It’’s bizarre in this day and age when you audit a record label, in 99.99 percent of the audits, the labels are found to have underpaid the artist,” said Simon Renshaw, who manages the Dixie Chicks. “I asked an auditor who’’s been involved in 9,000 cases how many revealed an overpayment by the labels to the artist: the answer was one. Take that to a statistician.”
April, 2006Members of Cheap Trick and The Allman Brothers Band, two veteran rock acts that signed deals in a pre-digital universe have sued Sony BMG for unpaid royalties.
October, 1994
The only artists who are not being substantially ripped off are artists who will spend $50,000 to audit. Essentially, every major artist audits every record company every three years. If they're a major artist, there is real money at stake. They are always being under-accounted to in some manner.
From 1957
The Nelsons are in litigation with Verve Records over Rickey's recording contract. Verve who had issued his first two releases sues for breach of contract when Ricky signs with Imperial Records. The Nelsons countersue asking for $42,000 in unpaid royalties. Then Verve countersues for one million dollars in damages.
From 1998
[T]he Smiths' drummer got a High Court judgement which brought him 1 million in unpaid royalties. In 1997, the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors sued EMI for the alleged loss of royalties on songs written in the 1960s and 1970s. Sony and fifty-four US-based recording companies have been sued for $520 million by artists as recompense for unpaid pensions.
From 2004
It seems record companies had been withholding some $50 million in unpaid royalties from artists they "couldn’t find".
Record companies can track down a 12 year old girl to sue for illegally downloading music, but they can’t find P.Diddy. They also didn’t know where to find Elvis, David Bowie, Dave Mathews, Gloria Estefan, John Mellencamp, and Dolly Parton.
November 30, 2006
Rapper SNOOP DOGG is suing his former record label for unpaid royalties. The hip-hop star - real name CALVIN BROADUS - filed his complaint against Priority Records in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming he's owed more than $2 million (GBP1.02 million) in back payments.
is suing his former record label for $540,000 (GBP300,000) in unpaid royalties.
[url="http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=1017"]Olivia Newton-John is suing Universal Music for unpaid royalties from the 1978 smash hit soundtrack to 'Grease'.
Martha Reeves
Like many other female Motown singers of the time Martha feels that the company did not treat her fairly, indeed she was the first to sue it for unpaid royalties.
Green Day
Due to concerns over unpaid royalties, Green Day has pulled their catalog from Lookout!. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 4:09 PM
I'm actually surprised that I only screwed up one link. |
|
MP3user
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 4:45 PM
Here's what I am posting on the board, as I had a name there on the forum:
It is my personal opinion that to disagree alone with making this thread evolve into unpleantries is ok, and can be avoided without keeping out rebuttals and fair discussion on a topic.
Personally however I feel that the author of the site DOES jump to conclusions about b-r dot com, and in ideology both are quite on the same pages.
I feel to make the site in qurestion better, I think the words of uncertainty should be removed - either something (factually) is true, or it isn't.
On that topic as well, I remeber reading that long as illicit reverse-engineering or use of copyrighted bios is used, emulators ARE legal, and if the files are public domain, or authorized, OR you dumped cartridges of games it IS legal to use them.
Yes, majority doesn't do it like that, but in the eye of the law what the majority do doesn't make or break the law, otherwise it would all be illegal now.
If you are objecting to a discussion solely on the parent's standpoint, partially feared based on generalizations, well, I feel you guys are no better than the "humans" at PETA2. |
|
MP3user
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 4:53 PM
*I modified my post significantly |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 5:04 PM
pepe, my earlier response was inappropriate.
The RIAA has, in many cases, also asserted (alleged) that simply "making available" songs for download was an actionable offense. At least one judge has determined that this is NOT a reasonable assertion, and is demanding that the RIAA prove something was actually downloaded from the alleged sharer.
