** $1M Penalty For Company Harboring MP3 Files

[tcsenter]

<< on the contrary, i do not support the theft of anything. i called that person a snitch, because that's what he/she is. >>

Nice try! But the confession is in the connotation of using the word "snitch". Your argument is the equivalent of me saying "On the contrary, I am not racist at all. I called that man a great person because that's what he is" under the premise that 'great person' is technically how blacks were once referred to and it didn't necessarily carry any negative connotation. Good luck with that.

 

[gopunk]

<<

<< on the contrary, i do not support the theft of anything. i called that person a snitch, because that's what he/she is. >>

Nice try! But the confession is in the connotation of using the word "snitch". Your argument is the equivalent of me saying "On the contrary, I am not racist at all. I called that man a great person because that's what he is" under the premise that 'great person' is technically how blacks were once referred to and it didn't necessarily carry any negative connotation. Good luck with that. >>



actually, it is more like saying "on the contrary, i do not support racism at all". you can be racist and still recognize that it is wrong. i dl mp3s and recognize that it is wrong. i recognize that theft is wrong. i do not support theft. i still find anally retentive people annoying.

and btw, i do call japanese people "japs", and it is not because i am racist towards them.

maybe next time you should be a little less hasty in calling people "stupid", lest they explain their position.

 

[Workin']

I was hoping we could avoid name-calling.

Mainly I was surprised at the size of the ransom, errr, settlement. I'm sure the music industry lost well over a million $$ in unpaid royalties. Not.

The other point is that the RIAA was able to extract this sum when the very legality of the "offense" is questionable. Basically it looks like the RIAA used their large stable of lawyers to extort a handsome sum from a firm with a smaller stable of lawyers.

Let's clear up that radio is separate from other media, and has a different set of rules. That's been well established. Also I'm glad someone brought up the MP3.com decision - I think that morally if you you have purchased a work once then you should be able to use it however you see fit, so if you buy a CD, copy it to your server, and stream it to yourself wherever you may be then you are on solid ground. Streaming it to your friends might be OK, presuming they really are people you know and associate with (i.e., dictionary definition of "friend", not Napster definition of "friend"), sharing with friends is clearly covered in the "fair use" doctrine. Whether that covers everyone in your company, I don't know. I think most people would agree (when they are not being a smarty-pants) that streaming to everyone on the planet is really not right, however appealing it may be.

 

[Zebo]

<< I was hoping we could avoid name-calling. >>


In ATOT! Not Likely

This story is a damn shame and yet another example how a few RICH companies can get copyright laws in thier favor and then use stongarm tacics to hold a smaller company hostage for money. It was just cheaper for them to settle. And the majority (comsumers) are left high and dry and the copyright laws are butcherd. Sad Really.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

<< I always love people's utter stupidity, it is a virtual confession of supporting the theft of copyrighted works or other dishonest/illegal behavior when one refers to a person as a "snitch" because they did the right thing. I use the word stupidity because their position is completely indefensible morally or ethically, but they're too stupid to even realize it. It's as if they're almost saying "Curse those honest people, us dishonest types would be able to get away with a lot more without them around." lol! Brilliant! >>



Honest people do the right thing. Snitches get people in trouble, the right thing is just an excuse. I'll give 100 to 1 odds this was a disgruntled employee who's motivation was revenge. Snitch applies perfectly.

 

[gopunk]

Honest people do the right thing. Snitches get people in trouble, the right thing is just an excuse. I'll give 100 to 1 odds this was a disgruntled employee who's motivation was revenge. Snitch applies perfectly.

glad to see somebody gets it

a snitch is somebody who does something to get people in trouble. they may be doing the "right thing" along the way, but their motivation is to incriminate.

 

[tcsenter]

<< Honest people do the right thing. Snitches get people in trouble, the right thing is just an excuse. I'll give 100 to 1 odds this was a disgruntled employee who's motivation was revenge. Snitch applies perfectly. >>

Ah, so now you know that this tip was given by an employee who wanted to see the company get into trouble vs. wanting to see their copyright theft stopped. lol!

