page: 1 · 2  |
 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Wow The government needs to go after RIAA for racketeering, this is like the mob selling protection. | |
|  | 
djtim21
It's all good
Premium
join:2003-12-22
Buffalo Grove, IL
clubs:
edit:
March 5th, @11:51AM
| Re: Wow said by vpoko  :The government needs to go after RIAA for racketeering, this is like the mob selling protection. No this is racketeering - "Pay now or we don't break your legs we won't sue you"
Someone needs to step on them. It's like if I own a small coffee shop in a strip mall, and Starbucks wants to move in, but Starbucks comes to you and says "Pay us $3500 bucks, and we won't put you out of business". Somehow this isn't legal, but yet the *IAA's get away with it.
--
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” - Edmund Burke | |
| | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Wow said by djtim21 :...Somehow this isn't legal, but yet the *IAA's get away with it. ...and here I thought the downloading without royalty payment part was the illegal stuff....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
·Comcast
| Re: Wow said by calvoiper :said by djtim21 :...Somehow this isn't legal, but yet the *IAA's get away with it. ...and here I thought the downloading without royalty payment part was the illegal stuff.... calvoiper Two wrongs don't make a right. | |
| | | | | Asmodeus1
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| Re: Wow said by vpoko :said by calvoiper :said by djtim21 :...Somehow this isn't legal, but yet the *IAA's get away with it. ...and here I thought the downloading without royalty payment part was the illegal stuff.... calvoiper Two wrongs don't make a right. what a stupid sentiment... people really need to stop using it... how about 4 rights making a wrong... how about 3 wrong making 2 rights...? wrong is wrong and right is wrong... you don't take a count of which offsets the other or doesn't... silly grandmotherly nonsense... | |
| | | | | | 
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
West Chester, PA
| Re: Wow said by Asmodeus1 :what a stupid sentiment... people really need to stop using it... how about 4 rights making a wrong... how about 3 wrong making 2 rights...? wrong is wrong and right is wrong... you don't take a count of which offsets the other or doesn't... silly grandmotherly nonsense... Why is it a stupid sentiment? Its perfectly true. As far as the legal world is concerned the sentiment is true as well seeing as we don't practice "eye for an eye" judgement here.
If you cut my hand off I don't get to cut your hand off, it doesn't work that way. Hence "two wrongs don't make a right"...in some countries the statement is untrue because they actually do see two wrongs being fair...you cut off my hand, I cut off your hand and everyone in happy.
Whereas in America both parties committed felonies.
So tell us, what do you see wrong with the statement as the poster used it since it was completely in context...
--
Forum Posts:7500 | |
| | | | | | | 
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | Re: Wow Nice summation. hehe, two wrongs never made a right. | |
| | | | | | | | Asmodeus1
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| Re: Wow said by FiL :Nice summation. hehe, two wrongs never made a right. really...? a man kills a pregnant woman in a dui manslaughter case... one wrong act... the man is prosecuted (one right act) and found not guilty (one wrong act) and as he leaves court, the husband shoots him dead in an act of revenge (one right and one wrong act) and then he either kills himself afterwards (one wrong act) or is prosecuted (one right act) and found guilty (one right act and one wrong act)... so how many wrongs did it take to try and make something right...? how many wrongs had to occur for the right thing to happen...? see the pointlessness of trying to keep track of one set of behaviors to try and counteract another set... it's meaningless... the two wrongs don't make a right principle is a moralistic falsehood is just that... a falsehood... | |
| | | | | | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
·Comcast
| Re: Wow said by Asmodeus1 :really...? a man kills a pregnant woman in a dui manslaughter case... one wrong act... the man is prosecuted (one right act) and found not guilty (one wrong act) and as he leaves court, the husband shoots him dead in an act of revenge (one right and one wrong act) and then he either kills himself afterwards (one wrong act) or is prosecuted (one right act) and found guilty (one right act and one wrong act)... so how many wrongs did it take to try and make something right...? how many wrongs had to occur for the right thing to happen...? see the pointlessness of trying to keep track of one set of behaviors to try and counteract another set... it's meaningless... the two wrongs don't make a right principle is a moralistic falsehood is just that... a falsehood... That example is way off the deep end. The saying means "a wrong action is not an excuse for another, subsequent wrong action". We're not talking arithmetic - "wrongs" and "rights" don't add together. What we're talking about is the causal relationship between two immoral acts. The saying is valid. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| said by Asmodeus1 :a man kills a pregnant woman in a dui manslaughter case... one wrong act... the man is prosecuted (one right act) and found not guilty (one wrong act) and as he leaves court, the husband shoots him dead in an act of revenge (one right and one wrong act) and then he either kills himself afterwards (one wrong act) or is prosecuted (one right act) and found guilty (one right act and one wrong act)... so how many wrongs did it take to try and make something right...? how many wrongs had to occur for the right thing to happen...? see the pointlessness of trying to keep track of one set of behaviors to try and counteract another set... it's meaningless... the two wrongs don't make a right principle is a moralistic falsehood is just that... a falsehood... Actually, that example can be used to prove that two wrongs don't make a right. The husband who shot the DUI driver for killing his wife was committing a wrong act in order to "make right" another wrong act. However, what actually happened was another series of wrong acts (the DUI driver dying due to revenge, the husband ruining the rest of his life, etc.). Nothing was "made right" in the end. No amounts of wrong acts that the husband took would ever make everything right again. Thus two wrongs didn't make a right. (And neither would three, or four, or five, etc.)
Not to go off on a tangent, but Qumahlin was right when he noted that some countries do see two wrongs being fair. A lot of the violence in the Middle East seems to be of the "they killed someone on my side so we must kill someone on their side to make it even again" kind. The problem with that is that the side who has sustained the most recent loss will always see themselves as behind and will attempt to even the score. This will result in their target's group becoming "behind in the score" and will result in another attack. Rinse, repeat, and run around in circles for a few hundred years. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Asmodeus1
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| Re: Wow said by Jason Levine :said by Asmodeus1 :a man kills a pregnant woman in a dui manslaughter case... one wrong act... the man is prosecuted (one right act) and found not guilty (one wrong act) and as he leaves court, the husband shoots him dead in an act of revenge (one right and one wrong act) and then he either kills himself afterwards (one wrong act) or is prosecuted (one right act) and found guilty (one right act and one wrong act)... so how many wrongs did it take to try and make something right...? how many wrongs had to occur for the right thing to happen...? see the pointlessness of trying to keep track of one set of behaviors to try and counteract another set... it's meaningless... the two wrongs don't make a right principle is a moralistic falsehood is just that... a falsehood... Actually, that example can be used to prove that two wrongs don't make a right. The husband who shot the DUI driver for killing his wife was committing a wrong act in order to "make right" another wrong act. However, what actually happened was another series of wrong acts (the DUI driver dying due to revenge, the husband ruining the rest of his life, etc.). Nothing was "made right" in the end. No amounts of wrong acts that the husband took would ever make everything right again. Thus two wrongs didn't make a right. (And neither would three, or four, or five, etc.) Not to go off on a tangent, but Qumahlin was right when he noted that some countries do see two wrongs being fair. A lot of the violence in the Middle East seems to be of the "they killed someone on my side so we must kill someone on their side to make it even again" kind. The problem with that is that the side who has sustained the most recent loss will always see themselves as behind and will attempt to even the score. This will result in their target's group becoming "behind in the score" and will result in another attack. Rinse, repeat, and run around in circles for a few hundred years. yeah, i suppose it could go either way... at least in my mind it is more of a philosophical case of simply dealing with reality regardless of the morality of the action... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| Re: Wow I dunno, I agree completely that the saying "two wrongs..." is frivolous nonsense. What's RIGHT and what's WRONG varies from one person to another and despite the delusional beliefs of many folks these values are not a chisled-in-stone and measurable constant outside of any self-referential belief system.
Let's say someone punches me over a misunderstanding but then steps back and doesn't try and escalate the violence beyond that one punch. That's one wrong act. Still, I feel wronged so I stand up and punch him back. That makes two wrong acts because neither action in any way addresses the misunderstanding that perpetuated the reduction to violence. AND YET...I'll feel pretty goddamned good after popping the bastard in the mouth after he hit me. So yeah, it WILL make it right in my book: you hit me and I hit you. We've hit a moral balance (in my head and in that situation).