Forget what the law says. Is there even a single case of the RIAA suing someone for downloading only? |
|
MP3user
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 5:10 PM
ALLRIGHT, SORRY FOR THE TRIPLE-POST:
Here is the response I am ready to post, please critique so I myself don't come off as a spoiled little brat, or arragant/ignorant/both/all of those things:
"It is my personal opinion that to disagree alone with making this thread evolve into unpleantries is ok, and can be avoided without keeping out rebuttals and fair discussion on a topic.
Personally however I feel that the author of the site DOES jump to conclusions about b-r dot com, and in ideology both are quite on the same pages.
I feel to make the site in qurestion better, I think the words of uncertainty should be removed - either something (factually) is true, or it isn't.
On that topic as well, I remeber reading that long as illicit reverse-engineering or use of copyrighted bios is used, emulators ARE legal, and if the files are public domain, or authorized, OR you dumped cartridges of games it IS legal to use them.
Yes, majority doesn't do it like that, but don't you think if THAT held as much weight as some people believe that it would definitively allways be illegal?
Also, if p2p can be used legally, as the site admin shows, why not promote the use for only legal files? Why should the illegal uses somehow nullify the legal uses? Doesn't that elitist "unpure - can't salvage - destroy!" mentality seem more harmful than helpful in the scheme of things?
Also, I strongly object to his mashing of legals and morals, which follow similar lines no doubt, but also have deep divides. By blurring the lines (for example, "Legal alternatives to stealing." on the page to legal alternatives for downloadin music) he makes the issue less clear. Stealing, by law, is separate from copyright infringement, surely if he wants to tell people the facts he should keep morals (stealing, ) separate from legal (theft, copyright infringement) and not engage in unprofessional hyperbole.
Also, the "Bad Programs" list also serves as an arrogant, and ignorant look at the usage of p2p file-sharing programs. For one, they can be used legally, the admin even made an example on his site as well. Why then does he not show places where content that can be legally shared on these networks can be found? Also, his stance on these "bad programs" beggs the question, is it immoral if I am using the programs for purposes that are legal, like sharing content that I made, is public domain, or is authorized? Surely that is a contradiction, is it not?
On the topic of the creative community, does the author of the site think, on an unrelated note, that copyrights are fair to the individual artists? Are the lengths of time in his eye fair? Are safeguards against corporate malpractice adequate? I'd like to know.
If you are objecting to a discussion solely on the parent's standpoint, partially feared based on generalizations, well, I feel you guys, in the context of certain debate of course (not always), no better than the "humans" at PETA2(1). I feel that though the idea of the site is good, it is hard to read without sorting through the opinion and fact.
(1): Yes, I have been there before in case anybody asks, yes they are much worse than anybody here can ever dream of being.
If this at all affects my being a poster on the techguy forums, then I feel sorry that ignorance has taken control of common sense and reasoning. If not, then.... cool.
(Also, I think the author should add Dmusic to the list of sites to get legal music, even though it is indie/unsigned, which really shouldn't matter)" |
|
MP3user
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 5:25 PM
Shit,
"On that topic as well, I remeber reading that long as illicit reverse-engineering or use of copyrighted bios is used, emulators ARE legal, and if the files are public domain, or authorized, OR you dumped cartridges of games it IS legal to use them."
should have "ARE NOT used" in it. |
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 5:26 PM
" (Also, I think the author should add Dmusic to the list of sites to get legal music, even though it is indie/unsigned, which really shouldn't matter)"
That's what matters most, and is the true root of all the fuss.
I posted Georges list of Artists who are/have sued over there as well.
I doooon't think we're going to get anywhere.
I think those two that are posting are
lawyers, and .. what a shock .. seem to
be ok with anything a large wealthy coproration does.
I AM impressed that the thread still exists over there.
It would be nice if Techguy paid us a
visit.
|
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 5:33 PM
Anyone who is planning on posting over there keep in mind .....
Those two that have been responding
want more than anything to 'devolve'
the thread, and turn it into a flame fest.
Don't attack the poster.
