Lawsuit against the RIAA

[Ridirich]

You know, I was thinking about this, and it is somewhat "the thrill" of doing it for most people. If the govt legalized weed, and put a tax on it, I bet there would be less crimes around it. Coming from a medical standpoint, weed is no more dangerous than tobacco. In fact the second hand smoke from tobacco causes more of a concern than the "slow response time" from a few puffs of reefer.

Why not legalize the copying of materials too? Music companies already make large amounts of money from concerts, it would be safe to say that most people would still want an original copy of the music....or even better, make it impossible to copy the cdrom to begin with, and release some MP3s to be distributed. Same premise, basicly let the public have what it wants, but control the usage of said "problem".

[allentrace]

You know, I was thinking about this, and it is somewhat "the thrill" of doing it for most people. If the govt legalized weed, and put a tax on it, I bet there would be less crimes around it.

I agree with you partly that if it were made legal than crime would cease to be a major part of the drug.... a good example was prohibition and the crime of the roaring twenties. However I do not agree that it should be something that is legalized for one main reason (besides being opposed to its use). How would you impose an age restriction on Marijuana, say you set it at 21 there would still be the problem of youths under 21 trying to illegally obtain it and you would therefore be back at square one. Also legalizing marijuana would make it just that easier in the legalization of harder drugs.

In fact the second hand smoke from tobacco causes more of a concern than the "slow response time" from a few puffs of reefer.

I imagine you use the same reasoning for drinking and driving.

Why not legalize the copying of materials too? Music companies already make large amounts of money from concerts,

Labels do not make any money off tours, artists are the ones who foot and reap the benefits for tours or at least their agencies do.

it would be safe to say that most people would still want an original copy of the music....

I agree part of what makes me want to own the cd is going to shows and getting the, cd, vinyl, shirt, etc. signed. But that is the problem with most bands today or at least popular ones is that they do not make cds full of good music they have that one or two hit single and the rest of the album sucks.

[Ridirich]

Sometimes that is the case, true...depends on the band.

As for by view on alchohol, no. I view that much more harshly than reefer. I have been an EMT for years, and have seen druggies in various forms. Anywhere from a speedballer/powerballer to a person who faked chest pain to get morphine.

I do not support the legalization of harder drugs, but since you headed that way, I will throw my ideas into the open and you tell me how it presents.

1) At the age of 18 any citizen of the US(male or female now) can be recruited/drafted into the militairy. They can own a firearm, as long as it is a rifle/shotgun and is not semi-auto. They are considered an "adult" and can buy cigars, cigarettes and the like, but can not drink.

I believe that there should be mandatory driver's ed in school. This should be for 3 years of highschool, starting the freshman year and ending the junior year. This would make many students 17 at the end of their training. I believe that this training should include knowing the laws, how to handle a vehicle in adverse weather and how to handle an accident when faced with impending doom. Basicly EVOC without the fast driving, lights or sirens. I believe that the liscence should be allowed to be available to the student when they are 16, with the stipulation that they attend the driver's ed class, and do not drive without a responsible adult(someone 18 or over) in the vehicle who is seasoned in driving. Furthermore, they should NOT be allowed to drive alone unless they are an emancipated minor, going to/coming from school/home/work or it happens to be an emergency situation, which does not give them the right to speed and drive haphazardly.

I believe that ALL of these minors should not be allowed to drive past 10 pm unless otherwise dictated by a writt involving school, work and should not be allowed back on the road until 5 am.

This whole setup would encourage and season the would-be driver to become a defencive driver capable of making it safely where they need to go.

When they turn 18, they recieve a true liscence. They would also be allowed to buy cigaretts, cigars and the like, as well as firearms. This includes handguns. Many police officers are 18 when they are in training, and it is illegal for them to keep their "piece" off duty. Many veteran cops keep their gun with them at all times because they are targets.....so are the 18 year old police. I believe all rights and privelages of an american citizen should be inferred upon the person on their 18th birthday.

