aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 1:12pm
Re: Only a matter of time...
I fire off emails often. So often, in fact, that I'm almost positive Louie Gohmert's assistant has a special folder in her mailbox (probably somewhere under the recycle bin) just for emails from yours truly. You know what I get when I fire them off? Mostly nothing. A handful of time I received a canned response. Twice I actually received a response that was something near agreement (not on all my points, but a good compromise of my angry ramblings). Out of hundreds of emails that I've sent over the years that's all I have to show for it. I learned something from actually speaking to Mr. Gohmert earlier this year:
Emails get read, categorized, and if they have an especially good soundbite they are forwarded on to the rep. A letter...an actual physical letter...is almost always read.
aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 9:44am
I have a great piece of technology for you
It will prevent these boxes from recording anything you don't want them to. It's called duct tape. I use it for a lot of things, and if this ever moves forward I'll have another use for it.
A good alternative would be to set up something in line that sends 24 hour streaming hardcore fetish videos to the cable company instead. Maybe alternate that with 15 minute slide shows of goatse/tubgirl/whatever horrible things you can find. This technology would become worthless pretty quickly after that.
aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 11 Aug 2009 @ 8:17am
Re: Re: Re: Re: general question
No, no, I am taking it as legal advice! YOU GAVE ME LEGAL ADVICE! DON'T YOU DARE TAKE IT BACK NOW! I ALREADY STARTED MY LAWSUIT BASED ON THE LEGAL ADVICE YOU GAVE!
That's not what the word TEAL means. TEAL is a blue-green color.
"The real key is "deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently" - one of the benefits of creating a song is controlling how it is sold, how it is distributed, and how long it is on the market. File trading deprives the original creator of the song of these ownership rights forever, putting the music out there in a place where the owner can no longer control the benefits that he or she should have as the copyright holder."
Partially true, but distorted. Taking a CD from a store is, legally speaking, stealing. Distributing files that you have no distribution rights to is, legally speaking, copyright infringement. Mark Lemley, COPYRIGHT EXPERT AT STANFORD LAW (I assume you don't have a distinction like that) said "If I take your physical property, I have it and you no longer do. If I copy your song, I have it, but so do you." While I agree that the data itself is valuable and that you shouldn't infringe on copyright (my brother is a professional musician...he sings for his supper so I have very strong opinions on copyright), that doesn't change the fact that LEGALLY you will not go to jail for infringement. You will be taken to court by a company or individual, not by the state (I am assuming you're talking about the US since that's where this case is).
Let's discuss what he was accused of. Was he accused of theft? Grand theft? Grand larceny? Murder? No, because all of these things take away something physical. LEGALLY (yes, I'm referring to the law again even though you don't agree with how the law is worded) he was accused of and later found guilty of willful copyright infringement. The plaintiff was awarded damages. In a civil suit no 'crime' has been committed, but someone has instead been wronged. The person found guilty of the wrongdoing is then ordered to pay restitution to the damaged party, not serve time in jail.
Do you see the difference between the two? Unless you're in the business of interpreting the law (are you a judge? If so, where?) you do not get to dictate what certain words mean legally no matter how strongly you feel about it.
In summary: I am not for copyright infringement but let's call things what they are. That's why I called you all those names earlier. That's what you are. That's why when I discuss copyright infringement I don't try to muddy the issue and call it something it's not. Sure, stealing is easier to type for people who can't spell infringement. Sure, stealing is something that everyone has some feelings about so it is an emotionally swaying argument. Call it what it is, though, not what you want it to be. You want to change the law? Go buy yourself a congress-critter.
Ok shithead, here's the deal. With a very few exceptions, you will be charged with theft (annexation, appropriation, break-in, burglary, caper, cheating, crime, defrauding, deprivation, ad nauseum) by the state. You are charged with either Theft or Larceny depending on the state and how the exact laws read. Copyright infringement, however, is a civil matter and can only occur when a rights holder files a lawsuit against someone. I hope whatever law school you went to informed you of the difference. Did they? Answer - you never fucking went you dickless sack of shit. You don't know enough about the law to fill a god-damned bottle cap. I have more knowledge of intellectual property law in my BALLSACK than you have in your whole fucking body. You want to call me on it? You want to answer shit for me? Good. Do it. Show me what you have moron.
Stealing does have a legal definition in some vicinities. In others it's called larceny, which is a synonym for stealing. The shortened legal definition is as follows:
STEAL - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required.
So come on back you sorry piece of shit. Show me where I'm wrong. Even better, come on down to my house and we'll talk turkey. Maybe you could hire me to teach you everything I know about law. Next time you need to do a little fucking research before your sorry ass starts spouting about generic terms versus legal terms.
On the post: Zer01 Fails To Deliver Again; Blames Everyone Else, Dumps Buzzkirk, Threatens Legal Response To Reporters
Re:
On the post: Hollywood Says Due Process Is Too Damn Slow
Re:
On the post: The Return Of Cable Boxes That Spy On You
Re: Only a matter of time...
