So, how do you all reconcile the fact...

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by elan

Yes, but piracy is so diffused that this mean putting in jail or giving a fine to 80% of the people or even more.

Your sons will get a fine (I don't know if you have sons, but if you have I'm quite sure they have downloaded illegally at least one time)

When something is so popular, law cannot be applied as normally is applied, or you will have mothers and fathers ready to fight if they have to pay big amount of money (for most of the people un-payable unless they get a rid of the house and the other stuff - if they have an house - car isn't enough, plus you need it for work)

Agreed. However the fines being discussed were for making files available for others to download, not actual downloading, which is a different issue.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by elan

John please stop attacking Neenja, he is a guy with motivation, that's enough to excuse all the rest.

Plus you don't get he doesn't care about facts, he care about what's behind facts, and sometimes (often) is even more important (correct me if I'm wrong)

I'll stop attacking Neenja when he stops spreading disinformation and when he stops attacking everyone else who are trying to bring some truth and clarity to the discussions that he insists on muddying.

What do you mean "what's behind facts"? Facts are facts. BS is bs.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Neenja

No one is refuting my opinion. They are attacking me, which is what one does when they can not refute an opinion.

No. We have been effectively refuting you opinion and your position.

Nobody has attacked you personally at all, if for no other reason than we don't know who you are and you're doing your absolute best to keep it that way.

If you feel that we have, perhaps some of the conjectures that have been made fall a bit close to home?

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Neenja

This message is hidden because John Eppstein is on your ignore list.

The retreat of cowards and those who can't make a sustained argument.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Neenja

Ah, more insults. I thought you had grown up and moved on. I guess not.

no insult man, just observation. observation is not judgment.

if you want to have a grown up conversation PM me and we can talk like adults. I would love to know what you do, and I respect your privacy, as I ask others to respect mine. All I can know about you is the information you've made available publicly.

Originally Posted by Neenja

Let me know when you can have a discussion without resorting to this bullshit.

sure, see above, I'm game to move beyond the shenanigans if you are. PM me.

again dude - no BS, just observation. you appear to lack a certain level of experience which is represented in some of your posts. no shame in the game. It's impossible for everyone to know everything.

Originally Posted by Neenja

BTW, the RIAA wrote the law which defines the damages.

see that? right there... I don't know if they did or they didn't, but I'd love to know for sure. If you have background on that I'd love to read it.

no doubt the RIAA along with the MPAA and other content industry trade groups ALL had a hand in lobbying for copyright legislation, that's their job. I'm sure they all had a hand in the DMCA and will/have a hand in ACTA as well.

But I don't know that "the RIAA wrote the law which defines the damages."

[terryhart]

Originally Posted by Neenja

No one is refuting my opinion. They are attacking me, which is what one does when they can not refute an opinion.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been responding only to what you have stated as facts, not opinion. And the problem is, your "facts" are completely made up.

For example, you said:

Originally Posted by Neenja

None of that has anything to do with the post you quoted, and of course she refused the offer for 25k. What lawyer would let her agree to that at this point?

The post I quoted was this one:

Originally Posted by Neenja

And it is clear that the RIAA believes that 54k isn't enough for 24 songs (retail value of $24) as they are specifically going for retrial to get the award raised.

Which I clearly showed was the opposite of the truth, as evidenced by the RIAA's repeated settlement offers well below $54k. They have also repeatedly stated, including during trial, that they were not seeking a specific amount of damages. Each of the damages awards were solely the product of the jury, and each was well within the amount set by Congress. You can disagree over whether the amount set by law is disproportionate to the offense, but you can't make stuff up about the motives of the RIAA.

Here's another example of making stuff up:

Originally Posted by Neenja

BTW, the RIAA wrote the law which defines the damages.

Statutory damages - damages set by law rather than damages based on actual harm - were a feature of copyright law since the Statute of Anne in 1709 (slightly before the RIAA's time). Statutory damages in the US were present since the first Copyright Act of 1790. The statutory damages framework was addressed by the revision efforts leading up to the Copyright Act of 1976, resulting in the framework we have today (though the amounts have been increased several times since then). The RIAA, as a lobbyist group for record labels, was certainly involved during the revision process, as was every copyright industry - as any interest group would be involved during major revision efforts for a body of law that affects it. But to claim that "the RIAA wrote the law which defines the damages" is completely off-base.

Originally Posted by Neenja

There is nothing to debate. You not interesting in anything but what you think, facts be damned.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by blue nine

see that? right there... I don't know if they did or they didn't, but I'd love to know for sure. If you have background on that I'd love to read it.

Well, since the RIAA is not a government agency I can't see how they could have actually written any law. That's not the way the legislative process works.

no doubt the RIAA along with the MPAA and other content industry trade groups ALL had a hand in lobbying for copyright legislation, that's their job. I'm sure they all had a hand in the DMCA and will/have a hand in ACTA as well.

But I don't know that "the RIAA wrote the law which defines the damages."

Exactly. Nobody's denying that they did/do a lot of lobbying and even suggesting the language. But writing the law, no.