When a person tells on an activity you are opposed to, that person is a 'righteous defender' or 'whistle blower'. When a person tells on an activity you support or are benefitting from, that person is a "snitch". Gotcha.

<< a snitch is somebody who does something to get people in trouble. they may be doing the "right thing" along the way, but their motivation is to incriminate. >>

Like they say, if you ain't doing anything wrong, nobody can possibly 'snitch' on you. Blame the snitch because you're doing wrong. lol! As I said earlier, morally and ethically indefensible, the fact you are ACTUALLY ATTEMPTING to defend the indefensible proves everything I've said, yet you're too stupid to realize what a complete fool you're making of yourself. Oh well, be my guest....

 

[gopunk]

Like they say, if you ain't doing anything wrong, nobody can possibly 'snitch' on you.

that's correct... i never said otherwise.

Blame the snitch because you're doing wrong. lol!

blame the snitch for what? i never did any such thing.

As I said earlier, morally and ethically indefensible, the fact you are ACTUALLY ATTEMPTING to defend the indefensible

read my second to last post, then tell me how i am defending anybody.

proves everything I've said, yet you're too stupid to realize what a complete fool you're making of yourself. Oh well, be my guest....

 

[gopunk]

When a person tells on an activity you are opposed to, that person is a 'righteous defender' or 'whistle blower'. When a person tells on an activity you support or are benefitting from, that person is a "snitch". Gotcha.

yup, what people decide to call other people is subjective. i'm glad you've come to that realization.

 

[tcsenter]

<< blame the snitch for what? i never did any such thing. >>

Ah, forgive me, I misquoted you. You actually called the guy a "no-good snitch", but there was no connotation in that, nope you never meant anything derisive when you called him a "no-good snitch". lol!

<< read my second to last post, then tell me how i am defending anybody. >>

You're comments INFER that you're defending copyright theft. After all, you cannot POSSIBLY purport to be 'neutral' when you use language like "no-good snitch". You're language is a condemnation of what he did, and why would you like us to believe that is...again?

"email tip... meaning one of the employees is a no-good snitch."

<< The other point is that the RIAA was able to extract this sum when the very legality of the "offense" is questionable. Basically it looks like the RIAA used their large stable of lawyers to extort a handsome sum from a firm with a smaller stable of lawyers. >>

Actually, the reverse seems to be true. $1 million will fund TWO court challenges all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

What it means when a company settles for such a large sum of money, an amount that FAR exceeds the costs of defending themselves, is that they were caught doing something they had no defense to, and therefore KNEW they would lose because they didn't have a legal leg to stand on. Better to pay $1 million now than to be ordered to pay $5 million when you lose in court.

 

[ScottyB]

I am glad I am not considered a Company

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

<< You're comments INFER that you're defending copyright theft. >>



Comments IMPLY, one who hears comments INFERS. Have you been taking idiot pills lately? Your posts prior to the last weak or so have usually been very intelligent, even if they were wrong. Now you are just coming off like an ignorant jackass. Maybe it's that whale meat you're eating.

Damn, I just now realized you used 'you're' instead of 'your' as well. Maybe you aren't the only one slipping.

 

[Paulson]

I think we should be able to say F the RIAA until they make it work for everyone. I buy cd's a like, but I think it's stupid to buy a cd cuz all I do is rip it to my hard drive. I want to be able to download MP3's legally. Why try to make it harder for us who want to be legal and responsible?

I know you can take what I say and turn it into "well buy the cd's and there's no problem" but I do see a problem. The RIAA is forcing us to pay for a full cd, when maybe we only like one song. What's that equal up to? People downloading the song rather than buying the cd, so the RIAA gets no money at all. If we could buy mp3's, they'd at least be getting some sort of profit.

That's my take. I hate these stupid legal rights, but what can ya do. Eventually everything we do will be illegal, so what's the point...

