[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by Dreddnik

As am I .....

So as LinskyJack said ...



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'

Amen! Just to extend upon this point as well:

Shmoo, Article Administrator
Band: Electric Gypsy: http://electricgypsy.dmusic.com

Leflaw, boycott-riaa.com domain owner, Copyright Lawyer
Independent Musician: http://leflaw.dmusic.com/music/

Myself, of course. I don't know your url for your music, Dred. I'm sure there are other Admins that are artists or are in bands that I just don't know about yet (I've been the head of BRIAA for only under two months, so theres still alot i'm adjusting to within that community).

Also -- Winnie Jow, our new "campaign manager" who is and has been for a long time an Independent Music Activist, has aquaintances within the RIAA (oh and how she loves to torment them lol) as well as tons of organizations within the independent music communities (both localy and globally) and knows lots of indie bands (Including but not limited to the "illigitiate child fairies dot com" -- read as the actual profane name, seeing as this site censors), etc..

So Boycott RIAA is primarily run *BY THE CREATIVE COMMUNITY, FOR THE CREATIVE COMMUNITY AND ITS FANS" ...

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

[valis]

wow.....seemed to have touched a nerve there.....okay, well you boys have fun.....I'm off to different climes.....just wanted to make sure the rebuttles weren't a band, and I think we got that all clear, at least.

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by valis

wow.....seemed to have touched a nerve there.....okay, well you boys have fun.....I'm off to different climes.....just wanted to make sure the rebuttles weren't a band, and I think we got that all clear, at least.

Nope, no nerves have been touched. We simply try to do our best to provide accurate information. We can see how it might be easy for one to think that Boycott RIAA is just a bunch of teenagers pissing in the wind or something to that effect. Just as when you might apply to a job interview you may be expected to prove your qualifications -- we too know that we are expected to prove that we know what we are talking about -- seeing as anyone can say anything on the Internet.

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by Time Warrior

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

What you are referring to are contingency fee cases. Pro bono cases there is no charge, ever, win or lose.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Time Warrior

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.

See, this quote reminds me of a version of Cops, wherein some guy gets busted for pot, and his answer was 'It should be legal.'

Maybe this should be legal. You will certainly get no argument from me. The Verve had to pay the Rolling Stones some % to sample one of their songs, but the Stones sampled it from some classical guy who had been dead for 500 years, so they didn't have to pay squat.

The point I am making is that while, maybe, it 'should' be legal, it isn't legal. And while it continues to be non-legal, I will not support it, and will do everything in my power to eradicate it, as I feel that is my social responsibility.

Should it become illegal tomorrow, I would be singing a different tune, pardon the pun, but until that point in time when the powers that be decide that it IS legal, know which side of the law I wish to remain on.

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

What you are referring to are contingency fee cases. Pro bono cases there is no charge, ever, win or lose.

Ah, ok. Thanks! I tend to know a bit about law here and there but it's still not crap compared to what a laywer knows. I personally don't understand how a lawyer can actually memorize and understand all of the law and legal terms nessesary to become a lawyer. Seems as though you'd have to be a practical einstien to pull it off! It seems like a practically impossible task.

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by valis

See, this quote reminds me of a version of Cops, wherein some guy gets busted for pot, and his answer was 'It should be legal.'

Maybe this should be legal. You will certainly get no argument from me. The Verve had to pay the Rolling Stones some % to sample one of their songs, but the Stones sampled it from some classical guy who had been dead for 500 years, so they didn't have to pay squat.

The point I am making is that while, maybe, it 'should' be legal, it isn't legal. And while it continues to be non-legal, I will not support it, and will do everything in my power to eradicate it, as I feel that is my social responsibility.

Should it become illegal tomorrow, I would be singing a different tune, pardon the pun, but until that point in time when the powers that be decide that it IS legal, know which side of the law I wish to remain on.

I don't disagree and I doubt you'll see Dredsnik or anyone else from BRIAA disagreeing either. However -- if we don't fight for reform and change -- neither weed nor remixes (your example and mine) will never, ever, be legal -- even 500 years from now. If you want something changed, you gotta try. Even if it seems like you'll probably fail. You still gotta try otherwise all it is, is pointless griping.

Both Boycott RIAA and DMusic are pushing for that sort of change, as are the EFF, and a countless number of other organizations. United We Stand, Divided We Fall.

The 13 Colonies didn't just "Hope the British would take it upon themselves to go away" just as we can't "Hope the RIAA pulls their heads out of their arses and begins to see the light of day".

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

[valis]

Originally Posted by Time Warrior

I don't disagree and I doubt you'll see Dredsnik or anyone else from BRIAA disagreeing either. However -- if we don't fight for reform and change -- neither weed nor remixes (your example and mine) will never, ever, be legal -- even 500 years from now. If you want something changed, you gotta try. Even if it seems like you'll probably fail. You still gotta try otherwise all it is, is pointless griping.

Both Boycott RIAA and DMusic are pushing for that sort of change, as are the EFF, and a countless number of other organizations. United We Stand, Divided We Fall.

The 13 Colonies didn't just "Hope the British would take it upon themselves to go away" just as we can't "Hope the RIAA pulls their heads out of their arses and begins to see the light of day".

