(This is for the "sheep")

Folks, Kazaa (Sharman) was making a lot of money selling ads while knowingly encouraging the users to trade the RIAA's copyrighted files in order to profit.

Here in the USA, MGM "made a point" against Grokster about the same sorta thing.

It was all a case of Big Dog bites new-commer Little Dog all along.

When will YOU learn that all those RIAA tunes need to be left alone to rot in obscurity? When will YOU, the FAN/CONSUMER learn that the only true music paradigm comes from elsewhere?

Turn OFF your radio and eMTv if you REALLY want to make a difference. There is a treasure-trove of independent music available to you if you will just make the simple effort of staying away from the RIAA's offerings.

NO lawsuits. NO 'Digital Rights Management'. NO guilt. NO bullsh*t!

Just LOOK elsewhere! (Turn OFF your radio and TV!)

go INDIE!

Shmoo, aka "independentmusician"
of Boycott-Riaa
SUPPORT LOCAL AND INDEPENDENT MUSIC!

I don't want to sound too much like mroop here, because I think there are a few good indie acts, but where is this treasure trove?

I think I have a fair view of the indie scene, because I frequent so many MP3 blogs. And they are promoting various up and coming bands, some indie, some actually signed with RIAA labels. The Music For Robots blog tends to offer electronica, Womenfolk showcases female singer-songwriters, The Tofu Hut has quite an eclectic blend, 3hive concentrates on indie bands, and so on.

There appears to be a lot of interest in this community for artists like Aphex Twin, a very large amount of promotion for Sufjan Stevens, and a whole host of people who sound like male or female Bob Dylan wannabes, or people making music with loops in their bedrooms. About the only people I consider major finds in this large haystack are Andrew Bird, who is on Ani Difranco's indie label, and Feist, who is actually on a major label. Most of the indie things I download are pretty sad.

An honorable mention also for Brookville, on the Unfiltered Records label.

IMO 90% of the best artists in the world are on RIAA labels. Sad but true. Talk to the contrary is delusional. Now, if you want to say that the big selling RIAA acts these days are mostly embarrassing dreck, I'd agree.

I make an effort to find good indie stuff. And I am not buying the RIAA material, unless it is used, a lot of it older releases. Or cutouts. But a treasure trove? I'd like to find that trove.

Damnit autodidact, I may or may not like the stuff you just mentioned (or most likely, don't know who the hell they are...)

but, YOU

have been here much more than long enough to know of the 'treasure trove.'

How DARE you insinuate otherwise.

Does a band/artist have to be "signed" before you will call them a "gem"???

(If I am mis-reading what you said, I appologize...)

As far as the Kazaa ruiling goes if it spreads to the states and europe all it'll do is make the open source P2P applications more popular. no company to sue unless the creater is known which isn't always the case. Also if the lady who's challanging the RIAA wins, it may make it harder for the industry to bring these suits against their customers.

Just like closing down napster made decentrialized P2P explode, this will have the same effect.

You mean the "darknets" with your terminology don't you?

"IMO 90% of the best artists in the world are on RIAA labels. Sad but true. Talk to the contrary is delusional. Now, if you want to say that the big selling RIAA acts these days are mostly embarrassing dreck, I'd agree."

We are in agreement. 99 percent of the remaining 10 percent were signed to major labels at one point. : ) Now that you can make a record in your basement, everyone thinks they are Bob Dylan. But there is only one Bobby D. "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

"IMO 90% of the best artists in the world are on RIAA labels. Sad but true.

that's a matter of personal taste. however for the sake of argument if what you say is true is only because the industry wants to snatch them up and control them soon as they start becoming popular. since there's little else (other than the internet) in the way of distribution they have little choice.

shmoo. not necessarily the darknets. I'm talking about applications that would have a broad apppeal to the masses, like kazaa was after Napster bit the dust. I don't know any offhand but there will be some coming.

mroop according to may dad none of the wonderful musicians of the 60's and 70's were anygood. He went for Al Hurt, Bennie Goodman etc.... they were excellent musicians of their own as well.

"is only because the industry wants to snatch them up and control them soon as they start becoming popular."

Replace "control" with "make money from" and I agree. It's like this: the best baseball players are in the major leagues. Music is a little different in that you may have your renegades like DiFranco that want to go it on their own and good for them I say. But most would rather have the huge corporation behind them helping them sell their wares to the masses.

"mroop according to may dad none of the wonderful musicians of the 60's and 70's were any good. He went for Al Hurt, Bennie Goodman etc.... they were excellent musicians of their own as well."

Ha. Most people are like that and prefer music of their own generation. I only divide music into two categories - good and bad. That's actually a quote attributed to Duke Elllington: "There are two kinds of music: good music and bad music."

