[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by Dreddnik

Yes, they should rightfully sue those who Infringed on someones copyright.
They should also be required to prove those allegations though.

Could you ... prove .. your innocence ?

All they have is an IP and a printed list of files. If they have more, they have defied
court order after court order to avoid producing it.

The IP .....
So far there have been at least 4 contested cases ( which the RIAA dropped their suit )
in which the holder of that IP could NOT have been the correct party ( the named party
was deceased .. never owned a PC etc .. ).

The IP addy is NOT a solid identifier.

But how do you PROVE that you are innocent ??

Well obviously .. you go to court.

Will you represent me for free GBrumb, against a Multi-Million dollar corporate cartel ?
I personally could not afford the legal costs to prove my innocence.
The RIAA legal team is using a marvellous strategy of stalling, to drive the opposition
into the financial ground, so they simply don't have the resources to continue to fight.

Looking at this strategy, which option is prettier ?
Settling for 5,000, even though you commited NO infringement ?
Fighting to prove your innocence on a $ 13.00 an hour salary ??

Here you will find out about the cases that ARE being contested ...

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

In one of these cases, the RIAA hired HDD 'expert' ADMITTED to the court that
he looked at the personal e-mail and other private information, completely unrelated
to the case.

It's not as cut and dry, black and white , as you would like to believe.


Now, those who are reading this think about something ....

1. How many reading this have Copyrighted media files on their machine, AND
have them .. completely legally ?
2. We DON'T know exaclty what criterion the RIAA uses to choose victims, they have
YET to produce any of that info in the discovery process.
3. If you recieved one of their supoenas ( extortion letters ) could YOU afford to
prove your innocence ?

THAT is the trouble with the suits.

Not to mention, most IPs are DYNAMIC. This means -- at the exact same SECOND the supposed offending-party is downloading or sharing so-n-such file -- PPPOE could drop off and reconnect (establishing a different ip) as another user NOT doing any of the has the same PPPOE disconnect / reconnect and grabs that persons former IP within that same second. But logs will not show the previous party as having that ip -- it will show the second person that just connected to it as having commited the infringement. It's kinda like a drive by shooting. When gang bangers do a drive by -- they are HOPING their target is in the house. They know they might not get their target. They might get a guest the person has over. The targets family. Or no one may even be home at all. Or the bullets might rickoshey and not hit anyone in that house -- but instead bounce into the houses of their surrounding neighbors instead.

Dave Kelso
Boycott RIAA

[Dreddnik]

Not a very ' moral ' system .. is it ?

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

If you believe my post was about semantics then you missed the boat. You can't have an intelligent discussion/debate/discourse if one or more of the parties involved are misusing legal terminology. The law is precise in the meanings place upon legal terms as well as the affect these terms have when discussing their ramifications. The point of my post was and is to point out that you must (let me repeat) must have a common point of reference when batting about legal terminology. Otherwise your discussion devolves into valley talk for sure, like totally.

I think it was my point you missed and the fault was likely mine for not being as clear as i could have been. On BRIAA topics have been derailed by doing too much semantics debating which just leads into a contest rather than a debate.

Hypothetical Example:

Person 1: Describes the fact of an issue or topic
Person 2: Rebuttles with more facts on the issue or topic
Person 3: Mentions and opinion disagreeing with person 1 and agreeing with person 2
Person 4: Sides with a sub-point (not the main point) of person 3
Person 5: Makes his or her own sub-point from the original sub-point
Person 6: Goes on a rant with his or her own sub-point completely changing the course and getting on an entirely unrelated topic than the original
Persons 7, 8 and 9: Jump on the band wagon
Persons 1 through 6: Also jump the bandwagon

Before long -- everyone forgets what the heck the original point even was

Thats all I was suggesting we avoid. I was not making claims of you nor anyone else being right or wrong about anything.

So seeing as this post of mine risks the very thing i'm trying to prevent -- hopefully you understand and we can get back to the topic :-) Sorry about the confusion

Dave Kelso aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

The playing field has never been level, nothing new in that revelation.