Don't respond to personal attacks, at all,
just question their 'facts' and ask for
sources/proof. If the thread stays
alive long enough to attract those who
REALLY want a civil, intelligent, debate,
WE will be the ones keeping the high ground. |
|
pepe512000
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 5:35 PM
I know that there haven't been any REAL legal laws put into place, concerning downloading, but what is shown here, is that their legal papers they submit to the judges are getting signed by the judges and the Defendants, which are creating "legal" papers written up as such laws. Is this making sense? Like the riaa is passing it's own laws...and getting away with it...
In other words, the riaa is getting away with murder! And I think that court case about "making files available" is still coming at the end of this month?... |
|
pepe512000
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 5:40 PM
And I think I'm kind of off topic.....sorry! Now back to the topic in process...... |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 5:54 PM
"In other words, the riaa is getting away with murder!"
They haven't won a contested case. You can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything. Keeping on topic, this leads us back to:
"Why is the RIAA suing their customers?"
Because they don't have to pay the artists for income from lawsuits. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 6:34 PM
I went and read this guy's profile. I was working concerts before he was even born.
He is not a lawyer, not a member of the RIAA, not a musician, not a songwriter, not a music retailer. He has no connection with music, the music business or anything else pertinent.
Just another example of misguided and misinformed propaganda. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 6:47 PM
On the other hand, he may work for an ISP. Ironically, this makes it much more likely that he'll get sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement. (See: Music Industry Threatens ISPs Over Piracy).
After all, stealing is illegal and he's profiting from it. |
|
JLBRMECHANIC
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 8:15 PM
Here's the Admnistrator's response:
TechGuy's Avatar
TechGuy TechGuy is online now TechGuy has a Profile Picture
Computer Specs
Administrator
Posts: 6,945
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chambersburg, PA
Experience: Advanced
I made that links page a few years ago (2002 maybe?)... since then, I've tried to remove the dead links, but I didn't reevaluate the existing ones. When I first went to the anti-RIAA page, they were only bashing the RIAA for (in my opinion) rightfully suing people who stole copyrighted material. If that's not still the case, I'll certainly remove the link.
In any case, I agree that copyright infringement is legally different from stealing -- I'm just making the point that both are illegal and morally wrong.
I've got to get things ready for an early-morning server maintenance tomorrow, but hopefully I'll have more time to read their site (and this already long thread) in the next few days. I don't think it will, but if things get out of hand here, I encourage a Mod to close it until I get some time. Thanks!
|
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 8:51 PM
I thought it would be unauthorized. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 11:23 PM
Sorry, posted on wrong thread...still though, it almost made sense.
To the point though, the admin over at the site we are talking about has this on his site....
"Basically, any program that allows you to download as much music as you want and burn it to CD without charging you for each individual song is illegal..."
So, since there is a lot of music on DMUSIC that one can download using Internet Explorer, and burn them to a CD without being charged for each song, does that mean (shudder) that Internet Explorer is ILLEGAL?
Yikes Billy Boy Gates...better watch out...
Michael Cernak
Cermak, Michael (webmaster at cernak.com)
P.O. Box 127
Waynesboro, PA 17268
US
717-762-8234 Fax: 717-762-8011
will be after you!!!!!!!
Remember, Michael Cernak is making the assertion that "stealing is illegal"..well, DUH Michael, ya THINK?
But, speaking legalistically, you should be changing your website name to
"theftisillegal.com" or better yet,
"this-site-is-childish.com", because the site really does seem like it was written by a 12 year old. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: January 20, 2007 @ 11:26 PM
By the way, if you go to www.cernak.com , you find it is offline. |
|
grumpygeezer
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 12:28 AM
MP3user -- you had been asking for us to critique your post.
You wrote: "Also, I strongly object to his mashing of legals and morals,"
You may want to use meshing instead of mashing.
The ideas you write about are good. |
|
grumpygeezer
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 12:36 AM
re: Michael Cernak pointing out that stealing is illegal — 'Code wrote how Mr. Cernak should change his website to:
"theftisillegal.com"
That was clever and really got me chuckling.
Yeah, "theftisillegal.com" . . . I almost laugh every time I think about it. Good one.
|
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 12:41 AM
"You may want to use meshing instead of mashing."