No.

The "sentiment" you refer to actually more correctly (but not an exact quote) goes more like:

"Only 2 kinds. Stuff I like and stuff I don't."

(You choose your OWN "good and bad")

...but who the hell cares who SAID the "exact" quote over the THING that is trying to be SAID here...

This is NOT a HISTORY CLASS.

We are NOT trying to "learn" things by rote!

WE ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT VERY THING MOST CORRECTLY!!!

That's the politically correct version. Duke Ellington was not a PC kinda guy. : )

I believe that to a certain extent there is an objective "good" and "bad". There's some dude out there that thinks his music is better than The Beatles, but that doesn't make it so. As a culture we do decide what art is "good" and "bad" and we act on those decisions by the art we choose to display in museums and so on.

"WE ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT VERY THING MOST CORRECTLY!!!"

Ease up on the caps lock. I'm not deaf. : )

"But most would rather have the huge corporation behind them helping them sell their wares to the masses."

and make less money, go into debt etc...
even most of the great bands don't make it under this system. They need independence to give them a chance.

"Replace "control" with "make money from" and I agree."

money and power go hand in hand. without monopolistic control they'd make less money.

I agree with independentmusician, It's a matter of perspective. My daughter loves indie music and feels it's far superior to todays RIAA music. she mixes it with the great musicians of my era of the 70's. The other day she criticized me for not listening enough to pink floyd.

I believe i've posted in the other two threads a very logical and crucial reason why "we care".

I'll add to that another. There has been no formal full trial on any of these decentralized p2p networks in the US. I can't see why the USSC, especially with two bush appointee idealogues on the bench, would not take this ruling into consideration. This is bad news all around in my opinion.

As much as i'd like to "look on the bright side" of this ruling, I just don't see that much of one, besides the fact that this judge will be tied up in administriva regarding the ruling for a good long time (according to a very competent aussie IP authority MROOP).

Other than the ruling was a classic case of taking an entire sector and placing it under the thumb of it's mortal enemies, nothing less.

"There has been no formal full trial on any of these decentralized p2p networks in the US."

Are you not familiar with the Grokster case?

"I can't see why the USSC, especially with two bush appointee idealogues on the bench, would not take this ruling into consideration."

Aargh!!!!! You don't know anything about the views of conservative judges and their feelings about citing foreign laws.

"It's become a bit of a Punch and Judy show: Just about every time the court cites foreign materials, Scalia and/or Clarence Thomas dissent. In the words of Scalia, "The views of other nations, however enlightened the Justices of this Court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution." Or, to quote Thomas on the subject, "This court should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2098559/

"according to a very competent aussie IP authority MROOP"

Link?

Are you not familiar with the Grokster case?

yes, i am, it was about weather or not a summary judgement should stand (in other words weather there will be a trial at all). It was not a full blown trial of a decentralized network.

"Aargh!!!!! You don't know anything about the views of conservative judges and their feelings about citing foreign laws."

First off, if I as an american citizen don't know what a conservative is to america, then I must have my head up my arse, and it would be an insult to anyone to tell them they don't know the propensities of their current political parties. In particular, the right wing has increasingly been for "zero tolerance" "black and white" and "for your own good" legislation.

Second, since we've been imposing our copyright law on australia, i'd say we have pretty similar systems, and an idealogue only needs a precedent, not a relevant one.

the link..
http://weatherall.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_weatherall_archive.html#112592939140783823

People are lazy. When they drive their cars to work they tune into the radio stations with the strongests signals. These are stations run by the conglomerates. They push ONLY what THEY want you to hear.

Now how do you get lazy people to switch of their radios to and from work? There are no alternative 'independent' national radio stations per se (Unless you like a mono fade in and out pirate station).

Oh and we all know why they are pushing digital radio so hard. For just such a reason as to get rid of the pirate stations. Make the broadcast technology too expensive and encrypted for independent outfits to take part.

The public is exposed to mass media everyday and mass media sucks up to the big entertainment corps. It's just the way it is.

Why do you think it is so hard to break an unknown act unless you have some media blitz accompany it?

Lets face facts folks. There MAY be great music out there from independents but finding it outside of the net is like trying to find quality gold in a Ratners shop.

Until we can find a way to get past big media we are stuck.

We know that RIAA are making crap. If it sound like crap this is from the RIAA.

For the rest you have to look hard. The great stuff does not show up every day but now thanks to Internet it is easier to find!

Fetch your search engine and listen carefuly.

"yes, i am, it was about weather or not a summary judgement should stand (in other words weather there will be a trial at all)."