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

And I'll give you this; it's admirable. In my personal makeup, to me it's easier to go with the flow than fight it, and I think that the RIAA will get what's coming to them. To watch the Foo Fighters acceptance speech about making an emmy winning record in a basement was awesome and motivating. Pearl Jam just alienated their fans with the way they went about it, but they had the right idea, just the wrong job completion.

Bands like Guster who tour and allow all their songs to be downloaded for free are the future; I like their music enough that I go out and buy their disks anyhow.

We'll see.

Also, fwiw, I think we'll see weed legalized in our lifetime. Always considering I don't get hit by a bus tomorrow.

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by valis

And I'll give you this; it's admirable. In my personal makeup, to me it's easier to go with the flow than fight it, and I think that the RIAA will get what's coming to them. To watch the Foo Fighters acceptance speech about making an emmy winning record in a basement was awesome and motivating. Pearl Jam just alienated their fans with the way they went about it, but they had the right idea, just the wrong job completion.

Bands like Guster who tour and allow all their songs to be downloaded for free are the future; I like their music enough that I go out and buy their disks anyhow.

We'll see.

Also, fwiw, I think we'll see weed legalized in our lifetime. Always considering I don't get hit by a bus tomorrow.

I just read a new article post on BRIAA that has me in a state of shock:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/21174

It's things like this that is why we MUST fight!

As for weed, it's legal / semi-legal in some states. As for most state or all states having it 100% legal? Who knows. We may see it in 10 years or we may not see it in a thousand years. No one can know until or unless it happens.

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

[wacor]

Originally Posted by Time Warrior

I just read a new article post on BRIAA that has me in a state of shock:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/21174

It's things like this that is why we MUST fight!

As for weed, it's legal / semi-legal in some states. As for most state or all states having it 100% legal? Who knows. We may see it in 10 years or we may not see it in a thousand years. No one can know until or unless it happens.

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

Not legal.

There is the medicinal issue but i think even that is being challenged on the federal level.

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by wacor

Not legal.

There is the medicinal issue but i think even that is being challenged on the federal level.

Seeing as the law is not black and white, I guess whether or not it is or is not actually legal and for what purposes could be debated on until the sun goes nova (provided it isn't made 100% legal within the next 10 billion years). Theres really nothing that can be done on the Federal Level seeing as it is 100% ILLEGAL in all 50 States on the Federal Level. It is local / state laws that have decided, to one extent or another, to ignore Federal Law, within a small handful of states.

Even if it were to become 100% legal in 48 out of 50 states -- that would be the local / state governments that would have likely decided to do it. It will likely be 100% ILLEGAL on the Federal Level until the end of time.

It's just that no one is gonna call in the military and national guard to override local law in that event. One good parallel example is about 10 years ago, give or take -- there was a man vacationing in some small town in Michigan where he did not know that local / town law stated that you can NOT use profanity in public under penalty of possible fines and arrest.

Of course this is a blatant disregard for the first amendment -- but needless to say -- this man was in a canoe, and the canoe tipped over and he took and unexpected swim, resulting in a 15 second onslaught of every possible profane term to flow from his mouth in disgust over his new and very unexpectedly wet situation.

This man was arrested, held and fined. Federal Law did not intervene on his behalf. He paid the fines, left town and vowed never to return.

Seeing as this story went national (if not International) i'm sure this towns tourism scraped to a grinding halt after this incident and will remain halted indefinitely.

Either all of the towns teenagers are "Good Christian Soldiers" or their jails are filled with teens on a daily basis due to profanity legislation violations.

Either way -- for the greater good, or the greater evil -- local law does have the ability to override Federal Law, apparently.

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

[GoneForNow]

TW....Two points. Profanity isn't protected speech. Further, speech itself isn't protected its the concept that one has a right to express their opinions and beliefs that is protected.

Two. Don't get dragged off topic.

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

TW....Two points. Profanity isn't protected speech. Further, speech itself isn't protected its the concept that one has a right to express their opinions and beliefs that is protected.

Two. Don't get dragged off topic.

I disagree with point 1 (nowhere in the first amendment does it require a prerequisite of tact, profanity of course being untactful. Also -- to help migrate off topic back onto topic -- if profanity wasn't covered the RIAA would be able to sue us everytime someone called them every known 4 letter word in the dictionary. We've not as of yet been sued for this and it is unlikely that we ever will be) and agree with point 2. Back on topic about the problems within the music industry! Anyone else have anything to add? I know Shmoo is going to chime in AT SOME POINT. lol

He's our Article Administrator, but he's been working a heavy "real life" work shift lately.

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

[Time Warrior]

Just testing my new auto-sig, don't mind me :-)

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by Time Warrior

I just read a new article post on BRIAA that has me in a state of shock:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/21174

It's things like this that is why we MUST fight!

As for weed, it's legal / semi-legal in some states. As for most state or all states having it 100% legal? Who knows. We may see it in 10 years or we may not see it in a thousand years. No one can know until or unless it happens.

Dave aka Twarrior
Boycott RIAA

Weed is legal in some states? Which ones?