2) Drugs. I, personally, believe that tobacco should be taken off the market, period. I know that might make some people dislike me, well they do not know what it is to suffocate with air all around them. I do. Many smokers give no respect to people with lung problems, nor their own children who they blow smoke at.

Since this is not a feasable solution, I say legalize weed. Make them both legal, and raise the tax on both of them. I want to see both weed and any tobacco-smoke product be a 24 pack and be fifty cents a cigarette.

I believe anyone who enters the country with a hard drug should be put on trial, and if found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt should be executed. I further believe that anyone in our own country who sells those drugs should suffer the same fate if proven guilty(I do not believe in punishing the innocent). My tax dollars go to paying for their meals and cable tv and libaries. Don't use gas or an injection. Shoot them and burn them. I think that would make a definite impact on the drug community, as it funds the very terrorism that many of us fight against.

I believe that anyone who is intoxicated while driving should have their liscense suspended on the first time, and be put through detox. We could use the money we saved from keeping all those druggies in the jails, which would now be much less full. (and yeah, I think prostitutes should not be jailed. Where did our freedoms go? If someone wishes to sell thier body, let them.) Their liscense would only be returned upon successful completion of the program and the understanding that at any time they could be submitted to a random booze test while driving.

Sorry for the derail and no, I did not mean this as a flame. You asked me how I felt, and now it is in the open. We are all entitled to our own opinions and we are allowed to disagree with eachother. I believe as long as we all discuss things like adults and don't get into a pissing contest we can share our opinions and look outside ourselves. Sometimes to find the answer to the problem you need to look at someone else's concept.

By the way, I was under the assumption from reading various books and articles in the past that the record companies and producers and managers all get a get cut of the concert takings. I might be wrong, that is just what I read in many places.
It does make me wonder though. All these agencies that complain about not having enough money and start these legal battles...who funds them?

[allentrace]

Sometimes that is the case, true...depends on the band.

As for by view on alchohol, no. I view that much more harshly than reefer. I have been an EMT for years, and have seen druggies in various forms. Anywhere from a speedballer/powerballer to a person who faked chest pain to get morphine.

I do not support the legalization of harder drugs, but since you headed that way, I will throw my ideas into the open and you tell me how it presents.

1) At the age of 18 any citizen of the US(male or female now) can be recruited/drafted into the militairy. They can own a firearm, as long as it is a rifle/shotgun and is not semi-auto. They are considered an "adult" and can buy cigars, cigarettes and the like, but can not drink.

I believe that there should be mandatory driver's ed in school. This should be for 3 years of highschool, starting the freshman year and ending the junior year. This would make many students 17 at the end of their training. I believe that this training should include knowing the laws, how to handle a vehicle in adverse weather and how to handle an accident when faced with impending doom. Basicly EVOC without the fast driving, lights or sirens. I believe that the liscence should be allowed to be available to the student when they are 16, with the stipulation that they attend the driver's ed class, and do not drive without a responsible adult(someone 18 or over) in the vehicle who is seasoned in driving. Furthermore, they should NOT be allowed to drive alone unless they are an emancipated minor, going to/coming from school/home/work or it happens to be an emergency situation, which does not give them the right to speed and drive haphazardly.

I believe that ALL of these minors should not be allowed to drive past 10 pm unless otherwise dictated by a writt involving school, work and should not be allowed back on the road until 5 am.

This whole setup would encourage and season the would-be driver to become a defencive driver capable of making it safely where they need to go.

When they turn 18, they recieve a true liscence. They would also be allowed to buy cigaretts, cigars and the like, as well as firearms. This includes handguns. Many police officers are 18 when they are in training, and it is illegal for them to keep their "piece" off duty. Many veteran cops keep their gun with them at all times because they are targets.....so are the 18 year old police. I believe all rights and privelages of an american citizen should be inferred upon the person on their 18th birthday.

2) Drugs. I, personally, believe that tobacco should be taken off the market, period. I know that might make some people dislike me, well they do not know what it is to suffocate with air all around them. I do. Many smokers give no respect to people with lung problems, nor their own children who they blow smoke at.

