Posted by Technobarbarian on 10/26/05 00:07

"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 sort of lawyers those folks
use? Jand Doe obviously doesn't. 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. Even if someone does find a loophole the RIAA will just buy a
fix for it.

tb

[Back to original message]