[Neenja]

Originally Posted by terryhart

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been responding only to what you have stated as facts, not opinion. And the problem is, your "facts" are completely made up.

For example, you said:



The post I quoted was this one:



Which I clearly showed was the opposite of the truth, as evidenced by the RIAA's repeated settlement offers well below $54k. They have also repeatedly stated, including during trial, that they were not seeking a specific amount of damages. Each of the damages awards were solely the product of the jury, and each was well within the amount set by Congress. You can disagree over whether the amount set by law is disproportionate to the offense, but you can't make stuff up about the motives of the RIAA.

Here's another example of making stuff up:



Statutory damages - damages set by law rather than damages based on actual harm - were a feature of copyright law since the Statute of Anne in 1709 (slightly before the RIAA's time). Statutory damages in the US were present since the first Copyright Act of 1790. The statutory damages framework was addressed by the revision efforts leading up to the Copyright Act of 1976, resulting in the framework we have today (though the amounts have been increased several times since then). The RIAA, as a lobbyist group for record labels, was certainly involved during the revision process, as was every copyright industry - as any interest group would be involved during major revision efforts for a body of law that affects it. But to claim that "the RIAA wrote the law which defines the damages" is completely off-base.

Sorry, but I am right. All I did was quote the RIAA's legal team. Apparently you don't understand how laws are written either. It's OK because they don't really teach this stuff in 9th grade government. There is a whole lot of "I don't like it so it can't be true" around here. It's kinda weird. I have backed up everything I have said, except the RIAA saying why they were going back to court because I didn't save the link, but that is reasonable for someone that has a clue about how the law in the US works, and you still argue. I think you like being contrary.

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by Neenja

Apparently you don't understand how laws are written either.

Wow.

Why don't you ask these guys, or maybe these guys how laws are written, because I'm not sure you understand either.....

All I did was quote the RIAA's legal team.

Clearly an unobjectionable position......LOL

[Jules]

Gah!

About 18 posts deleted for flames & bickering

Infractions issued tutt

I dont want to have to return to this thread

debate sure but keep confrontation civil - or risk a suspension from the forum.

OK - thanks

Carry on..

[mhs2xs]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Yes. I was almost certainly at that show - Shakin' Street opened, right?

It was in Lakeland Florida, Lakeland Civic Center. Opening act was Riot. It was late summer or early fall I think. Awesome show. I envy you sir.

Cheers!
Mitchell

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by mhs2xs

It was in Lakeland Florida, Lakeland Civic Center. Opening act was Riot. It was late summer or early fall I think. Awesome show. I envy you sir.

Cheers!
Mitchell

Actually I don't believe I was at that one - the tour was a double headliner with Sabbath and BOC - for smaller shows the tour would split and Sabbath would play one city while BOC played another - we must have been with BOC on that date. Yeah, Riot was the other opener - all Sandy Pearlman bands. On the REALLY big festival shows were were joined by AC/DC, Cheap Trick, and Molly Hatchett. It's also possible that that was during a 2 week break we took to replace guitar players when Ross the Boss and Joey d'Maio (Sabbath's pyro guy) left the tour to go form Manowar...... Ross was replaced by Duck McDonald.

[mhs2xs]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Actually I don't believe I was at that one - the tour was a double headliner with Sabbath and BOC - for smaller shows the tour would split and Sabbath would play one city while BOC played another - we must have been with BOC on that date. Yeah, Riot was the other opener - all Sandy Pearlman bands. On the REALLY big festival shows were were joined by AC/DC, Cheap Trick, and Molly Hatchett. It's also possible that that was during a 2 week break we took to replace guitar players when Ross the Boss and Joey d'Maio (Sabbath's pyro guy) left the tour to go form Manowar...... Ross was replaced by Duck McDonald.

Cool. I was a bit miffed that Bill Ward wasn't playing and there was some obscure guy (to me anyway) named Vinnie Appice playing drums...LOL...Turned out he was to become one of my favorite drummers ever when Dio recorded Holy Diver.

Thanks for the history.

Cheers!
Mitchell

[DistortingJack]

Originally Posted by EPrecording

Hypothetically though, if that wine was stolen from another vineyard how exactly does your consumption of it equate to you supporting that vineyard? Or even the wine industry in general? It doesn't... you don't find it particularly worthwhile in supporting the wine industry.

If people are stealing more music than ever... it really is a demonstration that music today is not worth supporting. Not solely monetary worth, but the act of theft being worth any impending threat of being caught and subsequent punishment.