Since this is not a feasable solution, I say legalize weed. Make them both legal, and raise the tax on both of them. I want to see both weed and any tobacco-smoke product be a 24 pack and be fifty cents a cigarette.

I believe anyone who enters the country with a hard drug should be put on trial, and if found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt should be executed. I further believe that anyone in our own country who sells those drugs should suffer the same fate if proven guilty(I do not believe in punishing the innocent). My tax dollars go to paying for their meals and cable tv and libaries. Don't use gas or an injection. Shoot them and burn them. I think that would make a definite impact on the drug community, as it funds the very terrorism that many of us fight against.

I believe that anyone who is intoxicated while driving should have their liscense suspended on the first time, and be put through detox. We could use the money we saved from keeping all those druggies in the jails, which would now be much less full. (and yeah, I think prostitutes should not be jailed. Where did our freedoms go? If someone wishes to sell thier body, let them.) Their liscense would only be returned upon successful completion of the program and the understanding that at any time they could be submitted to a random booze test while driving.

Sorry for the derail and no, I did not mean this as a flame. You asked me how I felt, and now it is in the open. We are all entitled to our own opinions and we are allowed to disagree with eachother. I believe as long as we all discuss things like adults and don't get into a pissing contest we can share our opinions and look outside ourselves. Sometimes to find the answer to the problem you need to look at someone else's concept.

By the way, I was under the assumption from reading various books and articles in the past that the record companies and producers and managers all get a get cut of the concert takings. I might be wrong, that is just what I read in many places.
It does make me wonder though. All these agencies that complain about not having enough money and start these legal battles...who funds them?

you present some interesting arguements and I would defer to your knowledge as an EMT in cases of accidental death. And yeah I agree that 18 should be the way to go as for as legalizing everything. Also my Uncle is a concert promoter and they way he explained it is that the promoter gets their cut usually a set amount from booking the sites and paying for all the legistics of the tour which include advertising... the artist and their management according to their arrangement then split whatever is left from the ticket sales....the merchandise sold at concerts are generally the sole property of the Artist.

[Voltage Spike]

But that is the problem with most bands today or at least popular ones is that they do not make cds full of good music they have that one or two hit single and the rest of the album sucks.

Ah, the good old days. When albums were full of good music, the beer flowed like wine, 24-7 there was a party all the time ... wait, what part of the world did you live in? The quality of the content of an album hasn't changed since the concept was invented, but you, as a consumer, now have more options and information available than at any time in the past. Perhaps there is more music being produced now than ever, and the end result is obviously more crap, but I continue to deny that the past was a eutopia in any sense.

As for executions as a solution to crime, I'd wonder how well that is currently working for us as a deterrent. Do you really believe that a rational individual says, "I'm going to commit this serious crime, but I'm not going to worry since the sentence will be only twenty years"?

As for smoking, I have mixed feelings about this. Our local government recently decided (without a public vote) to ban smoking in many public places. On the one hand, I am against more government involvement in my personal life, and I believe that if it were good business to ban smoking (i.e., the people wanted it) that companies would do so. On the other hand, smoking does bother me, and many businesses chose not to ban smoking until they were forced.

I am also deeply opposed to making something illegal simply because a small minority abuses the privilege. Should "hacking tools" be against the law because, say, 10% of the time they are used in criminal activities? (Obviously it is a bad comparison, but I use this example only to bring the topic to a more personal level.)

[allentrace]

The quality of the content of an album hasn't changed since the concept was invented, but you, as a consumer, now have more options and information available than at any time in the past. Perhaps there is more music being produced now than ever, and the end result is obviously more crap, but I continue to deny that the past was a eutopia in any sense.

Perhaps you are right perhaps there is someone out there who thinks every Britney Spears album is a masterpiece. I guess it all comes down to preference.

[astcell]

Perhaps you are right perhaps there is someone out there who thinks every Britney Spears album is a masterpiece. I guess it all comes down to preference.

I think that example comes under Mental Health.

