Lunk July 18, 2003 Share Lunk Member July 18, 2003 Be Afraid Very Afraid Just any FYI for you file sharing folks. Have a nice day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa July 18, 2003 Share Playaa Member July 18, 2003 I don't understand what some ppl are freaking out about now. It's ALWAYS been illegal, no new laws need to be made. The only difference is they're going to hunt you now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunk July 18, 2003 Author Share Lunk Member July 18, 2003 I don't understand what some ppl are freaking out about now. It's ALWAYS been illegal, no new laws need to be made. The only difference is they're going to hunt you now. Agreed. Just passing along what I saw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty July 18, 2003 Share Fatty GC Founder July 18, 2003 GO GO JUSTICE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBugs July 18, 2003 Share TheBugs Member July 18, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendryx July 18, 2003 Share Hendryx Member July 18, 2003 Bring it on!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Mmmm]Homer July 18, 2003 Share [Mmmm]Homer Member July 18, 2003 /cya on There is something illegal about this? /cya off Good luck to the RIAA and record companied not getting counterattacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gond July 18, 2003 Share Gond Member July 18, 2003 Sounds like they are changing it to say even making it available is a crime. So, basically if Joe Blow happens to screw up and share his MP3 collection he is now a federal criminal. Currently, under a little-known 1997 law called the No Electronic Theft Act, many P2P users are technically already violating criminal laws. But if the ACCOPS bill were to succeed, prosecutors would not have to prove that a copyright file was repeatedly downloaded. Conyers’ proposal would require them to prove only that the file was publicly accessible. Initial thought here is that I'm going to be against this law. Whats next, you own a gun so we arrest you for murder? You have a car thus you must be speeding? You have a lighter you must be a crackhead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrX July 18, 2003 Share mrX GC Alumni July 18, 2003 Next up: your neighborhood librarian - innocuous book worm or secret agent? - better not take those books to the copy machine. Another example of focusing on the symptoms and not the problem. Same thing happens in so many areas. Keeps the lawyers busy I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty July 18, 2003 Share Fatty GC Founder July 18, 2003 Come on, what happened to the serious discussion... Joe Blow "screws up"....that's like "accidentally" typing fu*k in the server. And your last 3 questions are sarcastic babble. Where's the good-arguer-Gond that I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yErMoTH3r July 18, 2003 Share yErMoTH3r GC Founder July 18, 2003 hes busy reorganizing his p2p shares ;-) to quibble with you ;-p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight July 18, 2003 Share White Knight Member July 18, 2003 You had to bring this subject up on a friday when I'm about to disappear for the weekend didn't you... Since when is the FBI responsible for researching civil crimes, and when is Congress responsible for enacting new laws for this? This is another attempt by congressman that are owned by diaRIAA to scare people. This has no chance in heck of being enacted into law. The legal implications of this law are as bad as Berman's last proposal...to give Copyright Holders the right to hack into your computer...why don't they simply repeal the Bill of Rights and instead of voting, allow the government to auction off government positions to the highest bidding corporation...this is all absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gond July 18, 2003 Share Gond Member July 18, 2003 Come on, what happened to the serious discussion... Joe Blow "screws up"....that's like "accidentally" typing fu*k in the server. And your last 3 questions are sarcastic babble. Where's the good-arguer-Gond that I know? He was put in jail for accidentially sharing his hd on the internet that contained his MP3 collection Sarcastic babble maybe but it is in the same direction. And no, you don't accidentally type that in the server. You may forget you can't type that on the server or you may try to get away with it. You can accidentally share your drive on the web. Maybe accidental is the wrong word...how about inadvertantly? Are there any laws on the books that punish someone before they have committed the crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty July 18, 2003 Share Fatty GC Founder July 18, 2003 how about inadvertantly? I can go for that! Are there any laws on the books that punish someone before they have committed the crime? Here's one in THE Book.... Matthew 5:28 - But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. But we don't really want to go there, or do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Mmmm]Homer July 18, 2003 Share [Mmmm]Homer Member July 18, 2003 If I think about downloading an MP3 I'm already guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty July 18, 2003 Share Fatty GC Founder July 18, 2003 Hmmmm.... Kids get busted for having stuff like shaving cream in their bag on the last day of school in some areas... Maybe they were just getting ready for manhood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Premier July 18, 2003 Share DJ Premier Member July 18, 2003 last I heard, kids caught with shaving cream in their bags weren't hunted by the FBI as if they were mass murderers and then sent to a CRIMINAL penitentiary for 5 years. And yes, they could have possibly been getting ready for manhood. In fact, if that's what the kid said and they weren't caught in the act of using the shaving cream as a deadly weapon, I'm sure they were let go. At least that's how I'd like to think our justice system works. Maybe our slogan should be guilty before proven innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Premier July 18, 2003 Share DJ Premier Member July 18, 2003 Since we're on the topic of the friggin RIAA, I'd like to state for the record that the executives who make decisions on behalf of the RIAA are a bunch of morons. It is also my very strong opinion that these same executives should be strung up and flogged til the end of time. . These are the idiots, who after seeing MILLIONS of users of napster vote that they would be willing to PAY for downloadable music, immediately