Re: RIAA attacks Usenet - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: RIAA attacks Usenet - Linux ; On Oct 16, 4:03 pm, rodolfo.garci...@gmail.com wrote: > For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for > their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of > Busta Rhymes (isn't he in ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Re: RIAA attacks Usenet

  1. Re: RIAA attacks Usenet

    On Oct 16, 4:03 pm, rodolfo.garci...@gmail.com wrote:

    > For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for
    > their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of
    > Busta Rhymes (isn't he in jail?) is worth $18.99.


    Then you shouldn't buy it. Simple as that.

    And, it goes without saying, you shouldn't steal it, either.

    bob


  2. Re: RIAA attacks Usenet

    On Oct 16, 7:21 pm, bob wrote:
    > On Oct 16, 4:03 pm, rodolfo.garci...@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    > > For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for
    > > their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of
    > > Busta Rhymes (isn't he in jail?) is worth $18.99.

    >
    > Then you shouldn't buy it. Simple as that.
    >
    > And, it goes without saying, you shouldn't steal it, either.
    >
    > bob


    If it was broadcast on the radio, then it was "given away" to the
    public and anyone can legally have a recording of it.

    That's the way I see it ...
    I know that's not exactly the same way the law sees it however..

    Mark




  3. Re: RIAA attacks Usenet

    On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:58:54 -0700, Mark wrote:

    >> > For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for
    >> > their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of
    >> > Busta Rhymes (isn't he in jail?) is worth $18.99.

    >>
    >> Then you shouldn't buy it. Simple as that.
    >>
    >> And, it goes without saying, you shouldn't steal it, either.
    >>
    >> bob

    >
    >If it was broadcast on the radio, then it was "given away" to the
    >public and anyone can legally have a recording of it.
    >
    >That's the way I see it ...
    >I know that's not exactly the same way the law sees it however..


    What meaning have you invented for the word "legally" in the above?
    :-)

  4. Re: RIAA attacks Usenet

    Mark wrote:

    >On Oct 16, 7:21 pm, bob wrote:
    >> On Oct 16, 4:03 pm, rodolfo.garci...@gmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >> > For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for
    >> > their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of
    >> > Busta Rhymes (isn't he in jail?) is worth $18.99.

    >>
    >> Then you shouldn't buy it. Simple as that.


    Exactly.

    >> And, it goes without saying, you shouldn't steal it, either.

    >
    >If it was broadcast on the radio, then it was "given away" to the
    >public and anyone can legally have a recording of it.


    Idiot. Not QUITE as convenient to collect, use, and redistribute the
    songs/albums that you like that way, now is it? Sheesh!

    >That's the way I see it ...


    Yeah, scum always has some way to rationalize their immoral behavior.

    >I know that's not exactly the same way the law sees it however..


    As it should be. Too bad it's so hard to catch thieves on the
    Internet, and so many have the attitude "if I can steal it, and not
    get caught, I will".


  5. Re: RIAA attacks Usenet

    On Oct 17, 8:33 am, Laurence Payne
    wrote:
    > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:58:54 -0700, Mark wrote:
    > >> > For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for
    > >> > their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of
    > >> > Busta Rhymes (isn't he in jail?) is worth $18.99.

    >
    > >> Then you shouldn't buy it. Simple as that.

    >
    > >> And, it goes without saying, you shouldn't steal it, either.

    >
    > >> bob

    >
    > >If it was broadcast on the radio, then it was "given away" to the
    > >public and anyone can legally have a recording of it.

    >
    > >That's the way I see it ...
    > >I know that's not exactly the same way the law sees it however..

    >
    > What meaning have you invented for the word "legally" in the above?
    > :-)- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    In the US, it IS legal to record a song off the radio for your own
    personal use. I did not "invent" that.

    Therefore, once a song has been ___broadcast___ on the radio, I can
    legally possess a recording of it that I did not pay for to use for
    my own personal use.

    thanks
    Mark


    Mark


  6. Re: RIAA attacks Usenet

    On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:25:43 -0700, Mark wrote:

    >> >If it was broadcast on the radio, then it was "given away" to the
    >> >public and anyone can legally have a recording of it.

    >>
    >> >That's the way I see it ...
    >> >I know that's not exactly the same way the law sees it however..

    >>
    >> What meaning have you invented for the word "legally" in the above?
    >> :-)- Hide quoted text -
    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    >In the US, it IS legal to record a song off the radio for your own
    >personal use. I did not "invent" that.
    >
    >Therefore, once a song has been ___broadcast___ on the radio, I can
    >legally possess a recording of it that I did not pay for to use for
    >my own personal use.


    So what meaning does "that's not exactly the way the law sees it"
    have?

  7. Re: RIAA attacks Usenet

    On 2007-10-17, chrisv wrote:
    > Mark wrote:
    >
    >>On Oct 16, 7:21 pm, bob wrote:
    >>> On Oct 16, 4:03 pm, rodolfo.garci...@gmail.com wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for
    >>> > their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of
    >>> > Busta Rhymes (isn't he in jail?) is worth $18.99.
    >>>
    >>> Then you shouldn't buy it. Simple as that.

    >
    > Exactly.
    >
    >>> And, it goes without saying, you shouldn't steal it, either.

    >>
    >>If it was broadcast on the radio, then it was "given away" to the
    >>public and anyone can legally have a recording of it.

    >
    > Idiot. Not QUITE as convenient to collect, use, and redistribute the
    > songs/albums that you like that way, now is it? Sheesh!


    Sneakernet really didn't slow down global piracy that
    much before the net. The net certainly makes swapping easier.
    More than anything else it makes the swapping VISIBLE. It's
    harder to ignore once it's out in the open and every grandma
    is into it.

    [deletia]

    The "net" doesn't matter.

    The whole "analog vs. digital" thing doesn't matter either.

    That's why swapping on the net is so pervasive. It's just
    what's already been going on offline for decades.

    --

    My macintosh runs Ubuntu. |||
    / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

+ Reply to Thread