[allentrace]

I think that example comes under Mental Health.

sarcasm intended is my motto

[Deviant Ollam]

However I do not agree that it should be something that is legalized for one main reason (besides being opposed to its use). How would you impose an age restriction on Marijuana, say you set it at 21 there would still be the problem of youths under 21 trying to illegally obtain it and you would therefore be back at square one.

How do we impose an age restriction on any proscribed substance? You disallow the sale to and posession by minors with legal penalties that include fines and jail time. It's not that difficult. Sure, kids today have the possibility of obtaining alcohol and cigarettes, but do you think that the current laws are totally ineffective? One of the main arguments for legalization is that it would increase safety of youth by making drugs harder to obtain (since currently the source for illicit drugs are street dealers who do not check ID).

Also legalizing marijuana would make it just that easier in the legalization of harder drugs.

that concern is founded on the presupposition that legalization of "harder" drugs would be a bad thing. there are many of us who disagree.

At the age of 18 any citizen of the US <snip> When they turn 18, they recieve a true liscence. They would also be allowed to buy cigaretts, cigars and the like, as well as firearms.

i personally am a fan of the concept of "absolute adulthood" to pull a phrase out of thin air. Either the courts and the law of society define you as an adult or they do not... there should be no in-between as far as i am concerned. You either can vote/smoke/drink/arm/drive/serve/fuck/etc or you cannot. Virtually no human activity that i can think of is one that should be held off until you have more "life experience" than being 18. the flip side of this (which a lot of people do not support me on) is that people under 18 should be treated as minors in all instances. i dissaprove of, for example, trying 15 year olds as adults in court. i realize that kids today are growing up faster than ever before and that one day in the future people will have maturity at 16 that we associate with 21 year olds now. the solution, in my mind, is to allow each state to set its own age of maturity... state legislatures can vote to declare any people below age 18 they wish as legally "adults" as long as it applies universally across all rights, privlidges, and responsibilities. want to try a 16 year old for murder one in your state? no problem... as soon as you grant all 16 year olds the right to buy liquor and own guns, etc. </random age rant>

I, personally, believe that tobacco should be taken off the market, period. ... Many smokers give no respect to people with lung problems, nor their own children who they blow smoke at.

This is the sort of emotional knee-jerk reaction to the industry that i oppose. Like it or not, people have the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies no matter what the populace at large thinks. Second hand smoke is a very real debating point, however... and although new scientific evidence states that it's not nearly as harmful as we may think, i do feel that citizens have a right to go about their lives unmolested by the habits of others while indoors. Outside, with no roof over one's head and a natural breeze blowing by, i don't really approve of bans against smoking. by the way i feel that i should point out that i do not smoke cigarettes, i never have, i hate how they smell, i hate how i smell when i come home from a bar, and i think that it's a pretty righeously dumb thing to choose as a habit. all that said, i am staunchly opposed to restricting smoking further.

I believe anyone who enters the country with a hard drug should be put on trial, and if found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt should be executed. I further believe that anyone in our own country who sells those drugs should suffer the same fate if proven guilty(I do not believe in punishing the innocent). My tax dollars go to paying for their meals and cable tv and libaries. Don't use gas or an injection. Shoot them and burn them.

i'm going to imagine that this nonsensical rant was a misguided stab at humor, since it is totally devoid of reason, compassion, or logic.

I think that would make a definite impact on the drug community

It would make an impact how? I would invite anyone curious about the best ways of cutting down on drug use to familiarize themselves with the findings of a report by the (very conservative) RAND Corporation research group in 1994 (prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army primarily by C.P. Rydell and S.S. Everingham) which discusses the virtues and/or faults of techniques such as...

1. law enforcement
2. border interdiction
3. source country control operations
4. education and treatment

When analyzing options to reduce societal costs of drug use the RAND Corporation found the following relationships... For every additional $1.00 spent on Source-Country Control the societal benefits to be expected were: a LOSS of 85 cents. For every additional $1.00 spent on Border Interdiction the societal benefits to be expected were: a LOSS of 68 cents. For every additional $1.00 spent on Domestic Law Enforcement the societal benefits to be expected were: a LOSS of 48 cents. For every additional $1.00 spent on Education and Treatment the societal benefits to be expected were: a GAIN of $7.46. (Societal costs were calculated to include crime, violence and loss of productivity, etc.)