"Innocent Until Proven Guilty" has never, EVER, been the case -- no mater how much the justice system likes to pretend life is actually an episode of The Brady Bunch.

Dave Kelso aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

You mean would I do it again, having done so several times in the past.

Thats good to see. As far as I know, this is how some lawyers undertake this (please correct me if any of this is in error):

Laywers may work probono under the agreement that when and if he (or she) wins the money for the client -- the laywer gets a percentage of it (usually around 25-35%) because they would be suing for as many millions $$ as the law allows for.

The Laywers that do this will typically only agree to it if they are 99.9% sure they can win the case. Where as MOST laywers want to be paid while the work is being done and will not work on a probono "promise of a %age if we win" type of structure.

Dave Kelso
Boycott RIAA

[valis]

weren't the rebuttles a band?

seriously, though, what purpose are you trying to accomplish here? Are you trying to make the owner of this site change his ways? Who knows, you may succeed. I will still be sending people to stealingisillegal.com, because to me, stealing IS illegal, copyright infringement or no. I don't make the laws, I just follows them.

Sometimes.

[TraVelSonic]

Vailis, I think you are missing the point we are making.

[valis]

no, I think I've got it pretty much nailed down, thank you very much.

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by valis

weren't the rebuttles a band?

seriously, though, what purpose are you trying to accomplish here? Are you trying to make the owner of this site change his ways? Who knows, you may succeed. I will still be sending people to stealingisillegal.com, because to me, stealing IS illegal, copyright infringement or no. I don't make the laws, I just follows them.

Sometimes.

I've already explained the purpose at length. Perhaps I should re-post the post that I feel best describes it?

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by valis

no, I think I've got it pretty much nailed down, thank you very much.

Then why did you ask me if your confident you already know the answer? Quite the contradiction there, donchya think? :-)

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

... ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI :-D

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by valis

weren't the rebuttles a band?

seriously, though, what purpose are you trying to accomplish here? Are you trying to make the owner of this site change his ways? Who knows, you may succeed. I will still be sending people to stealingisillegal.com, because to me, stealing IS illegal, copyright infringement or no. I don't make the laws, I just follows them.

Sometimes.

One other thing -- in order to follow the law, you must know what a law means, otherwise you can be manipulated as the context and meaning can be twisted. If I was some high ranking politician and i told you that when it says "you have the right to keep and bare arms" that this means, "you have the right to hold the possition of inn keep, and while running this credible establishment, you also have the right to allow your arms to be bare, by wearing either a tank top or short sleaved shirt, as opposed to the typical formal dress of a suite or branded company uniform" that you would beleive this is the true meaning because I was a high ranking politician and would do absolutely no research into the meanings of a law, who might try to exploit the meaning, how they might try to exploit it, etc?

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

[Dreddnik]

stealing IS illegal, copyright infringement or no. I don't make the laws, I just follows them.

Yes, stealing is illegal. We agree.
Yes Copyright infringement is illegal, people shouldn't do it .. we agree again

Good 2 for 2 so far.

seriously, though, what purpose are you trying to accomplish here? Are you trying to make the owner of this site change his ways? Who knows, you may succeed.

Not at all,
Mr. Cermak was misinformed as to OUR ways .

He thought that we support/defend people who Infringe on Copyrights ( which still
is not the same as theft, the terms matter enough that the RIAA lawyers are not
allowed to refer to it as theft or stealing in court ).

We do not.
We support a TOTAL boycott of RIAA supported acts. Don't buy, Don't download.
Support only non-RIAA acts .. THAT'S us.

If , along the way, more people actually read about what the RIAA is doing to
people in court, without ANY proof of any wrongdoing, then that's even better.

We understand and respect Mr. Cermak's stance, We just wanted to
be certain that we were correctly interpreted.


We don't support Copyright infringement by individuals
We don't support Copyright infringement by the RIAA member labels either .

http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/article_p2p.html

Why was Sony allowed to get away with .. Infringement ??

