Quote:
Originally posted by wry1
TIO, I chose the right word....persecute. The RIAA is issuing subpoenas and requiring ISPs to divulge confidential information based upon the supposition that there just might be an infringement. No actual proof is required on the part of the RIAA, and therefore.....
IT IS PERSECUTION
|
[quote]
per·se·cuteūr s -ky t )
tr.v.
·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes
1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.
How are these people being oppressed? Harassed? Bothered?
The fact is what the RIAA is doing IS legal. If this girl or someone in here family was downloading and distributing music it was not legal. You do not even address the specific but paint everyone with a broad brush of innocence.
Quote:
Originally posted by wry1
By issuing its subpoenas, the RIAA is able to compile information which it may have no intention of using in criminal proceedings in the present or immediate future. Even the U.S. Government is not legally allowed such latitude!
|
You are saying that the U.S. Government is not able to compile evidence against a person or persons and then decide if there is enough information to prosecute or even if prosecution is warranted? WOW! Their prosecution rate must be 100%!
Quote:
Originally posted by wry1
So please tell me how this is not a form of persecution, when your personal information - I dare say even your identity - is given up to a group of individuals who may use it at some undetermined point down the road in a manner which does not have your best interests at heart.
|
I dare say (You say it so much I think I'm starting to like it, I dare say!
) the person is not being persecuted just because their personal information is being gathered, especially if they are committing a crime!
As for whether they have the persons best interest at heart I do not read minds, and I assume you do not either, so stop lying.
Quote:
Originally posted by wry1
.....Better yet, why don't you write down all the pertinent facts of your life - Name, Date of Birth, Social Security # (if you're in the U.S.), Credit Card number, address, telephone number, etc. - and send it to the RIAA. Give them a hand in their endeavor.
|
What? That is idiotic! In the US a party is allowed to gather information to prosecute an alleged crime. The persons Name, date of birth and SSN are public information already anyway.
Quote:
Originally posted by wry1
The film industry tried the same strong-arm tactic in the past when it filed a lawsuit against Sony over VHS's ability to allow consumers to duplicate their product, and the courts (wisely) came back on the side of the consumer. I guess with some better lobbying, it wouldn't have turned out that way back then, huh?
|
Blah, blah, blah
.
Quote:
Originally posted by wry1
What you seem to have overlooked is that I would be perfectly within my rights if I were to buy the CD, make a copy, loan it to a friend (either the original or the copy - it makes no difference) and let them enjoy it. From the standpoint of the law, I've done nothing wrong. From the RIAA's viewpoint, however, I'm about two steps shy of Crimes Against Humanity. After all, I just shared a copyrighted product, and the end-user didn't pay for the creative product he or she is now enjoying.
|
So the RIAA is illegally using the laws to illegally prosecute people. I see
Quote:
Originally posted by wry1
And just for the record: I'm no longer a college-age kid, and yes - I can afford the CDs. I opt to buy only those works with enough songs I like to justify the cost of the entire CD; I don't download, simply because it's not my style.....and I don't currently own a Mac.....but I won't condemn those who do download.
Especially when the alternative is more of the same garbage we've been spoon-fed for so long.
So go to eBay, buy yourself a Mac, and start downloading through Apple's service. At 99-cents a title, it's a great value (and a hell of a lot cheaper than what the RIAA would demand of you).
|