Emails get read, categorized, and if they have an especially good soundbite they are forwarded on to the rep. A letter...an actual physical letter...is almost always read.
On the post: The Return Of Cable Boxes That Spy On You
Re: Hmmm .....
On the post: Judge Throws Out Red Light Camera Tickets As Program Declared Illegal And Void
Re: Re: Re: Re: not so clear
On the post: Moby Explains RIAA Mindset: Please Make The Future Die
Re: I don't know about all that but ...
On the post: The Return Of Cable Boxes That Spy On You
Re:
On the post: The Law Isn't Quite Ready For Cloud Computing
Re: Re:
On the post: The Return Of Cable Boxes That Spy On You
I have a great piece of technology for you
A good alternative would be to set up something in line that sends 24 hour streaming hardcore fetish videos to the cable company instead. Maybe alternate that with 15 minute slide shows of goatse/tubgirl/whatever horrible things you can find. This technology would become worthless pretty quickly after that.
On the post: $1 Trillion Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Oprah Dismissed
Re: Re: Re: Re: general question
On the post: $1 Trillion Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Oprah Dismissed
Re: Re: general question
On the post: Southeastern Conference Wants To 'Control Memories' Of Sporting Events; Limits Reporters & Fans
Shouldn't that be OR discussing a sporting event?
On the post: Can Your Slashdot Comments Get You A Job?
Re: Re: Re: No way, baby!
On the post: Can Your Slashdot Comments Get You A Job?
Re: No way, baby!
On the post: How You Feel About Rorschach Tests On Wikipedia Says A Lot About You
How I feel
"A symmetrical ink blot card, as designed by Rorschach?"
"Yes, but what does that Ink Blot LOOK like?"
"Some spilt paint?"
"Ok, but if it were, say, something else, what would it be?"
"Oh! I get you. Well I SUPPOSE I could be... er..."
"Yes?"
"Spilt tomato sauce?"
On the post: Entitlement Society: Grad Can't Find Job, Sues Her College For Tuition Back
Re:
On the post: Tenenbaum Dinged $22,500 Per Song; $675,000 Total
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It isn't a legal issue.
On the post: Tenenbaum Dinged $22,500 Per Song; $675,000 Total
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It isn't a legal issue.
"The real key is "deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently" - one of the benefits of creating a song is controlling how it is sold, how it is distributed, and how long it is on the market. File trading deprives the original creator of the song of these ownership rights forever, putting the music out there in a place where the owner can no longer control the benefits that he or she should have as the copyright holder."
Partially true, but distorted. Taking a CD from a store is, legally speaking, stealing. Distributing files that you have no distribution rights to is, legally speaking, copyright infringement. Mark Lemley, COPYRIGHT EXPERT AT STANFORD LAW (I assume you don't have a distinction like that) said "If I take your physical property, I have it and you no longer do. If I copy your song, I have it, but so do you." While I agree that the data itself is valuable and that you shouldn't infringe on copyright (my brother is a professional musician...he sings for his supper so I have very strong opinions on copyright), that doesn't change the fact that LEGALLY you will not go to jail for infringement. You will be taken to court by a company or individual, not by the state (I am assuming you're talking about the US since that's where this case is).
Let's discuss what he was accused of. Was he accused of theft? Grand theft? Grand larceny? Murder? No, because all of these things take away something physical. LEGALLY (yes, I'm referring to the law again even though you don't agree with how the law is worded) he was accused of and later found guilty of willful copyright infringement. The plaintiff was awarded damages. In a civil suit no 'crime' has been committed, but someone has instead been wronged. The person found guilty of the wrongdoing is then ordered to pay restitution to the damaged party, not serve time in jail.
Do you see the difference between the two? Unless you're in the business of interpreting the law (are you a judge? If so, where?) you do not get to dictate what certain words mean legally no matter how strongly you feel about it.
In summary: I am not for copyright infringement but let's call things what they are. That's why I called you all those names earlier. That's what you are. That's why when I discuss copyright infringement I don't try to muddy the issue and call it something it's not. Sure, stealing is easier to type for people who can't spell infringement. Sure, stealing is something that everyone has some feelings about so it is an emotionally swaying argument. Call it what it is, though, not what you want it to be. You want to change the law? Go buy yourself a congress-critter.
On the post: Tenenbaum Dinged $22,500 Per Song; $675,000 Total
Re: Re: Re: It isn't a legal issue.
Stealing does have a legal definition in some vicinities. In others it's called larceny, which is a synonym for stealing. The shortened legal definition is as follows:
STEAL - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required.
So come on back you sorry piece of shit. Show me where I'm wrong. Even better, come on down to my house and we'll talk turkey. Maybe you could hire me to teach you everything I know about law. Next time you need to do a little fucking research before your sorry ass starts spouting about generic terms versus legal terms.
You're too stupid to live.
On the post: Tenenbaum Dinged $22,500 Per Song; $675,000 Total
Re: Re: Re: It isn't a legal issue.
Next >>