I disagree. Meshing implies that they fit together smoothly. Mashing is how you get that square peg in the round hole. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 2:01 AM
I just posted this on my site, so I'll share it here:
Without having the benefit of a record label's marketing campaign, deprived of the luxury of an entire staff of lawyers to protect his interests, no electricity or plastic (much less recording studios and CDs), and the ubiquitous "work for hire" arrangements, isn't it just fucking amazing that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony still belongs to Beethoven? |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 2:44 AM
It's going to take me awhile to absorb all of this, but after being afk for awhile, I was pleasently surprised to return to my PC and see a large volume of imformative, well thought out and civil replies being made within a very productive discussion. My efforts seem to have started to pay off here, as for the first month or so of my being an Admin here I experienced quite a bit of resistance trying to get BRIAA on this sort of a strategic track. I am absolutely thrilled to see BRIAA going from a "my opinion is better than your opinion, fucko!" type of flamefest and evolving into a real powerhouse of ability to truly work some serious magic! I'd like to thank you all, especially Dreddsnik, for continuing to work with me towards this goal! There are two types of people in this world: Those who read history and those who make it. Hopefully, together we'll be making some noteworthy accomplishments for the history books! Imagine those books 200 years from now that due to the Internet -- will be filled with just just as many handles / alias' as it currently is filled with real names. |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 5:12 AM
To sum it up:
I think most if not all of us can agree that all we have against the RIAA is it's tactless and immoral stratagies and refusal to compromise on anything. We're just sick of getting screwed with.
I don't think any of us advocates anyones copyright being trampled on and abused.
I think as far as the downloaders, the punishment does not fit the crime.
The RIAA refused to acknolwedge public data or opinion and blame their sales decreases on so-called piracy when the Golden Days of Napster actually INCREASED sales and their current decrease is only because they've succeeded in pissing off the consumer.
I beleive the RIAA is playing both sides against the middle not because of sales decreases or copyright concerns -- but in the hope of changing legislation so that they have free reign to screw everyone as much as they want without any consiquence.
I think the fair use laws should not only be expanded upon -- but enforced. I think GNU, GPL and Copyleft is a good foundation for that reform.
For those who are not familar -- it allows the modification of the sofrware and the creative proccess to flourish -- while at the same time protecting the author from his or her copyright being otherwise jacked and abused.
Just as Linspire charges $50 for the purchase of their Linux Distro -- people who pay for it receive the source are free to make modifications and freely release those modifications -- as you can see the end result being "Freespire" which is BASED on Linspire but is NOT Linspire.
This proccess has NOT hurt Linspire sales and has premoted CNR Sales that extend beyond that of "Basic CNR Service" into the realms of their subscription service.
I think the RIAA should not be so harsh on a per-song or per-album measure and focus more on the online subscription service avenue.
People have been making a total killing on the Internet through one type of subscription service or another. Just as ISP's now charge a flat-rate for Internet Service where as back durring the BBS Scene Heydays -- AOL and Compuserve used to charge a per-minuite timed fee for using their services.
Also look at how SBC has "unlimited long distance" and Internet Phone Services such as Vonage are doing the same.
The RIAA are simply fighting change because they wish to remain in complete control of the Industry. It's not about their copyright -- its about world domination. |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 5:18 AM
On another note - why hasn't Microsoft gone after individuals? I'll tell you why. They don't want criminalization -- they want CONVERSION!
They want to make these Internet Pirates they're PAYING customers. Just as the Jehovas Wittnesses don't go around bashing other people -- they try to convert people.
Microsoft does not want to waste money taking individuals to court. They want to convince those individuals that they have more to gain by going legit customers than they do by being Internet pirates. |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 5:19 AM
by becoming legist customers then they do **
Man, am I that tired? lol |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 5:20 AM
LEGIT EVEN! lol
Once we can get Joolma Comments bitchslapped into working i SERIOUSLY HOPE the thing has a spell checker! lol |
|
grumpygeezer
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 8:56 AM
"You may want to use meshing instead of mashing." — grumpygeezer
"I disagree. Meshing implies that they fit together smoothly. Mashing is how you get that square peg in the round hole." — gdZiemann
But George:
The guy does hold that legals and morals blend together smoothly. That's why I suggested meshing is the appropriate word for what HE claims.