Mathematically, education and treatment options are 15 times more effective than traditional law enforcement (incarceration, fines, etc). They are 26 times more effective than patroling borders in the hopes of stopping drug shipments. And they are 56 times more effective than trying our spraying hillsides in colombia and mexico with thousands of gallons of poison.

In the big picture, enforcement measures that try to attack the SUPPLY side of the drug equasion are woefully and hideously doomed to fail. Measures that seek to address the DEMAND for drugs in this country are the only ones where are tax dollars are, in my opinion, justified.

as it funds the very terrorism that many of us fight against.

hehe... stop watching TV, it's doing something bad to you. i never actually believed that anyone took the Office of National Drug Control Policy's commercials seriously. as a sovereign human being you have the inalienable right to formulate your own opinions on the matter, but as far as the "drugs fund terrorism" argument, i and most people i know are unwavering in the belief that it's a line of reasoning pulled directly out of John Walters's ass.

Just my $0.02, eager to discuss it further but since it seems to have drifted somewhat from the original topic perhaps a mod could prune this out and shift the relevant posts to a new thread in /dev/null.

[allentrace]

How do we impose an age restriction on any proscribed substance? You disallow the sale to and posession by minors with legal penalties that include fines and jail time. It's not that difficult. Sure, kids today have the possibility of obtaining alcohol and cigarettes, but do you think that the current laws are totally ineffective? One of the main arguments for legalization is that it would increase safety of youth by making drugs harder to obtain (since currently the source for illicit drugs are street dealers who do not check ID).

I find them effective yet woefully inadequate but as for the rest I agree

This is the sort of emotional knee-jerk reaction to the industry that i oppose. Like it or not, people have the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies no matter what the populace at large thinks.

You hit the nail right on the head, I am also tired of hearing how it is
"Big Tobacco's " fault and all these damn truth commercials. They shift the blame of lung cancer and second hand smoke to the company that makes them instead of the person whos choice it is to buy and smoke cigarette's and cigar's.

hehe... stop watching TV, it's doing something bad to you. i never actually believed that anyone took the Office of National Drug Control Policy's commercials seriously. as a sovereign human being you have the inalienable right to formulate your own opinions on the matter, but as far as the "drugs fund terrorism" argument, i and most people i know are unwavering in the belief that it's a line of reasoning pulled directly out of John Walters's ass.

To an extent Ridirich is right, in 2000 and 2001 Afghanistan was the worlds largest supplier of Opium and the value of Opium is what funded the Muhajadeen's war against the Russians from 1979 to 1989. And its continued sale insured that the state supported Taliban would never run out of money. The CIA has also released several reports paralleling the rise of the sale of Drugs with the rise of terrorist activities.

[Ridirich]

My comment about the execution was dead (heh, notice the pun) serious. Lethal injection takes a while to kill someone and gives intense pain. Gas causes the victim to become terrified and their bodies to release all "excrement" for lack of a better word. Electricity is just plain messy and costly. Hangings are cruel and wrong.

A bullet is humane and only costs 20 cents. It is a very quick death, if done correctly, and many killed are known to feel no pain. Here's an example. I came up to the scene of a man sitting in a pickup truck. He was sitting in the bed of it, with a smile on his face and rag in his hand covering his foot. The moron had gotten into the pickup with a group of friends to go hunting and did not unload his rifle, nor put it on safety. His barrel had rested on the dorsal pedis(top of his foot) and when the rag was removed there was a nice size hole. I thought he was smiling because he was in shock. He wasn't, as I later found out. He thought it was a joke and was laughing at himself for being a dumbass. He later told me he never even felt the bullet enter or exit his body.

In reguards to burning them, well what do you think cremation is?