 

[gopunk]

<< blame the snitch for what? i never did any such thing. >>

Ah, forgive me, I misquoted you. You actually called the guy a "no-good snitch", but there was no connotation in that, nope you never meant anything derisive when you called him a "no-good snitch". lol!

there is a difference between being derisive and blaming somebody for something.



<< read my second to last post, then tell me how i am defending anybody. >>

You're comments INFER that you're defending copyright theft. After all, you cannot POSSIBLY purport to be 'neutral' when you use language like "no-good snitch". You're language is a condemnation of what he did, and why would you like us to believe that is...again?

let me outline this for you:

i download mp3s.
downloading copyrighted mp3s is bad.
i am doing a bad thing.
i do not like those who make it more difficult for me and people like me, to partake in this illegal behavior.

now, if you'll notice, nowhere do i *defend* theft, piracy, etc. i admit it is a bad thing to do. that doesn't mean i like people who turn in those who do it.

i don't see what is so hard to understand...

 

[tcsenter]

<< Comments IMPLY, one who hears comments INFERS. Have you been taking idiot pills lately? >>

Thank you for pointing out an improper word choice or two of mine...did you have anything of substantive value to bring to the discussion, perhaps some REAL criticism of my argument instead of my spelling? Didn't think so. Now...go play English teacher somewhere else, kid, the "discussion" forums are for big boys. ;-)

<< i download mp3s...i am doing a bad thing...i do not like those who make it more difficult for me and people like me, to partake in this illegal behavior. >>

Translation: "Damn those honest people, if it weren't for them we dishonest folks would have a lot easier time doing dishonest things." You STILL have no idea what an utterly indefensible position you are attempting to defend do you? I suspect you never will, there is clearly a significant character flaw that prevents you from seeing the indefensible and hypocritical nature of your position.

This reminds me of the late Carl Rowan, the notoriously antigun D.C. columnist who spent years demonizing gun owners, handgun manufacturers, and the gun 'lobby' (NRA), calling for an outright ban on handguns asserting 'there is no need for anyone but the police to have handguns'. Rowan came home one night, finds a couple black teenagers swimming in his pool, so Rowan retrieves his very own semi-automatic handgun and shoots one of the unarmed teens. The gun was illegally owned, as Rowan - an ardent supporter of mandatory gun registration - had not registered the firearm as he was required by law.

At a press conference, when several reporters persisted to question Rowan about his blatant hypocrisy and monumental contradictions, Rowan answered "I don't give a damn if you or anyone else says I'm a hypocrite."

There is a word used to describe people like this, they are commonly called sociopaths.

 

[gopunk]

Translation: "Damn those honest people, if it weren't for them we dishonest folks would have a lot easier time doing dishonest things." You STILL have no idea what an utterly indefensible position you are attempting to defend do you? I suspect you never will, there is clearly a significant character flaw that prevents you from seeing the indefensible and hypocritical nature of your position.

exactly what position do you think i'm defending? i've already told you i think downloading copyrighted material is wrong.

This reminds me of the late Carl Rowan, the notoriously antigun D.C. columnist who spent years demonizing gun owners, handgun manufacturers, and the gun 'lobby' (NRA), calling for an outright ban on handguns asserting 'there is no need for anyone but the police to have handguns'. Rowan came home one night, finds a couple black teenagers swimming in his pool, so Rowan retrieves his very own semi-automatic handgun and shoots one of the unarmed teens. The gun was illegally owned, as Rowan - an ardent supporter of mandatory gun registration - had not registered the firearm as he was required by law.
At a press conference, when several reporters persisted to question Rowan about his blatant hypocrisy and monumental contradictions, Rowan answered "I don't give a damn if you or anyone else says I'm a hypocrite."
There is a word used to describe people like this, they are commonly called sociopaths.

are you calling me a sociopath and comparing me to some guy who shot somebody, or was this just unrelated?

i'm not seeing where you draw this comparison... i admit it is bad, and i admit i am doing it. he said it was bad, but hid what he was doing. i am putting everything out in the open, and openly stating that it is a bad thing to do, yet you somehow still think i am defending it.