MP3, as many of us, would say that what is legal is not necessarily moral, and vice versa. . . thus, in many cases, they don't necessarily mesh at all (despite that guy's opinion).
Here is what MP3 wrote:
"Also, I strongly object to his mashing of legals and morals,"
By using meshing instead of mashing, it would convey the guy's idea of blending legals and morals in a kind of synonymous way.
Did you misunderstand what I was getting at?
|
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 1:12 PM
grumpygeezer -- I didn't misunderstand. "Legal" and "moral" are not synonymous. Prostitution and gambling is legal in Nevada. |
|
grumpygeezer
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 2:18 PM
"grumpygeezer -- I didn't misunderstand. "Legal" and "moral" are not synonymous."
You and I and MP3user concur with that, YES, but the guy MP3user was writing to does not.
Thus it was that I had suggested MP3user should say,
"Also, I strongly object to his meshing of legals and morals."
(Instead of "mashing".)
Oh, well, forget it.
Apparently we're not on the same wave length, despite the fact that both of us agree about legals and morals often being two different things.
I need a witness.
(Or a drink.)
|
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 2:44 PM
Grumpy -- I'll be your wittness. I realize who you were talking to and the point you are making. This is also why most people who pirate (i mean knowingly with pre-meditated intent) music, movies, software, etc.. tend to do so in protest of inflated prices or crappy tactics of the corporations in question. If i had to guess -- 25% can't actually afford it, 50% are in protest and 25% are cheap fucks and would pirate even if a $200 app was legally being sold for a quarter.
I personally don't pirate software as much as I used to. I mean -- theres so many FREE AND LEGAL alternatives to pay applications now (that i personally think are BETTER than their pay predisessors) and with Linux 99.9% of apps are FREE. Don't get me wrong -- theres tons of software i've purchased over the years. I also like to support (when i can afford it) individuals who are programmers are who are putting out a fair priced application.
Among the vast list of things i've purchased are:
Internet Rex (FTN Echomail Tosser)
Craploads of computer games
Various Utilities (Zoom Search Indexer is a WONDERFUL utility i purchased --- although the author does have his head up his ass if you make a feature suggestion -- he's very belittling and degrading)
The list goes on.. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 3:34 PM
grumpy -- Ah! For some reason I got it that time.
TWarrior --
"This is also why most people who pirate (i mean knowingly with pre-meditated intent) music, movies, software, etc.. tend to do so in protest of inflated prices or crappy tactics of the corporations in question."
If by "pirate" you mean "copy or use for without paying," instead of "sell for profit" then I would strongly disagree.
It is possibly true that the majority of people offering such warez might claim "...in protest of..." as part of their justification, I'd bet that the number of end users who would say the same are a negligible minority. |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 3:36 PM
HOLY CRAP! We've got a friggen Nazi-ass White Supremacy Racist Asshole site LINKING TO US!
http://www.rahowa.com/links4.html
Of course, theres no way to get them to take it down, even if we asked nicely. However, BRIAA is about open minds -- not closed minded attitudes such as the RIAA or RACISM!
So, I'd like to propose the following courses of action and see what you guys think of them:
#1 - Ignore em, who cares.
#2 - Write them a private email stating that we do not appreciate their attitudes and we think them linking to us would be like the RIAA pretending to support us.
#3 - Write an Anti-Racism, Anti-Prejudice Article and give the link to where they link to us as an example of hypocracy, etc...
It's a trivial thing but I also wouldn't want our user base thinking we support such horse shit as racism, either!
What do you all think about this? |
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 4:24 PM
#1 ignore 'em who cares.
If anyone asks, explain it. We didn't ask them to
link to us, and they won't take it down.
It's a small possibilty that they may even have been ...
encouraged to link to us as a way of
discrediting the site. The RIAA 'legal' minds
have done a WHOLE lot worse things in the name of deception.