You, sir, are an arse.
You think if someone doesn't want to pay for something they can get for free, then it's worth nothing.
If I had a magic genius that went and fetched the best guitars out from my music store, and brought it back to my place without anyone noticing, and I could own those guitars without anyone saying absolutely anything, if all it took for this to happen was for me to write the name of the guitar I wanted on my laptop, you see, if it was THAT easy then I'd have a very hard time with myself convincing myself not to steal. I probably wouldn't (well, not too much ^^) because physically owning something that was physically designed, manufactured, assembled, packaged and distributed feels horribly wrong in my hands.
Many, many people in that case would steal. And you know what, nobody in their right mind would say it's because the guitars are bad that they do it. Nobody in their right mind downloads the music they think is bad. Pure sophomoric fallacy.
Downloading one song, well, doesn't feel wrong. But it was designed, manufactured, assembled and packaged as well, it's just the final package is not physical. Nowadays I need to keep rationalising the fact it IS the same thing to stop myself from stealing music. Even though I love music.
In most downloaders' minds, the act of downloading music illegally is psychologically disconnected from the act of stealing, and THAT ladies and gentlemen is why they don't pay.

Tell me, do you donate? To the government in this period of crisis? To a church? To other associations that you think are important?
Are you telling me you're actively donating money to all the people who provide you with the things you hold dear?
Even in the unlikely case that you do (in which case you've never had rough month trying to make the ends meet and getting to your next paycheck), do you expect everyone to act like that?

Paying for music nowadays feels like a donation these days.
I do it, but shouldn't feel like a donation because it's not.
Donation is a choice.
Paying for copyrighted material is the law. Period.

The best music is most often (I'm not saying always of course!) made by several people who are the best at what they do. They gather around and they become the best at what they do because they are allowed to by their bank accounts, i.e. they are either dukes and princes or are earning money from their trade. I repeat, the large majority of the best music in its final recorded form is a team effort. You know that, you really do. We all do.
What you are saying is you don't care if this particular brand of music disappears.
Unless you only have only Moby and dance music albums chez toi, you're implying YOU don't care if most of the music on YOUR cd, vinyl or mp3 collection is created anymore.
The Beatles. Led Zeppelin. Pink Floyd. The Beach Boys. Radiohead. Name me a band that really meant something, whose members had 9 to 5 jobs to pay their bloody rent!
Nowadays they could record their songs, but they wouldn't know how to (roger waters for example was notorious for the shit quality of his demos), their mind would be numb by menial jobs or too busy in a decent one, and the final product we all know and love wouldn't exist. The final product, assuming it would exist, would be more than mediocre. It would be SoundClick.

You're condoning the death of the music you love.

You, sir, are a hypocrite, and an arse.


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

edit: I've just seen the warning post above. I won't flame anymore. But I think he deserves to be called an arse nonetheless.

[John Eppstein]

Well, that was post #75 in the thread and we're up #384 with your post (#385 with this one) - I think he's already been castigated pretty thoroughly. It's nice to know you're with us, but let's keep it civil, so as not to arouse the wrath of Jules........

A common problem with joining threads in progress on internet fora.....

[DistortingJack]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Well, that was post #75 in the thread and we're up #384 with your post (#385 with this one) - I think he's already been castigated pretty thoroughly. It's nice to know you're with us, but let's keep it civil, so as not to arouse the wrath of Jules........
A common problem with joining threads in progress on internet fora.....

You are absolutely right.
But what you say on the internetsss cannot be unsaid and one bares full responsibility for it. And that means getting castigated once in a while!

I think arse is a very civil word, by the way.
"Ass", on the other hand, sounds nasty, nasal and rude.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by DistortingJack

You are absolutely right.
But what you say on the internetsss cannot be unsaid and one bares full responsibility for it. And that means getting castigated once in a while!

I think arse is a very civil word, by the way.
"Ass", on the other hand, sounds nasty, nasal and rude.

When I call someone an "ass" it means that I think they are behaving like a stubborn, ornery equine pack animal. I'm trying to avoid doing that here though because Jules doesn't like it. The other forum I'm really active on, however, has no such speech code....

[lagavulin16]

Personally, I think all words should be fair game on any message forum. At best, a filter should only be applied to those who are under 18, 16, or whatever the law says.

That said, it's Jules board and he makes the rules... so I follow them.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

Personally, I think all words should be fair game on any message forum. At best, a filter should only be applied to those who are under 18, 16, or whatever the law says.

That said, it's Jules board and he makes the rules... so I follow them.

I wasn't referring to speech codes governing words. AFAIK both "ass" and "arse" are allowed here. What I was referring to are Jules' rules governing conduct and rudeness. In my case he seems to object to the fact that I'm a grumpy old man, so I have to be constantly on guard not to be offensively grumpy, which ain't easy because I have yet to get a clear definition......

[Jam]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

That said, it's Jules board and he makes the rules... so I follow them.

That's a lovely humane idea, someone goes to the effort of creating something, whether for profit or not, whether we like it or not, whether we agree with their idealogical position or not and we respect the wishes of creator by not breaking the rules they set.

James

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by Jam

That's a lovely humane idea, someone goes to the effort of creating something, whether for profit or not, whether we like it or not, whether we agree with their idealogical position or not and we respect the wishes of creator by not breaking the rules they set.

James

Less of the humane and more of the common sense, I'm thinking.

[Jam]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

Less of the humane and more of the common sense, I'm thinking.

Indeed, better choice of word(s) !!

James