 

[tcsenter]

<< exactly what position do you think i'm defending? i've already told you i think downloading copyrighted material is wrong. >>

And yet you are still here...

Just because you admit to wrong-doing doesn't make your position any more honorable. At least those who attempt to rationalize away their wrong-doing have convinced themselves that their activities are justified or 'not-so-wrong' in some way. You admit you're wrong, but continue doing it anyway. Do you understand what that says about you?

A sociopath is someone who knows right from wrong, but doesn't give a damn, they do whatever benefits them without conscience (lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, deceive, mislead, defraud, etc.).

<< are you calling me a sociopath and comparing me to some guy who shot somebody >>

Comparing contradictions.

<< i am putting everything out in the open, and openly stating that it is a bad thing to do, yet you somehow still think i am defending it. >>

Again, admitting wrong-doing while suggesting "Yep, it's wrong, and I'll continue doing it, too, and if you don't like it TFB!" is no more honorable than attempting to hide your activities. Hiding it only adds insult to injury, while being candid doesn't detract from or mitigate the injury. The fundamental 'wrong' still exists.

At least when a person hides their wrong-doing, that is de facto admittal they knew it was wrong, else they wouldn't hide it. The same cannot be said of your position.

IOW, I find it FAR more believable that a person knew the wrongful nature of their activities who tries to hide it than a person who openly admits (if not brags about) their wrong-doing and vows to continue. The latter strongly suggests the person is simply employing a dishonest argumentative strategy rather than making some 'psuedo-honorable' confession; either that, or he is a bona fide sociopath.

I'll let you decide which.

 

[gopunk]

Just because you admit to wrong-doing doesn't make your position any more honorable.

please stay on the topic. i never said anything about what was "honorable" or not. you asserted that i was defending the downloading of copyrighted materials, and i have shown that i was not.

A sociopath is someone who knows right from wrong, but doesn't give a damn, they do whatever benefits them without conscience (lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, deceive, mislead, defraud, etc.).

okay, i guess i can sleep better knowing i'm a sociopath. thank you for your analysis.

IOW, I find it FAR more believable that a person knew the wrongful nature of their activities who tries to hide it than a person who openly admits (if not brags about) their wrong-doing and vows to continue. The latter strongly suggests the person is simply employing a dishonest argumentative strategy rather than making some 'psuedo-honorable' confession.

i think you really should examine whether your perceptions of what i say come from me, or are imagined up by you. i am not saying i am honorable or anything. i am simply replying to your assertion that i was defending what the company did.

if you really doubt what i'm saying, why don't you go do a search for my previous posts in other threads? i have *never* defended such actions. (edit: hmm... now that i think about it... maybe i did a long time ago. in any event, the more recent threads should reflect my feelings on the matter. i'm pretty sure i've *never* defended it on a moral level though.)

if you look at it, all you really have to go on in your quest to prove me as some one who defends the company's actions, is that i called the emailer a snitch. i'm sorry, but i find that a really weak argument, since i've already explained that it's quite possible to view something as wrong and still dislike people who tattle. think about when you were little... everybody always hates the kid who goes "are you going to collect homework?". all the kids know it's wrong to sneak off without turning it in, but they still hate the kid that does that.

anyways, perhaps talking about any possible personality disorders i have is a bit silly, since it has *no* relevance to the topic at hand? not only that, but you're not qualified to make that diagnosis

 

[tcsenter]

<< please stay on the topic. i never said anything about what was "honorable" or not. you asserted that i was defending the downloading of copyrighted materials, and i have shown that i was not. >>

As someone pointed out earlier, what I meant to say is it is entirely reasonable to INFER from your comments that you support the practice, it is actually quite obvious. I think any reasonably intelligent person can conclude that is equivalent to defense of the practice (copyright theft). You cannot possibly say that you 'participate' but don't support it. Well, you can, but it would be ridiculous, though not surprising from what you've already told us.

<< if you look at it, all you really have to go on in your quest to prove me as some one who defends the company's actions, is that i called the emailer a snitch. i'm sorry, but i find that a really weak argument, since i've already explained that it's quite possible to view something as wrong and still dislike people who tattle. think about when you were little... everybody always hates the kid who goes "are you going to collect homework?". all the kids know it's wrong to sneak off without turning it in, but they still hate the kid that does that. >>

I am SOOOO glad you used that example, thank you! Time for Gopunk to stop behaving like that little school child who does something he knows to be wrong, wouldn't you say? How old are you?

Your example is SPOT ON: little children who resent the "no-good" tattle-tale. It is the child-like mentality that resents the tattle-tale because he prevents them from getting away with behavior or activities they know to be wrong and shouldn't be doing, but they do it anyway.

When you become an adult, your mentality is supposed to be different than it was when your were seven. Apparently for some, that does not happen. In fact, I've seen many adults resent others for not allowing them to get away with dishonest or illegal behavior. Our prisons are full of these types: Screw the cops, the government, or the system for putting us in this place.

Do you see the entirely disfunctional and warped view here? Not, "damn me for doing something stupid or illegal", but "damn them for catching and punishing me." lol!

Again, its the sign of a serious character flaw when one projects blame onto others because they got caught doing wrong. It is an implicit confession that they believe the rules of society should not apply to them, they believe they have some sort of 'right' to engage in wrong-doing without worrying they will get caught or someone will blow the whistle on them = sociopathic.

In fact, THIS ALONE is the fundamental difference between a person who is imperfect, and thus occassionally does things he knows to be wrong, but because he strives not to, has hope of becoming a better human being than he is, and a person who is imperfect, and thus occassionally does things he knows to be wrong, but doesn't give a rat's ass nor does he strive to be an honest person and has no hope of becoming anything more than what he already is - dishonest.

One blames himself when he does wrong, the other blames anyone but himself. One is fundamentally honest though imperfect, the other is just plain dishonest.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

<<

<< Honest people do the right thing. Snitches get people in trouble, the right thing is just an excuse. I'll give 100 to 1 odds this was a disgruntled employee who's motivation was revenge. Snitch applies perfectly. >>

Ah, so now you know that this tip was given by an employee who wanted to see the company get into trouble vs. wanting to see their copyright theft stopped. lol!

When a person tells on an activity you are opposed to, that person is a 'righteous defender' or 'whistle blower'. When a person tells on an activity you support or are benefitting from, that person is a "snitch". Gotcha.

<< a snitch is somebody who does something to get people in trouble. they may be doing the "right thing" along the way, but their motivation is to incriminate. >>

Like they say, if you ain't doing anything wrong, nobody can possibly 'snitch' on you. Blame the snitch because you're doing wrong. lol! As I said earlier, morally and ethically indefensible, the fact you are ACTUALLY ATTEMPTING to defend the indefensible proves everything I've said, yet you're too stupid to realize what a complete fool you're making of yourself. Oh well, be my guest.... >>



Let's try and explain it this way:

I see you drive past a smashed up phonebooth, and as I dislike you I notify a nearby cop and claim I saw you smash it up. He stops you, and as he doesn't like your face decides to fine you for $1500.

What would you do, take it to court knowing you will lose against a cop and a 'witness', and will probably end up paying far more, or will you pay it?

Even if it was not illegal what they did, going to court would most likely turn out badly for them.

P.S. You might take the chance of having to pay more by taking it to court, but losing a case like that will give a company a bad name.

 

[tcsenter]

<< I see you drive past a smashed up phonebooth, and as I dislike you I notify a nearby cop and claim I saw you smash it up. He stops you, and as he doesn't like your face decides to fine you for $1500. >>

So what you're implying is that those MP3 files (the incriminating evidence) was planted there by the tipster, presumably some disgruntled employee? Perhaps you could point me to the press release where the company claims this as a defense?