If we want to take it even further, most of the legal system is based upon the idea that--from a situational standpoint--two wrongs most certainly make a right. If I rape your wife, I've committed a wrong towards her. If the state arrests me and puts me in jail, they've committed a wrong towards me (as far as I'm concerned. I certainly wouldn't choose to surrender my freedom voluntarily). Once my sentence has been served I'm released and having paid my debt to society (but surprisingly NOT to my victim as it's impossible to unrape her), all is forgiven and we're back to square one.
In other words, I hurt someone so the state hurts me back in order to teach me a lesson. The state KNOWS that their actions will cause me to suffer or they wouldn't be doing it. I'm being punished, remember? Knowingly causing someone to suffer is a wrong act, so by extraction, the legal system is the embodiment of two wrongs DO make a right.
I don't even want to go into capital punishment and how the state feels that killing one person will somehow magically fix things. Hmmm...the victims were still dead last time I checked...
And no, I'm not indicting the legal system and calling for its disassembly. What I AM saying is that the phrase in question is pointless, absurd and proven wrong constantly. THAT'S the subject I'm rambling about, so let's keep the flames to that subject and that alone, shall we? 
Okay, let the flaming begin...*grin* | |
| | | | | | | | | 
Ritalin
@usf.edu
| I was just going to giggle over the silly little quibble you have made over wordage. However after you posted this shining turd of a rebuttal I could not help but respond.
I hate seeing people argue over a phrase, its pointless and redundant, this case especially. The simple fact that I could debate what is a right and what is a wrong until you are ready to beat me with the closest blunt object validates this; would that be right or wrong?
You may be able to wonder around in circles with your argument to lose some people Asmodeus1, but to those that are paying attention you just sound like the kid that thinks he's smart after watching a few too many episodes of 'Law and Order'.
Stick to topic!!!
| |
| | | | | | | | | | Asmodeus1
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| Re: Wow said by Ritalin :
I was just going to giggle over the silly little quibble you have made over wordage. However after you posted this shining turd of a rebuttal I could not help but respond.
I hate seeing people argue over a phrase, its pointless and redundant, this case especially. The simple fact that I could debate what is a right and what is a wrong until you are ready to beat me with the closest blunt object validates this; would that be right or wrong?
You may be able to wonder around in circles with your argument to lose some people Asmodeus1, but to those that are paying attention you just sound like the kid that thinks he's smart after watching a few too many episodes of 'Law and Order'.
Stick to topic!!!
i just don't like the phrase because it is ultimately meaningless in the realm of law and just about everywhere else... but hey, you are entitled to your opinion about who you think i am... you couldn't be more wrong however, but you know what they say about orifices and opinions, right...? and i've never seen a single episode of law and order either nor survivor for that matter... oh well, i guess when you quip as an unregistered user you can say silly things on the internet as well... | |
| | | | | | | | |
ooarashi
@ameritech.net | You watch too much Law & Order. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Carson
@charter.com | Wow!! Well said | |
| | | | | | | Asmodeus1
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| it is only true within the words it's said under... in a real world, practical sense it makes no sense to use... i cut of your hand, but you don't get to do it me... that isn't wrong, nor right, but the way things work... i got to you first, you can't do it to me now... so even if you could do it to me still isn't right or wrong, it's just the way things worked out... i wouldn't like it of course, but what is done is done... keeping a count of rights and wrongs is nonsense and always has been and has no relevance in a court of law... you even said it yourself, if done to both, both commit felonies, right for the law to prosecute, wrong for either of us to commit... in the end no one cares... you have to deal with what is...
the statement the previous post made was with reference to him thinking that simply downloading was the illegal act... it is an illegal act, therefore it is a wrong act... the riaa setting up a scheme to capture as many people it can by making accusations without legal merit is also a wrong act, but within it's framework is possibly legal, as much as i hate to admit it...
