StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Yet another useless policy from the RIAA that they cannot possibly hope to enforce. Honestly, what makes these people think they can exert any kind of real control over home computer use at all?

they claim that they are against censorship, and yet they continue to state that it's illegal to do something that's been granted under the Home Recording act of the 1970s.

may the RIAA join the big studios up against the wall once the internet revolution gets started.

It's interesting how right-wing "media personalities" always cite medical malpractice suits as examples of what's wrong with the litigation system, but not the RIAA.

The Yosemite Bear wrote:they claim that they are against censorship, and yet they continue to state that it's illegal to do something that's been granted under the Home Recording act of the 1970s.

may the RIAA join the big studios up against the wall once the internet revolution gets started.

Nah, the RIAA won't be up against the wall. They would have been the first targets in the Revolution. One of the first, anyways.

CaptHawkeye wrote:Yet another useless policy from the RIAA that they cannot possibly hope to enforce. Honestly, what makes these people think they can exert any kind of real control over home computer use at all?

They're legal terrorists. They know they can't change society, and they know that a lot of their lawsuits are bullshit. In particular, their damage claims are completely unsupportable in any objective fashion. Their objective is simply to terrorize the population by randomly victimizing people through malicious lawsuit filings, in the hopes of scaring other people into obeying them.

Darth Wong wrote:

CaptHawkeye wrote:Yet another useless policy from the RIAA that they cannot possibly hope to enforce. Honestly, what makes these people think they can exert any kind of real control over home computer use at all?

They're legal terrorists. They know they can't change society, and they know that a lot of their lawsuits are bullshit. In particular, their damage claims are completely unsupportable in any objective fashion. Their objective is simply to terrorize the population by randomly victimizing people through malicious lawsuit filings, in the hopes of scaring other people into obeying them.

Even worse than terrorists in some respects. They victimize vulnerable people. They only go after individuals with for example, limited financial resources as to make any lawsuit catastrophic for them, and settlements painful enough to set them back drastically.

It's like if actual terrorists went only after people who couldn't afford medical treatment.

Zuul wrote:I suppose taking photographs is stealing and altering the photons that have bounced off RIAA-owned trademarks, too. Why can't republicans get in scandals over mp3s and copyright infringement instead of homosexual acts? Other than the fact they're all incredibly out of date rich white guys, of course.

Hey, you're right! I need to start going after anyone who's ever taken a picture of me and sue them for stealing my photons.

Luckily, Australian law explicitly allows moving of one format to the other in this way, so the RIAA can fucking kiss my ass.

Well they can kiss my ass anyway...

I'm surprised we haven't seen any "downloading/ripping funds terrorism" ads yet, like the pot ads a couple years ago.

Cpl Kendall wrote:I'm surprised we haven't seen any "downloading/ripping funds terrorism" ads yet, like the pot ads a couple years ago.

"You wouldn't steal a car..."

Chris OFarrell wrote:Luckily, Australian law explicitly allows moving of one format to the other in this way, so the RIAA can fucking kiss my ass.

Well they can kiss my ass anyway...

So does American law, but that isn't stopping them. The problem is the nature of the American legal system, which is set up to allow a rich person to completely ruin a poor person through legal action even if he has no case whatsoever.

Companion Cube wrote:
"You wouldn't steal a car..."

That's good. I've seen several serious ads on DVD's that say pretty much the same thing. Just without the comedy, but none as outragous as the "pot supports terror" claim of just after 9/11. Claiming downloading is stealing is pretty bad but it's not quite as insane as the pot ads.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Companion Cube wrote:
"You wouldn't steal a car..."

That's good. I've seen several serious ads on DVD's that say pretty much the same thing. Just without the comedy, but none as outragous as the "pot supports terror" claim of just after 9/11. Claiming downloading is stealing is pretty bad but it's not quite as insane as the pot ads.

Unfortunately, piracy also seems to support terrorism. I'm not entirely sure of the legitimacy of this video, on the other hand.

Melchior wrote: Unfortunately, piracy also seems to support terrorism. I'm not entirely sure of the legitimacy of this video, on the other hand.

Haha, speak of the Devil. I saw that on a pirated Casino Royale DVD one of my friends bought in China.

I pay extra whenever I buy devices that can copy or burn CDs and burnable media, specifically because I have the right to make copies of music I own.

I would guess the RIAA's thinking here is that they can stop online filesharing by preventing people from making digital copies of music in the first place (iTunes and other services are exempt because the music files are DRMed). Of course they can't hope to stop the practice, and unless their lawyers are total idiots, they know they don't actually have a legal leg to stand on. But they can intimidate people by filing random lawsuits. Yeah, your chances of getting hit by one are very low, but you are 100% fucked if you do get hit.

So far as I can tell, it's the same rationale the government uses in marijuana prohibition. The difference is, however stupid marijuana prohibition is, the government isn't going to go out of business because it locks up potheads. The leadership of the RIAA seems to be suffering some kind of collective brain damage that makes them think they can relentlessly abuse their customers and not endanger their entire industry.

Well I suppose they figure that if they say it enough times loudly enough, most people will believe them, since they don't know any better.

The RIAA can get fucked.



What happens when they sue somebody that decides to play the race or disability card and the person wins, counter suing for billions? That'd be fucking hilarious.


Or people ignore them and judges automatically throw out their cases and tell them where to go, how to get there, and where they should keep their vegetables on the way.

Napoleon the Clown wrote:The RIAA can get fucked.



What happens when they sue somebody that decides to play the race or disability card and the person wins, counter suing for billions? That'd be fucking hilarious.


Or people ignore them and judges automatically throw out their cases and tell them where to go, how to get there, and where they should keep their vegetables on the way.

They've sued dead people. Why would they stop at disabilities?

sir remember the dead person we sued..

well this is security he's out here eating your secrataries' brains.

How does piracy fund terrorists?

Anyways, it's stealing in the loosest sense of the word because you are not giving the producers of the movie the money you would have given them had you bought them the normal way.

Of course, this MP3 thing has nothing to do with piracy, simply because you already have the music.

simple

1. record industry gouges consumers making them profits
2. consumers copy things they want and drop the drek
3. ?????
4. TERROR!!!!

Zablorg wrote: Anyways, it's stealing in the loosest sense of the word because you are not giving the producers of the movie the money you would have given them had you bought them the normal way.

That's very poorly thought out reasoning. By that logic, libraries are stealing because the money is otherwise not going to the creators of the item that's being checked out.

General Zod wrote:

Zablorg wrote: Anyways, it's stealing in the loosest sense of the word because you are not giving the producers of the movie the money you would have given them had you bought them the normal way.

That's very poorly thought out reasoning. By that logic, libraries are stealing because the money is otherwise not going to the creators of the item that's being checked out.

Oh yeah, that's what they think, by the way. I think I saw a poster in the cinema saying something to that effect. They say it's breaking the industry.

General Zod wrote:

Zablorg wrote: Anyways, it's stealing in the loosest sense of the word because you are not giving the producers of the movie the money you would have given them had you bought them the normal way.

That's very poorly thought out reasoning. By that logic, libraries are stealing because the money is otherwise not going to the creators of the item that's being checked out.

That analogy doesn't hold, because libraries lend out a physical copy of the book for a limited time, not create a new copy and give it away. Try to make a photocopy of an entire book and see how the library--or the publisher--responds.

Let's not swing too far the other way here: piracy is acquiring a product someone else created without compensating the creator. It's stealing. Just because everyone does it, or the RIAA (and MPAA to a lesser extent) are assholes doesn't change that.