commenced to condemn the technology and crush it to the ground. If I was the business strategist who made that decision, I'd expect to get fired and then thrown off a cliff. They dug their own grave when they decided that hard media was the wave of the future and tried everything in the book to keep to their old, stodgy ways. Someone with a brain needs to get in charge and understand that technology has changed and will continue to change the way we all do business. Sure, you can sit in your farm in some boondock land and say that technology doesn't change you but you'd be the fool and not the rest of the world. Now, after killing great services that COULD have been used legally, like napster and audiogalaxy, they continue to tread down the path chanting "buy these CD's. Yes, these CD's that have 2 good songs and 14 filler tracks". In fact, they want you to buy them for $17.99 for the right to play those TWO tracks over and over again. You know what, screw them and screw the artists who come out with the 2 hit wonder albums. Let them actually WORK to make a damn good CD and maybe i WOULD go out and buy it. In fact, that's exactly what I do. If I know that the artist is a piece of garbage, but I like 1 of their songs because they had a stroke of good luck and actually produced something that more than they themselves would want to hear, I'm better off downloading it. If I like an album as a whole I actually go BUY the actual CD. Who are we trying to protect here? The RIAA? The millionaire artist who rips us off by making that one good song and charging us $17.99 for it? They shot themselves in the foot, now they want to take away MY rights in order to fix the problem? They can go to hell. And you know what's sad? It's that I'm not even sure if this problem can be fixed without some hard work. Something that would NOT have been required if it weren't for the absolute retards at the RIAA. - RIAA sees napster - RIAA says its wrong to steal music (they are right) - Napster and it's millions of users say they are willing to pay monthly for it - RIAA says no and crushes napster - 40 million ppl in the world now HATE the RIAA. - A subset of that million are now out to SCREW the RIAA because of that. I wonder where it went wrong....hmmmmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Premier July 18, 2003 Share DJ Premier Member July 18, 2003 And to spew some more of my opinions, the whole concept of "albums" should be abolished. Do you even know why we have albums? It's because there's an average # of songs that will fit on a record with decent quality so each "album" is a collection of these songs. BUT, some bands only have 1 or 2 good songs. But of course they can't put only 2 songs on an "album" since of course it doesn't make business sense to waste all of that vinyl and lose money. So what happens? They are asked to produce 8+ more tracks that can fill up the lines on the piece of vinyl. Voila! The sure fire way to make a 2 hit wonder! They might as well save the time and effort and give us an album with 2 tracks on it and charge us $17.99. At least they wouldnt be kidding themselves. The same problem has moved from vinyl to 8-track to tape and now to CD. But you know what, technology has changed that. There are no voids to fill. These "filler tracks" are no longer relevant. So....now what do you have? A bunch of SINGLES. Yes, SINGLES, those things that actually have been WORKED on by the artist and made to be of quality. And if we except that the concept of the album is no longer needed, then we can concentrate on singles. Pay a set amount for each single. Record stores no longer sell records, they sell BURNED singles. You go to the store, figure out which singles u want to buy and you construct your own personal album, for $17.99. Or, you download them for cheaper and burn them yourself. Wow. It doesn't take a friggin genius to think of these ideas. But I guess the RIAA is out of geniuses so they stockpiled on a bunch of backwards thinking lunatics who all have the collective IQ of an aging water buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Premier July 18, 2003 Share DJ Premier Member July 18, 2003 Shall I keep going or should I stop here? If you realize how STOOPID (not stupid, STOOPID) these idiots are at the RIAA, you'd realize that they are trying to defend the whole concept of selling CD's with low quality material so they can make a bigger buck out of you and me. What if the artist actually produces 4 GREAT songs at one point in time? Well now, that's TWO albums, not one. Separate them by a year or two, create 16 filler tracks and you have the makings of a collection that costs about $36 to buy. Album three with have the SAME 4 GREAT songs, 1 more decent song and a few more filler tracks and they'll call it a greatest hits album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Premier July 18, 2003 Share DJ Premier Member July 18, 2003 Shall I go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman July 18, 2003 Share Hitman Member July 18, 2003 <Prods DJ> Sic 'em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Premier July 18, 2003 Share DJ Premier Member July 18, 2003 Do ppl actually support the RIAA? So they can continue to overcharge us for low quality stuff so they can fatten the pockets of themselves and the likes of Mariah Carey, Back Door Boys and O-Town? Do you support their ways enough to support a law that violates our bill of rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Mmmm]Homer July 18, 2003 Share [Mmmm]Homer Member July 18, 2003 Go Kazaa Lite! Fight the power!! "Music fans are fighting back with technology, using new software designed specifically to stymie monitoring of their online activities by the major record labels. A new version of "Kazaa Lite," free software that provides access to the service operated by Sharman Networks Ltd., can prevent anyone from listing all music files on an individual's machine and purports to block scans from Internet addresses believed to be associated with the RIAA" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Premier July 19, 2003 Share DJ Premier Member July 19, 2003 (edited) I was expecting quite a few more responses than this. Where are the thinkers out there? 90% of the community professes to have genius level IQ...well, I'd like to see what your views are. Bring it on. I'm armed with at least 15 more reasons why I think the RIAA and it's stupid law is dumb. Edited July 19, 2003 by DJ Premier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now