Oooh, burn! Good one. You are correct.

"First off, if I as an american citizen don't know what a conservative is to america, then I must have my head up my arse"

You obviously don't know that conservative judges abhor citing foreign law as a guidepost to what American law should be.

"an idealogue only needs a precedent"

A foreign court ruling is not a precedent in this country.

"an idealogue only needs a precedent"

Let me also add that the circuit court will not need a foreign ruling to rely on. The Supreme Court all but said Grokster is liable. The court that will hear the case really has no choice but to find Grokster liable at trial.

"The Supreme Court all but said Grokster is liable."

The supreme court was not there to judge liability, and as such had no evidence to weight, testimony to hear, or law to cite regarding the trial of grokster.

That is not to say they aren't completely biased and brainwashed by the 2.5 year long major media smear campaign against the entire technology, and in fact that is my guess.

Conservatives in general can't stand it when the general populace rejects their unpopular opinions, and will most likely stomp the company regardless of the evidence based as much on their spite as they can get away with.

"The supreme court was not there to judge liability, and as such had no evidence to weight, testimony to hear, or law to cite regarding the trial of grokster."

You're insane. Read the opinion again. They set the standard and then compared Grokster's actions to the standard, all but saying they are liable. I'll quote Bob Dylan for the second time today.: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

yeah, they said this and they said that.

I can take a cursory look at any rpg and say it sucks because your character is so weak, but in depth investigation shows otherwise doesn't it?

The USSC can "say" what they want, but they weighed only tangential facts rather than the real blood and guts of the case to come up with this "sure vertict".

people said OJ was guilty too right? =)

"The USSC can "say" what they want"

Jesus Christ. You are a fucking idiot.

awehr this time I have to agree with mroop from a common sense standpoint. The supreme court is a constitutional office to interpret the laws of the United States. Not how other countries takes our laws and apply them. lower courts look to the supremes for guidence, not the other way around.

My limited understanding of the Grokster decision is that the supreme court said that under certin conditions a company can be held liable if they make or promote their product with the intention of infringing copyrights. They outlined those conditions and sent it back to a lower court to decide if Grokster met those conditions (which some seems to think they do and others think they don't)

APPEAL !

DarkhorseX (above) posted and provided a link for indie music. DON'T CLICK ON THAT LINK! I did and a trojan was detected by McAfee. It's called Downloader AAl.

Originally posted by DarkhorseX:
DeadMan, your reference to Ratners is too easily apply to RIAA works.

There is very little Riaa music (read %5) I can even tolerate. An only an iota (read 1%) of that I like.

You want Indie?
http://www.ocremix.org ((***DO NOT CLICK/VISIT THIS LINK DUE TO POTENTIAL VIRUSES***))

Mroop, words like conservative have no meaning when it comes to politics.

I see the topic has evolved now that I've returned to it. But in response to the response to my initial post...

Shmoo, It is not my intention to offend anyone. There is no accounting for taste, anyway. My artistic value judgment is valid only for me.

Even if I don't like most of the indie stuff I've heard, if tens of millions of others start liking and buying it, leaving the RIAA with reduced market share and poo in their diapers, all the better. I try to turn as many people as I can on to as many indie acts as I like. I'm certainly not running around trying to get people to buy Coldplay, although my best friend burned me a copy of X&Y (I did not ask him to), and it is decent.

I think there are a couple of problems, generally speaking, with indie fare. First, they don't have big enough budgets to properly produce some of their songs. Second, I think there is a tendency for artists to become self-indulgent, whereas a record company, wanting to stick to things that are sellable, veto some of the artist's really bad ideas. (George Lucas comes to mind. He did not have a problem with low budgets on his recent Star Wars flicks, but I think he sorely lacked the input a studio might have given him, for example telling him that the dialog he was writing was just horrendous, etc. Record companies tend to do the same thing for recording artists. Sometimes the bean counters are wrong, as in Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot (is that the title?), but I still think they sometimes save an artist from himself, artistically. Financially is another story.)

I really don't know what the answer is. It is hard for me to imagine most of the classic albums that I love being made in the indie system. Of course, there would be exceptions like Don McLean Live from the 1970s. Just Don and a guitar and a banjo playing great tunes from his first four or five albums. There is no reason albums like that can't be made by artists themselves or indie labels. But probably not the early James Taylor catalog, or intricate productions like Al Stewart's Year of the Cat (Alan Parson's production). Something like Diana Krall Live in Paris with a 70-piece orchestra is not going to show up on an indie label either.

Again, one man's opinion. I can't help it if I like pop music and jazz that is as sophisticated as symphony music. The indie world has a lot less to offer me. That leads me to recognize some of the benefits of the big labels as well as the evil things they do.