i never said there was anything wrong with the statement, but trying to tally up one wrong act and trying to correct it by compounding even more wrong or right acts to it is just that... acts that neither constitute righting a wrong or constituting wrongs to commit a right... they are just acts compounded on top of each other that have to stand on their own merits... whatever the fallout is, simply is... | |
| | | | | | | 
loincloth
join:2001-03-29
Danville, CA
| said by Qumahlin :If you cut my hand off I don't get to cut your hand off, it doesn't work that way. Hence "two wrongs don't make a right"...in some countries the statement is untrue because they actually do see two wrongs being fair...you cut off my hand, I cut off your hand and everyone in happy. If a left-handed person cuts off the left hand of another left-handed person (wrong #1), and the victim reciprocates (wrong #2), then two wrongs makes two righties! | |
| | | | | | | |
BIGPZ
@verio.net
| Re: Wow said by loincloth :If a left-handed person cuts off the left hand of another left-handed person (wrong #1), and the victim reciprocates (wrong #2), then two wrongs makes two righties! LOL. I would say that Right or Wrong acts have there own merit. But you have to ask yourself, do you want to reward wrong with wrong and potentially make things worse? | |
| | | | | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| What "two wrongs don't make a right" means is that you can't use one wrong action as an excuse to do another wrong action. In this case, downloading without the proper copyright permissions is wrong. However, the RIAA's actions are wrong as well. If they try to claim of "well, the pirates were wrong first", then they run afoul of the "two wrongs don't make a right" principle.
Of course, adding more wrinkles to the number of wrongs incurred is the fact that the RIAA's identification process is notoriously inaccurate. They've identified people who are clearly innocent and still sued them for copyright infringement. So in those cases, it is a simple case of the user being wronged multiple times by the RIAA. | |
| | | | | | thephantom
join:2001-04-24
Alamo, CA
| said by Asmodeus1 :how about 4 rights making a wrong... how about 3 wrong making 2 rights...? no no no...
3 rights make a left (at least in your car) | |
| | | | | | | tbaker397
join:2004-07-19
Berlin, PA | Re: Wow exactly what i was thinking... you want to make a right, but can only turn left, so you drive up a street, make 3 WRONG turns and you end up going the RIGHT way... easy enough... | |
| | | | | | | |
JimmyDabomb
@qwest.net
| Re: Wow I don't know about Berlin PA, but when I lived in Pittsburgh, 3 lefts almost never made a right. Sometimes 3 lefts were necessary to go straight. Or go left, even. Damn curvy roads.
| |
| | | | | | | | | Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | Re: Wow Well, I tried to follow all the logic involved in this thread but got run over at the next Zebra crossing. | |
| | | | elwoodblues
join:2006-08-30
Toronto, ON
| said by calvoiper :said by djtim21 :...Somehow this isn't legal, but yet the *IAA's get away with it. ...and here I thought the downloading without royalty payment part was the illegal stuff.... calvoiper It's not a matter of legal or Illegal. There are many cases of false accusations, going after dead people etc.
The bottom line, is you are entitled to your day in court and the RIAA has no right to come after you and offer a pre-decision settlement. | |
| | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Wow Whether or not they have a right to come after you for downloading depends on the facts. They certainly have the right to offer you a pre-litigation settlement, which you certainly don't have to accept.
Saying they should be prohibited from offering you a settlement only reduces your own options. Why would you want to reduce options available?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| Re: Wow There are two issues with it:
First, is the discovery/investigatory process being executed without a court warrant. I believe there is some law that they bought, that's never been tested in a courtroom mind you, that is protecting them there.
Secondly, there is the disinvolvment of the legal system in its entirety, and the fact that they're essentially offering you legal advice from an non bar-holding representative. Now I haven't seen the site, but if it doesn't make it abundantly clear that you should have your legal counsel going through the process for/with you, then it's clearly predatory.. | |
| | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Wow First, you are deliberately confusing "discovery" (a court process) and "investigatory" (a pre-court process.) Anyone is entitled to "investigate" believed thefts without going to court first. If you run a business and you think someone is stealing from you, you may, for example, install video cameras or ask around about who is selling your stuff before ever considering court.
Second, the court system encourages pre-litigation settlement of claims. The court system recognizes it is a very expensive process and people would like to avoid it. Certainly, no person has an obligation to settle pre-court, but they may save money and legal expenses by doing so. They are also free to pass on such a settlement. No private party is under an obligation here to tell you to hire a lawyer.