I have not been out to a DEFCON yet,but have been planning to for years. Why have I not come out? Severe asthma. It seems to hit me during the months that DC is planned. My triggers?

Pollen, Climate change, general allergens, oh yeah...and cigarette smoke sets me off. My opinion on that is based on how it makes me physically feel(IE suffocating), and not any TV ads, which by the way I rarely watch.

As for the US funding terrorism through drug usage....I know many people in the Coast Guard. Did you know we stop over 1 billion a year in coccain alone from entering our borders, not to mention other drugs. (I always thought it would be fun to fire a .50 cal into the side of a 'pirate' boat ) I have been told by them specifically that much of the funding for the fuel and weaponry that the 'pirates' use comes from the US in drug sales.

Wow, we are back on topic. Thread started about pirating music and is now at pirate ships....har!

Seriously though and I am attempting to get back on topic here, how does everyone feel about napster, winmx, kazaa and the like? Do you all consider it free sharing like a library or theft?

[jur1st]

More lunacy from the RIAA

I saw the story this morning about the RIAA refiling their lawsuit against a 14 year old girl this morning. I was quite pleased after reading the counterclaim that has been discussed earlier and I believe that this one is a clear opportunity to file a similar counterclaim.

The RIAA seems to be arguing that because the mother "shifted blame" from herself to her daughter, that there is a conflict between the two requiring appointment of a guardian. This is pure lunacy. The original defendant (in a seprate suit, mind you) simply denied that she took any part in the alleged activity.

Once again, the RIAA is betting that whomever can speak for the child will settle, rather than fight a claim that can't stand up in court.

Why can't it stand up in court?

The state of electronic evidence is quite unclear at this point, especially as it pertiains to how it was procured. Courts have been very reluctant to allow evidence that produced through unclean hands. The best example was a civil suit where drafts of letters to an attorney from a CEO were found in a dumpster. There was a pretty severe ass chewing for the plaintiff's side. In family law, litigants love to give thier attorney emails, hard drives, etc. but the current practice is for attorneys not to even look at their contents for fear of sanction from the court. The computer in most cases is joint property of the couple and still counsel won't look at it, let alone produce it in court.

The repurcussions of allowing evidence of copyright infringement through such underhanded techniques would open the floodgates for similar evidence other federal cases.

I know that most of us have virtually no expectation of privacy for our electronic activities, but the general public is different.

[Ridirich]

You cannot sue a 14 year old. The person who has custody would be sued instead.

[goathead]

....the merchandise sold at concerts are generally the sole property of the Artist.

OTT:

Sadly Ive experienced the maw of the music business for the last 15 years as a musician and the business end of a band. It is quite corrupt and usually, unless you have 'huge guns' the artist gets the scraps. My perspective is based on regional touring thru the NW, SW, and mid-west. Record companies have very creative ways of screwing artists... my favorite was the 'recoupment' percentage. This is where the money coming back in from CD sales has a percentage, as defined by a usually poorly reviewed contract, that is applied to the principal. So 40% recoupment means that only .40 of each dollar goes toward paying back the label for the band's debt; the remainder drops in the label's coffer. Sure seemed illegal to me, but we were happy to have the opportunities, or moreso desperate to have the doors opened.

What I saw alot of was a situation where venues expect that they will get a kick on the merch from a show. Which for independant bands, is where we'd get most of our gas money. For example, we opened for Silverchair in seattle for a sold out show (4000 people we were told), we're paid $400 as a group and were expected to give them 30% of sales from merch. This was at the paramount under Bill Graham Presents. Needless to say we sold all our merch, but since we're nobodys we didnt have the volume of merch to make that margin work.

I was happy with meals, beer, and not being pelted by thrown objects. We were happy to have the chance at being exploited.


Best to you and yours amigo,

Goathead

p.s. I do keep the 'we suck' perspective going strong... and So pleased I have a day job :)

[jur1st]

You cannot sue a 14 year old. The person who has custody would be sued instead.

from the caption....

PRIORITY RECORDS, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

-v-

BRITTANY CHAN

Defendant.