OK I have a vinyl and CD collection, and I don't NEED to buy anything more for musical satisfaction. It would be a bit harder to say to someone with similar taste who's just starting to build a music collection that everying RIAA is shit and they should only buy indie. They are going to feel a bit deprived. Wouldn't you say?

If we could convince them all to swear off for time enough to starve the Big Four RIAA Gang into submission, that'd be great. I think it would be a bit of a lie (for me) to bash the music itself. Millions of people think U2 is a great band, and some of us telling them RIAA fare is all bad tends to discredit the movement. The system does a lot of bad, there is no argument about that. But big labels can still do some things that indies haven't yet been able to pull off.

"They outlined those conditions and sent it back to a lower court to decide if Grokster met those conditions"

Not only did they outline those conditions, but they applied them to Grokster. They said: "Here is what you can't do and here is what Grokster did." They made it very clear that Grokster was in violation.

"The supreme court is a constitutional office to interpret the laws of the United States. Not how other countries takes our laws and apply them."

There was a big hullaballoo just a few months ago. The Supreme Court said that it is unconstitutional to execute juveniles in a 5-4 decision. The majority cited other country's laws in their opinion and there was a huge outcry from the right wing all over the country. That is why I pointed out that awehr was very wrong when he wrote, "I can't see why the USSC, especially with two bush appointee idealogues on the bench, would not take this ruling into consideration."

Here's a little excerpt about the juvenile death penalty case:

"GWEN IFILL: It sounded kind of like a dramatic time in the court today because Justice Scalia made an oral dissent from the bench, which was pretty rare.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: It was. It was quite dramatic in the courtroom. Justice Kennedy forcefully explained his views and why he believed the majority was absolutely correct in this very narrowly divided ruling today.

Justice Scalia again forcefully and in quite harsh language at times saying that Justice Kennedy was making a mockery of the Constitution, ignoring the wishes of the citizens of the United States and paying attention to the views of foreigners. His language and tone was quite forceful from the bench. And the opinion, this opinion is long. It is intense. It's fascinating to see these debates play out in the pages of these court opinions."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june05/juvenile_3-1.html

"The USSC can "say" what they want, but they weighed only tangential facts rather than the real blood and guts of the case to come up with this "sure vertict"."

Since I called you a fucking idiot and compmore didn't bitch me out for it, I am going to be nice and explain why this is why this is so foolish Here is the definition of summary judgement:

"A motion for summary judgment can be granted to resolve disputes involving legal interpretation, but not disputes regarding material facts. Summary judgment, generally, is a pre-trial remedy sought where, based upon facts not in dispute, and an application of the law to those facts, a party is entitled to a judgment on a claim. The judge cannot decide disputed facts in a summary judgment proceeding. If any facts material to a claim are disputed, then summary judgment cannot be granted on that claim."

Read that ten times. What that means is that all the relevant facts were submitted to the court. Further, both parties agreed on the facts. The definition specifically says, "based upon facts not in dispute".

You are claiming they "weighed only tangential facts". In fact, the complete opposite is true. They weighed all the material facts and both parties agreed to those facts. You also had the temerity to say:

"The supreme court was not there to judge liability, and as such had no evidence to weight, testimony to hear, or law to cite regarding the trial of grokster."

Now that you understand what a summary judgement means, you realize that you are saying exactly the opposite of what is true.

Your are claiming the SC had no evidence when in fact they had all the evidence.

Do you understand?

You got all cocky because you knew it was a summary judgement.

Then you started making law up out of thin air and saying the SC had no facts and arguing with me about shit of which you are completely clueless. You're actually saying exactly the opposite of what happened! Jeebus, Lord help us.

"Since I called you a fucking idiot and compmore didn't bitch me out for it,"

I guess I just figured what the hell. why bother anymore.

Mroop,

"Jesus Christ. You are a fucking idiot."

I Loved it. Enjoyed every single post of yours today! You have made my day.

note mroop:

" The judge cannot decide disputed facts in a summary judgment proceeding."

The judges of the USSC didn't decide any of those facts.. they created a NEW claim of "inducement", which IS NOW BEING DISPUTED.

In other words.. those judges created a new claim.. they are not allowed to DECIDE on that claim because they are not the ones presiding over the trial. What they were presiding over was a summary judgment case, and you said it yourself " The judge cannot decide disputed facts in a summary judgment proceeding."

you call me an idiot, but you ignore the obvious.

This on going battle of the cartels against p2p is their way of stakeing out their terroritory. Needless, they have a history of such.

The present battle will result in Kazaa being held liable and the damages will be enough to put Kazaa in the brankrupty hole. Eventually the cartels will own Kazaa for whatever use they can use it for.