You may not like the current laws enforcing copyrights (and I don't in some ways, either) but let's cool the rhetoric just a bit. The xyAAs have offered a settlement process. You are free to decline it. It's a CHOICE. Why deprive someone of a CHOICE?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Racketeering: "Pay now and we don't break your legs"
Barratry: "Pay now and we don't sue you" | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Wow Actually, barratry involves causing someone else to sue when you have no direct stake in the matter. When you sue on your own behalf or on behalf of those you legally represent, it's not barratry.
If the xyAAs are filing false lawsuits, they can be held to answer in court. If they are only offering to settle in advance of suing, they are only offering an option, which anyone is free to decline.
I am amused by the fact that people apparently want to reduce the options available to folks facing xyAA lawsuits.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | Asmodeus1
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| said by djtim21 :said by vpoko :The government needs to go after RIAA for racketeering, this is like the mob selling protection. No this is racketeering - "Pay now or we don't break your legs we won't sue you" Someone needs to step on them. It's like if I own a small coffee shop in a strip mall, and Starbucks wants to move in, but Starbucks comes to you and says "Pay us $3500 bucks, and we won't put you out of business". Somehow this isn't legal, but yet the *IAA's get away with it. bad analogy... because starbucks doesn't even do that... instead they go around the process and sign exclusivity deals with the holding company that owns the strip mall... therefore they legally are the only ones allowed to sell brewed coffee within the confines of the strip mall and no other retailer like them can... fast food retailers do it too... while not illegal, they are anti-competitive, but tha'ts life isn't it...
what the riaa does by setting up this mechanism is that legally you are being accused of doing something without having them go through the motions of proving in a court of law that you did... so instead, they say, "hey, absolve yourself of any wrong doing and give us the appropriate amount of money to make this go away or else..." and there you have, legalized racketeering and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it... the legal profession is a monopoly and every lawyer works for that monopoly regardless if they are on the side of right or wrong, prosecutor or defense... you are stuck with it and now we will see if this type of cancer within the monopoly is worth getting rid of... | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Wow OK, so we need more careful controls on who can sue who for what? I agree.
We should adopt the legal system in use in the rest of the world except for the US--loser pays all attorney fees. That would mean the xyAAs would have to pay all attorney fees when they sue someone who wasn't illegally downloading.
Of course, that would mean that people who have been illegally downloading would pay the xyAA's legal fees as well.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | Asmodeus1
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
edit:
March 5th, @01:49PM
| Re: Wow said by batterup :said by vpoko :The government needs to go after RIAA for racketeering, this is like the mob selling protection. It is Fascism pure and simple. The political hacks are sharing in the shake down. Why do you think they let it be done. oh come on... do you enjoy using words like fascism when something doesn't suit you... stop using a word that is not within the scope of this discussion... also, do you have proof that the hacks are sharing the in shake down...? present it or just stop making crap up to suit your juvenile contrarian nonsense... | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Wow You don't understand.
In modern usage, "fascism" means "any political act with which I do not agree". Accordingly, "fascism" now includes any attempt to enforce any law, including laws against drinking and driving, against smoking indoors, against illegally entering and remaining in the US, against carrying pints of liquid nail polish remover on board airplanes, etc., etc.
It is used in this fashion by people ignorant of the reasons behind World War II.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | 
kyramilan
join:2006-11-26
Pensacola, FL
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·1and1
·Cox HSI
| »criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/crime_victims/
Extortion
Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action. While usually viewed as a form of theft/larceny, extortion differs from robbery in that the threat in question does not pose an imminent physical danger to the victim.
For example, Dan goes to Victor's place of business and demands monthly payment from Victor for the business's "protection" from vandalism and after-hours theft. Fearing that he or his business will suffer harm otherwise, Victor agrees to pay Dan.
»criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/···ion.html
US Code
Section 876. Mailing threatening communications
(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or
other thing of value, knowingly so deposits or causes to be
delivered, as aforesaid, any communication, with or without a name
or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other
person and containing any threat to injure the property or
reputation of the addressee or of another, or the reputation of a
deceased person, or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other
person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than two years, or both. If such a communication is
addressed to a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement
officer, or an official who is covered by section 1114, the
individual shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 10 years, or both.
»caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/···876.html | |
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Crime Victim Resource The key point in both "extortion" and "threatening communication" is that the threatened action must be something that the person making the threat is not legally entitled to do. In the example stated, Dan is not entitled to commit vandalism or after-hours theft.