Answer: they are wealthy.

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by Dreddnik

Yes, stealing is illegal. We agree.
Yes Copyright infringement is illegal, people shouldn't do it .. we agree again

Good 2 for 2 so far.



Not at all,
Mr. Cermak was misinformed as to OUR ways .

He thought that we support/defend people who Infringe on Copyrights ( which still
is not the same as theft, the terms matter enough that the RIAA lawyers are not
allowed to refer to it as theft or stealing in court ).

We do not.
We support a TOTAL boycott of RIAA supported acts. Don't buy, Don't download.
Support only non-RIAA acts .. THAT'S us.

If , along the way, more people actually read about what the RIAA is doing to
people in court, without ANY proof of any wrongdoing, then that's even better.

We understand and respect Mr. Cermak's stance, We just wanted to
be certain that we were correctly interpreted.


We don't support Copyright infringement by individuals
We don't support Copyright infringement by the RIAA member labels either .

http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/article_p2p.html

Why was Sony allowed to get away with .. Infringement ??

Answer: they are wealthy.

Well -- lets not also forget we're also in support of the reform of fair use laws as well as the fact that artists under the RIAA label are getting royally screwed out of their profits. Why should the artists get only 8 cents of a sale from a $15 CD that if not for the creativity and hard work of that artist, the CD wouldnt even exist? The RIAA has been robbing their artists long before they started robbing the consumers.

8 cents from a $1 Record back in 1950 was a generous profit. But decades later inflation happened -- but their cut NEVER increased with inflation.

Alot of the people who run BRIAA *are* Musicians / Artists (Independent) including myself (http://twarrior.dmusic.com) and us "artists" do feel very irate about the fact that the RIAA Artists are getting swindelled so horribly!

I also think if 15 year old Demoscene Musician DJ Billy-Tracker decides to Remix the crap out of "PopularBand - My Cool Song" and release it on the Internet -- this should be JUST AS LEGAL as the fact that I can make a Savage Garden Parody ( http://twarrior.dmusic.com/music/comments/341889 ) and having re-built it from the "Ground Up" (Music, Lyrics and All) am able to legally distribute it as long as I don't *sell* it.

Also, for all reading -- please don't see my links as a "shameless plug" -- i'm just proving the fact that I am indeed an Independent Artist. Anyone can "claim" they are "anything" but that doesn't nessesarily make it true. I'm just citing my music as a source of proof to the fact that I'm not some unknowledgabe jibbering idiot.

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

[Dreddnik]

Alot of the people who run BRIAA *are* Musicians / Artists (Independent) including myself

As am I .....

So as LinskyJack said ...

Don't people have anything better to do with their time then defend the stealing of copyrighted material from the creative community?

We ARE part of the 'Creative Community'.
Not being owned by a Cartel Label does not diminish that.
As part of said creative community, I strenuously object to the labels vicious
'Sue 'Em All' campaign.
I object to the very idea that the only way I can be 'legitimate' is by being 'owned'

[Time Warrior]

Oh and just wanted to mention right quick (speaking of shameless plugs) that the article about Mike's site is still on the front page and I did modify the front page description to read as:

" Stealing Is Illegal (dot com)
Posted by Dave on January 20, 2007 at 6:01 AM
Finally! A very well thought out and intelligently written site about the view that opposes ours. However, what I find to be ironically amusing -- is that he lists Boycott RIAA as a site that he strongly disagrees with ( http://www.stealingisillegal.com/links.php ), obviously being unaware that the only thing on here we'd disagree with is what he has left UNSAID. This site, like any others, spins the truth. However, it is the most level headed, no-BS spin I've ever seen. I really do have to give this guy props for not being unintelligent about his views.

So, I'm going to critique these views, one at a time.

This Article is also being discussed here: http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...-disagree.html "

The link to this thread is also at the top of the article itself now too.

This site does seem to be a good resource for technical knowledge and I hope we bring you guys some new users with the article. (Besides me, Dreddsnik and any others that have followed this thread, of course :-)

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA