Obama hires #5 RIAA member in the DOJ.

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: ObscureCaucasian

Originally posted by: QueBert
you would rather have US Soliders DYING in Iraq over your privacy? lol and you call him a douche. Also this is #5 right? he didn't hire the other 4 now did he?

With all due respect to our soldiers... isn't that what they signed up for? To defend our rights as Americans? If you take those away what's left to defend?

the Army isn't over there to defend the douchebag OPs right to illegally download music, no. That's not one of our freedoms. Nowhere on the Constitution does it say "thou have a right to do illegal shit" last time I checked the RIAA ultimately goes after people who break the law. And out troops are definitely not over in Iraq defending our right to do whatever the fuck we want with no repercussions.

 

[Regs]

:music: Welcome to the jungle; welcome to jungle; can you please please na na na na na please

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: QueBert
I bet a person without a computer will never be in court from an RIAA lawsuit.

And once again, you would be wrong. The RIAA has filed suits against grannies who have never even used a computer. There are plenty of examples of such craziness. The problem is that no matter what, if they go after you - right or wrong - you're going to pay a ton of money in legal fees, even if you win the case.

an innocent person will NEVER have to pay that

.... unless that innocent person doesn't have a ton of money to hire a proper defense lawyer.....

RIAA = legalized mafia.

 

[Aharami]

and yet, the Constitution was written by a bunch of people who were doing "illegal shit" in the eyes of the British monarchy

 

[Red Dawn]

Well it does help that no music being made today is worth the time and effort it takes to steal it..even with lightning fast broadband.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well it does help that no music being made today is worth the time and effort it takes to steal it..even with lightning fast broadband.

I wouldn't even bother downloading 99% of the stuff out there, even if it was free... but that's besides the point. Our fair use rights are going the way of the dodo 🙁

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well it does help that no music being made today is worth the time and effort it takes to steal it..even with lightning fast broadband.

I wouldn't even bother downloading 99% of the stuff out there, even if it was free... but that's besides the point. Our fair use rights are going the way of the dodo 🙁

How so?

 

[squirrel dog]

Ha Ha , well said , Red !!

 

[Jack Flash]

Also, this guy is a lawyer. He takes cases to make money. Are you mad at him for having a job?

 

[Jeffg010]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well it does help that no music being made today is worth the time and effort it takes to steal it..even with lightning fast broadband.

I take exception to I present Chickenfoot

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well it does help that no music being made today is worth the time and effort it takes to steal it..even with lightning fast broadband.

I wouldn't even bother downloading 99% of the stuff out there, even if it was free... but that's besides the point. Our fair use rights are going the way of the dodo 🙁

How so?

These guys that have made plenty of statements attacking the very notion of "fair use" as a right are getting positions of power within the DOJ. It's not a giant leap to see how that's going to further curtail our fair use rights.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Topic Title: Obama is a douche. #5 RIAA member in the DOJ.

Somebody call the WAHmbulance. :roll:

Harvey
Copyright and Patent Holder

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I wouldn't even bother downloading 99% of the stuff out there, even if it was free... but that's besides the point. Our fair use rights are going the way of the dodo 🙁

How so?

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I wouldn't even bother downloading 99% of the stuff out there, even if it was free... but that's besides the point. Our fair use rights are going the way of the dodo 🙁

How so?

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

So what's fair? You getting the song for free or them getting money for the song?

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I wouldn't even bother downloading 99% of the stuff out there, even if it was free... but that's besides the point. Our fair use rights are going the way of the dodo 🙁

How so?

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

...and that proves absolutely nothing except their attorney's have their heads so far up their ass that they can see what they ate for lunch.

 

[MotF Bane]

Change. Hope.

 

[babylon5]

A lot of RIAA fanboy here.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I wouldn't even bother downloading 99% of the stuff out there, even if it was free... but that's besides the point. Our fair use rights are going the way of the dodo 🙁

How so?

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

So what's fair? You getting the song for free or them getting money for the song?

Uh... being able to rip your own CDs so you can put them on your MP3 player?

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: Anubis
well he did promise change, and change is not always good

I would have rathered 4 more years of Iraq with McCain -- at least that didn't affect me in any way possible. This dumbass is going to take everyone's privacy away.

:disgust:

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Ns1
1. I don't agree with the fees
2. Don't download shit and you wont' have anything to worry about

But according to your flowchart yesterday, even if I don't download, I'm a pirate.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Ns1
1. I don't agree with the fees
2. Don't download shit and you wont' have anything to worry about

But according to your flowchart yesterday, even if I don't download, I'm a pirate.

If you don't download shit, you don't go to the flowchart. But you knew that.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

So what's fair? You getting the song for free or them getting money for the song?

What's fair? I pay for a song and can use it for personal enjoyment on whatever medium I choose.

What's not fair is having to purchase a CD, an .mp3 for my iPod, etc if it's the same song.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Ns1
...and that proves absolutely nothing except their attorney's have their heads so far up their ass that they can see what they ate for lunch.

It shows what the RIAA's thought processes are. Their attorneys are driving this crusade. If their attorneys view fair use to be 'theft', you can rest assured that they WILL lobby for legislation or try cases for rulings to eliminate fair use provisions from US copyright law.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

So what's fair? You getting the song for free or them getting money for the song?

What's fair? I pay for a song and can use it for personal enjoyment on whatever medium I choose.

What's not fair is having to purchase a CD, an .mp3 for my iPod, etc if it's the same song.

What's NOT fair is having millions of people download your shit and not get compensated for it.



(I'm a firm believer in fair use, which includes ripping cd's for yourself)

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Ns1

What's NOT fair is having millions of people download your shit and not get compensated for it.



(I'm a firm believer in fair use, which includes ripping cd's for yourself)

Agreed. I'd point out, though, that the original topic of this 'sub-conversation' was that the RIAA wasn't necessarily adopting that stance. They had started down the (now cliche'd) slipper slope of "Any copy is illegal".