The side result is pretty predictable also. You have past examples to go by on this.
Shortly, encrypted and anonymous p2p will arrive on the scene it isn't far from being developed. Many are already offering parts, bits, and peices of the needed total package.

Just as Napster, Audiogalaxy, and soon to be Kazaa, bit the dust and were replaced; there is a new p2p just around the corner. The new one will be far harder to deal with just as those before them were harder to squash. The cartels will once again be squalling someone is stealing our stuff.

Since the cartels have acted as muggers during the ideas of their property protection, I have little sympathy for them.

" You have made my day. "

Happy to oblige. : )

"you call me an idiot, but you ignore the obvious."

Are you still trying to argue the law with me? You are the only one who doesn't realize you are an oblivious blathering doofus. Actually, I think you realize it too, but you just keep going in some lame ass attempt to save face. Give it up, asswipe.

save face? I don't think you should be the one talking there. Look at your posts, i guess your age at 15 maybe 17 at the most.

You shout people down and think that the most aggressive and vicious insults mean you win. You claim to be a lawyer yet your logic is lacking, and youre angered by me of all people instead of someone more verbose and coherent like codewarrior.

My guess is you simply pose as a lawyer, considering the fact that you hardly if ever cite legal code to correct me, and when you do it looks like something you could pull off google.

Then again, I just shot you down with your own quotes, so I don't think i need to continue with this.

In the mean time, if leflaw would like to offer analysis of my last couple posts, I'd be interested in that.

"Then again, I just shot you down with your own quotes"

You sure did! You are Perry freaking Mason! LOL

awehr,

"save face? I don't think you should be the one talking there. Look at your posts, i guess your age at 15 maybe 17 at the most."

That was brilliant! A brilliant comeback. Now, go play; adults have work to do.

"In the mean time, if leflaw would like to offer analysis of my last couple posts, I'd be interested in that."

I would say he's staying out of it more for your benefit then anything else. If he does post, most likely his anaylsis would agree with Mroops. Not all of us enjoy showing you as a fool. So some remain quiet.
Take advantage of it.

Seriously. What a douche. Anyone with half a brain can see that I know what I'm talking about. Awehr always claims I am a kid. Meanwhile, his spelling would indicate he never took an English class and suffers from severe craneo encephalic trauma. I'm ready to call 911 for the poor bastard!

Just look at this quote from the brain dead walking zombie awehr:

"The judges of the USSC didn't decide any of those facts"

Now - who said otherwise? Of course the judges did not decide any of those facts. As I already said numerous times, the facts were stipulated to by both parties! And this is what he is asking for leflaw to opine on! WTF?!

Wittle awehr cannot even follow a debate or figure out what he is talking about. Poor fellow. Kinda sad, really.

"they are not allowed to DECIDE on that claim because they are not the ones presiding over the trial."

And again - who said otherwise? Who is awehr debating with? Himself? Awehr - master bater.

>>"an idealogue only needs a precedent"

lol..glanbced at that and thot it said .."only an idiot needs a president."

and people wonder why there's so much distrust in the justice system and lawyers.

Because of posts on message boards?

"they are not allowed to DECIDE on that claim because they are not the ones presiding over the trial."

"And again - who said otherwise?"

you did actually.. mroop. Check your own posts.

"I would say he's staying out of it more for your benefit then anything else. If he does post, most likely his anaylsis would agree with Mroops. Not all of us enjoy showing you as a fool. So some remain quiet."

you may need to show me a fool, but by your post you've done the job to yourself quite adequately.

As for leflaw, he's one who would offer constructive criticism if/where needed rather than spout hot air and "disses" like some high school dropout.

btw mroop. you can't seem to keep track of your own assertions in this very thread. What was your lsat score anyway? 2? 5?

"you did actually.. mroop. Check your own posts."

Quote me, dipshit.

You said:

"The Supreme Court all but said Grokster is liable. The court that will hear the case really has no choice but to find Grokster liable at trial."

I then insisted that the supreme court was only dealing with a summary judgment and had no standing to make affirmative judgment on the entirely new "inducement" accusation they tossed back down.

Then the tussle began..

then after I pinned you and counted to 10, you then claimed you never said the quote at the top.

"Because of posts on message boards? "

No, as a non lawyer much of what's being discussed is over my head. so from a laypersons standpoint we have two highly educated individuals who claim to know the law (and lawyers from all sides do this as well) can take a single ruling and still not agree to the meaning. It explains why most lawyers are politicians.

You really are a retard. This:

"The Supreme Court all but said Grokster is liable. The court that will hear the case really has no choice but to find Grokster liable at trial."

