Posted by Cliff Haynes on 10/25/05 20:51

"Technobarbarian" <d_murry-ztopzpam@excite.com> wrote in message
news:djihlr$cnl$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
>
> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4vZ6f.13272$Bv6.3862@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> "Technobarbarian" <d_murry-ztopzpam@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:djhlmd$7cf$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
>>>
>>> "pooter" <a@bff.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1dc651574adba205989fa3@nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
>>> > Technobarbarian [d_murry-ztopzpam@excite.com] said
>>> >>
>>> >> "pooter" <a@bff.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:MPG.1dc64a758d0432fb989f9f@nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
>>> >> > Technobarbarian [d_murry-ztopzpam@excite.com] said
>>> >> >> LOL, you keep watching this stuff like there's going to be
>> some
>>> >> >> sort
>>> >> >> of magic bullet. If someone does find a real loophole the RIAA
>>> >> >> will
>>> >> >> buy a
>>> >> >> fix very quickly.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Do you not see that that is exactly why it is so interesting.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It is one thing to get prosecuted because you have broken the law
>>> >> > but
>>> >> > quite another when the charge is trumped up by an organisation that
>>> >> > believes they can buy convictions regardless of what the law
>>> >> > actually
>>> >> > says.
>>> >>
>>> >> They don't have to buy convictions or trump up charges--they buy
>>> >> laws.
>>> >> Which is exactly what makes this case so boring.
>>> >
>>> > You think that is boring?
>>>
>>> This particular case is boring. There's nothing new here and it's
>>> extremely unlikely to go anywhere. It's just another shyster seperating
>> some
>>> fool from their money.
>>> >
>>> > If that is a common attitude, then I guess that explains how come it
>>> > is
>>> > allowed to happen.
>>>
>>> So, ok, if you think it's so damn interesting what are you going to
>> do
>>> besides sit and watch.
>>
>> Gee I think that's what people do when they go to the movies or
>> rubberneck.
>> What's so weird about that?
>
> Nuthin' weird *or* useful 'bout that. I've worked some wrecker calls.
> The first thing the rubbernecks ask is "was anybody hurt". They ain't
> interested in helpin', they's just looking for some blood. If you're
> lookin' for blood this is a good case to watch. Jane is going to be
> bleeding money.
>>
>>>I don't know how it is where you live, but in the
>>> good ol' USofA money talks--bullshit walks. Buying senators and
>> congressmen
>>> is business as usual here. Americans are so unconcerned that we keep
>>> electing the same crooks over and over. So what's the plan Stan? You
>> gonna'
>>> send Jane's shyster $10?
>>
>> You are losing me here. The plan should be not to acquiese and
>> supporting
>> that seems like the right thing to do.
>
> If the shyster was doing something useful I could agree (to a point,
> in general I'm not much for helpin' those who didn't help themselves in
> the first place). He (or she) ain't--they're just seperating Jane Doe from
> as much money as possible. First they lose this round by putting up
> arguements that have already been shown to be losers, then they tell her X
> number of more dollars to defend her from the actual lawsuit, then X more
> for the appeals, if she hasn't wised up that she hasn't hired the "Dream
> Team" at that point. So how much are you sending?
>>
>>> Download one for the revolution? Throw your body in
>>> the machine and ask for your own personal lawsut? What? My plan is that
>>> I
>>> don't send the RIAA money and I don't put myself in the position of
>> standing
>>> in front of the bulldozer waiting for the sheep to help me out of a
>>> situation that only a fool gets in in the first place.
>>>
>>
>> Again I'm at a loss here. Are you saying that this RIAA threat has made
>> you
>> so fearful that you are NOT going to share copyrighted material anymore?
>
> Nope, but I don't intentially put my hand in a buzzsaw either. For
> the most part, for MP3s, P2P is not the way to go--as simple as that.
> Binary Usenet groups are superior any way you look at it. Seen any
> RIAA/usenet lawsuits yet? Sooner or later we probably will, but it will be
> people who didn't bother with the necessary anonymous posting steps.
>
>> Well you do know that when we beat the RIAA at this game you will share
>> in
>> the proceeds if you choose to. You see it is interesting to see how the
>> RIAA is to be combated here. If you feel there is no reason to fight them
>> because the Politicians and People are in the back pocket of the RIAA
>> then
>> that in itself is interesting.
>
> I'm already getting my share of the proceeds. I beat the RIAA by using
> the right tool for the job. There's no glory in using a sledge hammer to
> make french fries.
>
> But I don't think so. I don't think they
>> are. I think a well reasoned argument could stop the RIAA. What that is
>> don't know but I'm sure it is out there. No one believed OJ Simpson was
>> innocent come on he was as guilty as the day is long. Trouble was the
>> prosecution was inept and his defense was superb. I believe that is also
>> possible here. Remember Michael Jackson? What about Baretta?
>
> So, you gonna' try this theory with your time and money? Ya' got the
> sort of change it takes to hire the same lawyers those folks use? None of
> those people set precedent, which is what's needed to help the people who
> don't have the money to hire this sort of hired guns when the RIAA comes
> knockin'. Even if a third of the people being sued by the RIAA could
> afford this sort of representation it's not going to have any effect on
> the rest of the cases.
>
> tb
>
>
Why don't we all just vote anarchy?

[Back to original message]