An update to the mission statement reminding
people that we have NO CONTROL over who chooses to
link to us could help. |
|
pepe512000
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 4:48 PM
"An update to the mission statement reminding people that we have NO CONTROL over who chooses to link to us could help"
This is probably the way to go... |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 5:27 PM
Yeah, and maybe within that something to the effect of "sites that link to us may possibly contain (list of offensive, etc... categories here) and Boycott RIAA does not nessesarily condone the views and opinions of other sites and definately does not condone ones of an innapropriate or hatefule nature" yada yada yada.. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 6:27 PM
"An update to the mission statement reminding people that we have NO CONTROL over who chooses to link to us could help"
Are you really concerned about the opinion of anyone who does not already grasp this fact? |
|
independentm...
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 7:08 PM
Sure, throw in a disclaimer somewhere if you want, but "ignore it" is the best course of action IMHO.
We don't have the ability (nor should we) to control who links to us unasked. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 7:10 PM
Besides, I'm sure the RIAA doesn't enjoy the fact that we link to some of their pages. |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 8:02 PM
Yeah, i just wanted to get everyones opinion. It's just the whole racism thing and of course what Hitler did in WWII ... ugh... just makes you wanna get up and go lose your lunch. |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 8:02 PM
Anyways -- enough on this. Lets get back to the topic at hand. Anyone else read the Tech Guy thread? Anyone else have anything to add to this topic? |
|
independentm...
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 9:27 PM
Unfortunately, I missed all the fun. (Had to work dayshift all week and was unable to peek in on Boycott Riaa very much this past week.)
From what I have seen so far above, it appears that this guy with teh "Stealing is Illegal" website is just an IT guy who originally bought the RIAA's propaganda, got on his soapbox, and blathered BS out his butt-hole a few years ago.
(Unless totally thick-headed, my guess is he probably sings a somewhat altered tune these days, but I have not yet had the opportunity of reading his more recent stuff yet.)
Is the guy still sticking to his original words?
lol. If so, he's a fool. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: January 21, 2007 @ 9:35 PM
Kudo's to you Twarrior for finding his site and posting about it.
As you can see, it got our folk TALKING about Boycott Riaa type issues.
KEEP UP that sort of thing! (Try to shy away from stuff that only causes flame-wars between our own participants.)
I'm proud of you for this one. It shows you are "dialing in" to where you "need to be" as our chief admin. |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 22, 2007 @ 10:02 AM
Well, my best is all that I can promise to do. This is all I have done. I've worked alot of magic in a short amount of time and I look forward to more. With the exception of a small minority of instigators that now seem to be either gone or just wisely pleading the 5th, you've got an awesome group of people here at this site, Shmoo. Overall -- it's been really great working here and i've made lots of new friends and aquaintances! I look forward to more fun to come! |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 22, 2007 @ 10:03 AM
FYI -- being from the former "heyday" BBS Scene -- your usage of "dialing in" gave me a chuckle because it was ironically appropriate! lol |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 22, 2007 @ 10:04 AM
So whats this new broadband contraption I keep hearing about? Will it work on my 486?! lol (just kidding) |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: January 22, 2007 @ 10:07 AM
Well, Geek Squad tells me I can get Windows 95 to work on mah Commodore 64! (unfortunately, not kidding there. LOOSERS! LOL). Geek Squad or Osama's Cousins... when both are equally bad, it's a tough choice! lol |
|
CopyrightLaw...
|
Date: January 22, 2007 @ 12:32 PM
"Defendant has not contested plaintiffs' allegations,"
Problem #1, cuz if the defendant had, the RIAA would have removed those items related to downloading. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: January 22, 2007 @ 3:00 PM
LOL....I'm half Jewish and Leflaw is Jewish...why would a skinhead link to us?
:) |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: January 22, 2007 @ 3:01 PM
'Scuse me...gotta "git" back to re-reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...got slowed down on World Domination today...
~Code |
|
grumpygeezer
|
Date: January 26, 2007 @ 11:56 PM
The notion that downloading music is depriving an owner of property is . . .
"another example of misguided and misinformed propaganda"
|
|
|