Does not contradict this:

"they are not allowed to DECIDE on that claim because they are not the ones presiding over the trial."

Idiot!

"then after I pinned you and counted to 10, you then claimed you never said the quote at the top."

You pinned me in your delusional Down syndrome brain.

And since you asked, I scored in the top 20 percent of the country on my LSAT on 3 hours sleep after partying all night. Asshole.

"from a laypersons standpoint we have two highly educated individuals who claim to know the law"

We have one person with a legal education who knows the law and one fool who pretends he knows the law. You are really going to compare my legal knowledge to a wannabe like awehr who has never even studied the law? Puhleez!

And what did you score on the LSAT, awehr? What's that? You never took it? You never went to law school? You don't have any legal training? You don't know what the hell you are talking about? WHAT A SHOCK! LOL!

"No, as a non lawyer much of what's being discussed is over my head."

Just for your information, this information is all over awehr's head. But for some sick reason that I can't divine he has this need to play lawyer and act the expert. It's just plain weird. Anyway, I've wasted way too much time on him. I tried to be nice and educate him, but as you can see that didn't work out to well. So now I'll just go back to calling him a fucking idiot whenever he goes into his Perry Mason wannabe routine.

"And since you asked, I scored in the top 20 percent of the country on my LSAT on 3 hours sleep after partying all night. Asshole."

well now you feel a bit of the sting you put behind the insults you project toward others. I didn't mean much by it, but you no doubt are pissed at me anyway for trying (admittedly the wrong way) to teach an object lesson.

"well now you feel a bit of the sting you put behind the insults you project toward others."

Hardly. Go back to your crack pipe.

"Just for your information, this information is all over awehr's head."
As a person very familiar with programming, a law (in 'legalese') is very similar in it's definitions and rules to a program (written in c or java). Because of this it not only does not go over my head, but i can look at a piece of legislation or a ruling and see the "bugs" in it. (i'd be happy to elaborate and clarify on this one if you're interested in analysis rather than mudslinging)

"But for some sick reason that I can't divine he has this need to play lawyer and act the expert. It's just plain weird."
I do not "play the expert". What I do is read opinion pieces by competent attorneys and apply the perspective I have above while asking the questions "what can this ruling/law do" "how can this ruling/law be abused", etc. etc.

"It explains why most lawyers are politicians."

This brings to mind a tangential subject to this conversation. basically this article (think it was on cnet) was talking about how computer programmers would make better politicians than lawyers because lawyers are trained to distort reality to fit their approach, while programmers are trained to alter their approach to fit reality. (while they both are supposed to create rules which have a minimum chance of causing unintended behaviors and a maximum chance of creating the desired behavior)

"blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"

Whatever.

now that's a mature answer mroop. It certainly puts those years of high level education to use.

well here's an interesting statistic I just heard that ought to fit in here since it has no relevance to anything

100% of the people who's lives were saved from certain death after being pulled from a burning building said that they did not care what religious, political or sexual orientation their rescuers were.

amazing.

good night folks

Plenty of scope for abuse in this ruleing. My non-legally trained oppinion is that this essentially says that any company giving access to a network on which copyright infringement is taking place without attempting to prevent this infringement may be liable. Not a good precident.

awehr,

"you may need to show me a fool, but by your post you've done the job to yourself quite adequately."

This makes absolutely no fucking sense. I said, I had no intentions of showing you as a fool, and you go and prove my point!? WTF is wrong with you?

"As a person very familiar with programming, a law (in 'legalese') is very similar in it's definitions and rules to a program (written in c or java). Because of this it not only does not go over my head, but i can look at a piece of legislation or a ruling and see the "bugs" in it. (i'd be happy to elaborate and clarify on this one if you're interested in analysis rather than mudslinging)"

Who the fuck are you trying to bullshit here? c and Java don't have the same rule sets, you dumb twit. I'd rather have bug checks done by someone competent. You sir certainly don't qualify. Your a lame-ass wannabe HLL coder, at best. The Int and API tables are way beyond your limited comprehension skills. Please do not further do this site an injustice, just keep your bullshit to yourself.

"basically this article (think it was on cnet) was talking about how computer programmers would make better politicians than lawyers because lawyers are trained to distort reality to fit their approach, while programmers are trained to alter their approach to fit reality. (while they both are supposed to create rules which have a minimum chance of causing unintended behaviors and a maximum chance of creating the desired behavior)"

You actually consider yourself a coder? You have balls, for a moron. Please, don't try telling people what programmers are like. You don't know a fuckin thing about it. Wannabe... Puhleez. Ya know, stupid posts like yours only further my point about the general ignorance of the users here. And to think, someone actually takes your advice.. ugh.

awehr,

"now that's a mature answer mroop. It certainly puts those years of high level education to use."