Anyone who can sue you can threaten to do so unless you agree to a settlement. If the law were otherwise, bill collectors would be out of business.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | 
HydroponiK
nom nom nom
Premium
join:2001-08-03
New Jersey | un-fuckin-believable.
These guys need to die a horrible death...
--
Ain't that a bitch. | |
| | sd70mac666
join:2003-06-05
Saint Albans, VT | This is racketeering. if they come after me I'll charge them with racketeering and extortion. | |
| | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
·Comcast
| Re: Wow said by sd70mac666 :This is racketeering. if they come after me I'll charge them with racketeering and extortion. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe racketeering and extortions are crimes, not torts, so the government would need to charge them. | |
| | | | sd70mac666
join:2003-06-05
Saint Albans, VT
| Re: Wow Since when can we trust the government?
I'd countersue them for a bunch of stuff, and probably go after them for a huge sum of money. The government approves this sort of stuff, but with Democrats controlling both the house and Senate, they may want to look into this, since the RIAA can't get their facts straight.
If I were to put a tag on it:
99% of the time, the info is "screwed up"
1% of it is accurate. | |
| | 
rstrandb
Premium
join:2003-04-17
Albany, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| What I don't get is how all you people come down on the side of CRIMINALS. People getting sued by the RIAA downloaded and distributed COPYRIGHTED material. They did not have the right to do it. I'm glad all these jerks are getting sued, they get what they deserve. If they can't stand the cost of their actions, then they should not have done it. Bunch of bums too lazy and cheap to buy a cd so they STOLE them. No pity from law abiding citizens, they were not robin hood, they didn't steal from the rich and give to the poor, they took people's hard work and stole it for themselves.
--
Fight the war against secular progressives before the ideals that made this country great are lost forever | |
| | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| samrocks
Premium
join:2003-07-30
| This is the email I got from my University.
I took out names of the people that sent it for privacy.
Students,
This important letter from Chief Information Officer.
applies to all students. I encourage you to read it carefully.
Thanks,
Director of ITSS
---
Dear student,
The Recording Industry of America (RIAA), an organization that
represents music copyright owners, is targeting students at
universities that it believes are illegally using peer-to-peer software
to share music files.
The RIAA has filed hundreds of lawsuits nationally against students the
past few years. Prior to filing a lawsuit, a subpoena is typically
presented to the owner of the network seeking the identity of a
specific network user. You should be aware that as the owner of the
University of Minnesota network, the University will comply with any
lawful subpoena and will provide the user's identity and any other
information sought.
In a Feb 28 press release, the RIAA has announced the launch of "a new
and strengthened campus anti-piracy initiative" and "a new process that
gives students the opportunity to avoid a formal lawsuit by settling
prior to a litigation being filed." The RIAA also announced that an
initial batch of 400 such letters were sent to students at universities
around the country. Although University of Minnesota students were not
among those listed in the initial group, the RIAA has stated its intent
to send several hundred such letters monthly. The University will
forward any such letters to the student the University believes to be
the user, based upon the information provided by the RIAA.
Illegal peer-to-peer file sharing of copyrighted works is a violation
of the University's Acceptable Use of Information Technology Resources
Policy. If you have downloaded file-sharing software from the Internet
to your computer for illegal peer-to-peer file sharing, please remove
it from your computer immediately. Please visit the links below to read
the RIAA press release, learn how to disable peer-to-peer filesharing
programs, and familiarize yourself with the University's Acceptable Use
of Technology Resources Policy.
Links:
RIAA press release: »www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/022807.asp
How to disable various peer-to-peer filesharing programs:
»security.uchicago.edu/guidelines···to-peer/
U of M Acceptable Use Policy:
»www.policy.umn.edu/groups/ppd/do···_Use.cfm
UMD ResNet Terms and Conditions
»www.d.umn.edu/itss/resnet/terms.html | |
| | |
See 12 replies to this post | |
| | 
GoodyearMark
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Goodyear, AZ
·Cox HSI
| Re: Thank you and... said by SRFireside :. I knew someone else would have though of that eventually. | |
| |
|
|
RIAA 'Settlement-o-matic' Site Taunts You
He paid, so I guess he was guilty