Otherwise, you're analogy is a few miles from the circumstances surrounding this case because the company never denied facilitating or contributing to the copyright infringement. We're not talking about criminal complaint, copyright infringement is a civil matter.

 

[gopunk]

As someone pointed out earlier, what I meant to say is it is entirely reasonable to INFER from your comments that you support the practice, it is actually quite obvious. I think any reasonably intelligent person can conclude that is equivalent to defense of the practice (copyright theft). You cannot possibly say that you 'participate' but don't support it. Well, you can, but it would be ridiculous, though not surprising from what you've already told us.

i don't think or see why you think it is all that rediculous. i participate in many things that i do not endorse. i eat meat... is it right that i do this? i don't think so... it seems wrong to me that i'm telling some animal that they can't live because i want to eat it. but i still eat the meat, because i like it.

i have had friends smoke pot in front of me before. if somebody in our group went and called the police, i would call that person a snitch. even though i dislike the idea of my friends doing drugs.

I am SOOOO glad you used that example, thank you! Time for Gopunk to stop behaving like that little school child who does something he knows to be wrong, wouldn't you say? How old are you?
Your example is SPOT ON: little children who resent the "no-good" tattle-tale. It is the child-like mentality that resents the tattle-tale because he prevents them from getting away with behavior or activities they know to be wrong and shouldn't be doing, but they do it anyway.

once again, irrelevant to the topic at hand. though it is true, i resent tattle-tales.

When you become an adult, your mentality is supposed to be different than it was when your were seven. Apparently for some, that does not happen. In fact, I've seen many adults resent others for not allowing them to get away with dishonest or illegal behavior. Our prisons are full of these types: Screw the cops, the government, or the system for putting us in this place.
Do you see the entirely disfunctional and warped view here? Not, "damn me for doing something stupid or illegal", but "damn them for catching and punishing me." lol!
Again, its the sign of a serious character flaw when one projects blame onto others because they got caught doing wrong. It is an implicit confession that they believe the rules of society should not apply to them, they believe they have some sort of 'right' to engage in wrong-doing without worrying they will get caught or someone will blow the whistle on them = sociopathic.

i'm not certain as to why you keep on repeating these things. if you think i'm a sociopath, great. have fun. who knows, maybe i am.

 

[tcsenter]

<< i don't think or see why you think it is all that rediculous. i participate in many things that i do not endorse. >>

Huh? You're a might screwed-up my boy, if your belief system is so confused that you believe you do not endorse things you participate in. Let me give you a clue, your participation IS your ENDORSEMENT, regardless of what you "say". You can say anything, that you're Jesus Christ, but that is just talk.

I don't know what planet you were raised on where you think it is possible to participate in many things you do not endorse, which would imply that you live a life full of contradictions and paradox, but whatever. Its your life, queer as it may be.

 

[gopunk]

Huh? You're a might screwed-up my boy, if your belief system is so confused that you believe you do not endorse things you participate in. Let me give you a clue, your participation IS your ENDORSEMENT, regardless of what you "say". You can say anything, that you're Jesus Christ, but that is just talk.

my belief system is not confused at all, i have a very clear picture of what i believe. i also know what i participate in. downloading copyrighted materials is not something i have particularly strong convictions towards, which is why i might seem "screwed-up" to you. if it was something i had really strong feelings about, like say... killing innocent people, it would be different.

I don't know what planet you were raised on where you think it is possible to participate in many things you do not endorse, which would imply that you live a life full of contradictions and paradox, but whatever. Its your life, queer as it may be.

well, like i said, it's about strength of conviction. there are somethings that i just don't care about, so my personal gratification trumps any sense of right or wrong for those issues.

in any event, calling that person a snitch was not a defence of what that company did, regardless of what you thought you could infer.

 

[apoppin]

The dictionary definition of snitch is:

n.

1. A thief.
2. An informer.




. . . carry on . . . (kiddies)