WTF.. Are you trying to be witty now?

mroop

"blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"

Whatever."

Such an intelligent response! Gee I hope that works for you in a court of law.

The return of mroop the 'noise' maker.

Always looking for someone to argue with. Sheesh! Get a bloody life or go troll someplace else.

DeadMan2003,

"Always looking for someone to argue with. Sheesh! Get a bloody life or go troll someplace else."

I really wish some of the posters here would get a clue, and learn wtf troll means before they apply it with such a broad brush.

mroopinette is an RIAA agent.

RIAA agent are like everyone at the RIAA and RIAA companies: BRAINLESS!
What do we expect?

RaidHHI is an RIAA agent.
Same as above. Ignore them.

I wonder if it's the intention of certain posters to get others into a cycle of attack-and-defend in order to divert everyone's attention from the real RIAA-related issues we should be discussing here. Then again, perhaps some people feel a strong need to prove that they're smarter than others. This is a sign of insecurity.

On to the issue: Does this ruling mean that it will be practically impossible for Australian companies to develop hardware such as music players? I'm assuming that they'll fear that they could be sued for encouraging copyright infringement/piracy.

As for independent music...What about old timers like myself who prefer the music of the 50s/60s/70s? It's nearly all RIAA-copyrighted. Some of it is out of print and downloading it through P2P networks is about the only way to obtain it (unless I want to spend a fortune on rare vinyl recordings). Also, I don't want to buy re-issues on CD because it enriches the RIAA, and it's not so easy to find used CDs of the older stuff. Forget about DRM-infested legal downloads. My real point is that copyright is too long. The copyrights on this older stuff should have expired by now.

IFeelFree,

"wonder if it's the intention of certain posters to get others into a cycle of attack-and-defend in order to divert everyone's attention from the real RIAA-related issues we should be discussing here. Then again, perhaps some people feel a strong need to prove that they're smarter than others. This is a sign of insecurity."

I think you should leave conspiracy theories to individuals better able to understand it. Your so far off the mark, it's not funny.

Ifeelfree has a good point and a good question. Used music stores and the local library are good sources of the older music.

I think his other point is valid too given the response of RaidHHI to it and his ignoring the ON TOPIC question. Here's another conspiracy theory to chew on. could it be that Mroop and Raid are one in the same. (personally I don't believe it but they seem in lockstep with their condemnation of our members)

compmore,

I hadn't taken you for a village idiot, but after reading this, I'm wondering if you are indeed one.

"I think his other point is valid too given the response of RaidHHI to it and his ignoring the ON TOPIC question."

Which question did I ignore btw? And why did you not respond concerning the irc statement made previously.

"could it be that Mroop and Raid are one in the same. (personally I don't believe it but they seem in lockstep with their condemnation of our members)"

This is laughingly weak. We can settle it easy enough tho, This server keeps logs which contain IP addresses. My IP is located from Charter cable co, in kingsport tn. We can simply have independent look up Mroops IP and mine, see they are not even close; and that we are indeed, not the same person.

Then we can put that silly notion to rest and concentrate on more important things, Say for example, the education of the users here.

"I hadn't taken you for a village idiot, but after reading this, I'm wondering if you are indeed one."

I was being sarcastic and satarical.

"Which question did I ignore btw?"

the question that feel free had about older music and where to get it.

"And why did you not respond concerning the irc statement made previously."

I know nothing of IRC's never used one. I've been told by many that those who congragate on IRC's are obnoxious and can get nasty so I've stayed away from them.

"This is laughingly weak."

This is also a stab at sarcastic humor. my next line states that I don't believe it. I know you two are not one in the same. he's against breaking the copyright laws and you are not.

"Say for example, the education of the users here."

great idea. everyone can use education on certin matters. an open forum helps to do just that. but you should know that you don't educate by insulting people and calling them names. even if you're 100% right the human reaction is to get defensive. if you wanted to learn about something and you said something you thought was correct and the person called you a f#@% idiot, would you listen to them??

"I wonder if it's the intention of certain posters to get others into a cycle of attack-and-defend in order to divert everyone's attention from the real RIAA-related issues we should be discussing here. "

Yes, Exactly.
It's a threadjack.
Never respond to his insults. He feeds on it. If by some chance he has an on-topic point, great. Dissect it. Don't respond at all to the baloney.
Don't feed the troll.

thanks dreddsnik I'll try real hard. not always easy

"he's against breaking the copyright laws"

Nigga please. When have I ever said I'm against breaking the copyright laws? Answer: I have never ever ever said that! I always say: Do whatever the hell you want to do. I'm not a cop.

