General discussion


Outraged by RIAA

By 0utraged ·
The RIAA is nothing more than a money hungry group of individuals that didn't get to roast enough ants with a magnifying glass in their youth. While protecting 85% of American recording artists' work, they seem to be looking for money and control, via intimidation, like so many other tyrants.

I am a car audio installer, and have been for a long time, and couldnt imagine buying more bass testing songs every time someone ran off with my disc, and I don't know but a few people that actually go out and buy music from a store or online.

I don't see how you can protect the artists from a few hundred million to a billion people, downloading music and videos illegaly via peer to peer file sharing. with a loss of about 95% of their potential earnings, I can see why the RIAA is so pissed off, but to fine someone (Jammie Thomas) $1.9 million for 24 songs, what is that??? That's garbage.

If she couldnt pay that, and was held in contempt in exchange for $50 per day, she would be in jail for 104 years! How is that just? But If you shoot someone, and get sentenced to life in prison in almost any state, a life sentence is a minimum of 25 to 30 years. So I ask this to the RIAA, Should I be more afraid to download music than to shoot someone?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

30 total posts (Page 3 of 3)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

"little errors of syntax"

by santeewelding In reply to It just seems

Once you get a fingernail under them, and lift, they can prove entirely embarrassing to that king who can thereby be shown to otherwise wear no clothes.

I do not do it with abandon. I do it with a purposed fingernail.

Collapse -

No Jedi Master needed for this one.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Santee

Luke could have taken him out with the rest of the Beggar's Canyon denizens.

Collapse -


by 0utraged In reply to If your concern is someon ...

This is just a half assed statement I typed up on a moment's notice, and with a second look, I noticed that the jury placed the fine of $9250 per song in the first trial. But in any case, The RIAA is going after violators at random, I think there should be a minimum amount of songs downloaded per offender estabished, before they are allowed to prosecute. Granted, it would also violate recording artists' rights, but it would protect them in the long run. I.E. If I download 3 songs a month, and my friend downloads 10 songs a month, and you (Palmetto) download 350 songs a month and 26 movies, and I get pinched, and sued, and you walk away clean, thats dumb. If they put more time into investigating the more active offenders, they would make better progress in achieving their goal. The people that just want to have a few songs for thier ipod getting huge fines, and the people you see at gas stations bootlegging movies still get off scott free, that's ********.

Collapse -

Your wish has been granted.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Concern

"I think there should be a minimum amount of songs downloaded per offender estabished, before they are allowed to prosecute."

There is a minimum amount already: one.

"If they put more time into investigating the more active offenders, ..."

So is your complaint with the level of the penalties, or that they're not being universally enforced? If everyone who illegally downloaded content was subject to the exact same penalties as those you described, would you still consider the severity to be 'harsh'?

Collapse -

Could be

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Let me guess

a state of mind...
Next week "Outraged at people farting in elevators", after that "Outraged at people looking at me and pointing"...

Collapse -

In closing

by 0utraged In reply to Outraged by RIAA

I have a business to run, and it seems that a few individuals on here have too much time on their hands. Use you Jedi powers to hump eachother through a web cam. Here's my advice, get a girlfriend, work harder at your job. I post my opinion on something from my point of view, and you criticise me like i am a child, and try to correct me as if you give two shits about this topic. I'm always open for constructive criticism, but you jumped me like a pack of hungry banshees. Get a life.

Collapse -

Apparently, we all have too much time on our hands

by maxwell edison In reply to In closing
Collapse -

You do leave one minor thing of value

by santeewelding In reply to In closing

I hadn't thought of using the plural, "shits", to get past the censor.

Collapse -

That's what you get

by AnsuGisalas In reply to In closing

for not waiting for the cavalry.
The intellectual rights of distribution companies to the artistic produce of other parties is a can of worms that can be pried at from many angles.
You didn't, though. You just banged it down on the counter, pounded your chest, and shouted "Outraged!"
That's liable to get the hungry banshees riled up.

Collapse -


by maecuff In reply to In closing

You have a business to run? You must be VERY important.

In your place of business do you cry like a little ***** when your employees or clients don't agree with you? Just wondering.

Back to Software Forum
30 total posts (Page 3 of 3)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03

Related Discussions

Related Forums