"Don't feed the troll."

I too am tired of the constant misuse of the word "troll". Just because you call someone out for being ignorant or just plain stupid (awehr is both) does not make you a troll.

"Who the fuck are you trying to bullshit here? c and Java don't have the same rule sets, you dumb twit."

So awehr doesn't know jack shit about programming either. Ha. Masquerading as a lawyer and a programmer. What a pathetic doofus dumbass. I wonder if he goes on programming chat sites and gets shredded to pieces over there for being so full of shit. I would imagine so.

From Wikipedia ....

"In the context of the Internet, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages intended to cause a disruption in discourse. The word is also often used to describe such messages. "

Seems pretty accurate.
Particular attention given to the ..
"intended to cause a disruption in discourse. " portion.


""I wonder if it's the intention of certain posters to get others into a cycle of attack-and-defend in order to divert everyone's attention from the real RIAA-related issues we should be discussing here. "

In other words ... Troll.

Funny,
I remember when I used to spend lots of time on usenet ( long time ago ) some of those trolls referring to themselves as "Gadflies" ... go figure.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that somebody is wrong...hell most of us agree with you, but being an arrogant dick about it doesn't help. I know it's tough to rein in the frustration when it seems the message isn't seeping through but what's the intention? To educate or to destroy?

Dreddsnik,

" Seems pretty accurate.
Particular attention given to the ..
"intended to cause a disruption in discourse. " portion."

Very cute, Dreddsnik. However, You didn't understand the definition too well. I don't post offtopic crap, And I don't try hijacking threads. What I do however, is call people like you and awehr out on the bullshit you try to pass off as knowledge.

Not only do I now find you quiet stupid, I strongly suspect you don't read so well either.

pinemonkey,

"There's nothing wrong with pointing out that somebody is wrong...hell most of us agree with you, but being an arrogant dick about it doesn't help. I know it's tough to rein in the frustration when it seems the message isn't seeping through but what's the intention? To educate or to destroy?"

What you see as being a dick, I see as simply being blunt and to the point. If various individuals here would quit trying to blow smoke up peoples ass, I wouldn't feel the desire to comment about it.

When you have idiots like awehr trying to offer legal advice, Or idiots like Dreddsnik trying to be something he isn't, your tolerance for it lowers.

Yup, Troll on

Grrr arrg

""In the context of the Internet, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages intended to cause a disruption in discourse. The word is also often used to describe such messages. "

See,
He has effectively turned yet another thread into an insultfest, removing it comepletely from the topic. That's his purpose ...

""In the context of the Internet, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages intended to cause a disruption in discourse. The word is also often used to describe such messages. "

A Troll

dreddsnik I like your idea. ignor them and stay on topic. no way people will be educated by this. I'm gonna give it my best shot.

compmore,

"dreddsnik I like your idea. ignor them and stay on topic. no way people will be educated by this. I'm gonna give it my best shot."

You'd be surprised by the amount of people who lurk on this site. Your free to ignore me, and label me a Troll as well if you wish. I'm not concerned with a nobody.

My points are valid still. Dreddsnik makes no effort to claim otherwise.

I notice that awehr hasn't appeared to give us details on his programming expertise, or lack thereof. So there you have it, folks. A 100% bullshit artist. Who is not surprised?

mroop,

"I notice that awehr hasn't appeared to give us details on his programming expertise, or lack thereof. So there you have it, folks. A 100% bullshit artist. Who is not surprised?"

It would be in his best interest not to bother. I'd shred him to tiny little pieces over programming. And no "certifications" can make up for proven real world code. IE: my previous works.

Well, I can tell you one thing, Shmoo, if people lurking around this site were hesitant to post before, they'll definitely be turned off now with these two attack dogs savaging every post.

mroop is an RIAA agent. Ignore him.

pinemikey,

"Well, I can tell you one thing, Shmoo, if people lurking around this site were hesitant to post before, they'll definitely be turned off now with these two attack dogs savaging every post."

attack dogs? Hey, c'mon now. Awehr was speaking from his ass, again. Would you prefer that people just blindly take what he and others like him post as the truth? He spreads misinformation. If I'm an attack dog because I don't let him slide for it, then so be it.

Don't assume everyone is gunshy, I get several emails from persons who do get it.

"an idealogue only needs a precedent"

"A foreign court ruling is not a precedent in this country."

No, but if there are several similar rulings in foreign courts, those can have an impact on one or more members of the USSC.
And if an issue litigated in a foreign court pertains to something in an internationally approved treaty, double the chances for an impact.