[News] MAFIAA Attacks Children, Professor Accuses MAFIAA of Abusing the Law
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
Will The RIAA Shut Down Public School Kids From Singing Pop Songs On YouTube?
,----[ Quote ]
| Dave Title points our attention to a public elementary school in New York
| City (PS22) that is making news for putting together a chorus that sings
| various pop songs (and sings them well!).
|
| [...]
|
| But, of course, Title wonders how the RIAA feels about all of this:
|
| However, this seems like a video ripe for takedown by the RIAA. These
| kids did not get the rights to perform this song and they are now
| spreading their cover for free! This is just the sort of activity the
| record industry seems to keen on stopping - whether it is a chorus of
| school-kids or a couple of people doing a karaoke version of the latest
| Beyonce tune.
`----
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090527/0253005023.shtml
Harvard Prof Calls RIAA Lawsuits “Unconstitutional Abuse of Law”
,----[ Quote ]
| Charles Nesson writes an op-ed piece explaining why RIAA lawsuits targeting
| file-sharers is an abuse of the legal process, and that the real problem is
| the tension between “our antiquated copyright laws and the social reality
| of ‘digital natives,’” those that have grown up immersed in a digital world.
`----
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86315/harvard-prof-calls-riaa-lawsuits-unconstitutional-abuse-of-law/
Recent:
The RIAA vs. 19 Year Old Cancer Patient
,----[ Quote ]
| Among the RIAA's latest targets in its campaign to sue its customer base into
| submission is a 19-year-old cancer patient. Ciaro Sauro was ruled a music
| pirate after failing to defend herself in court against charges from the RIAA
| that she was sharing music files online. Ms. Sauro has said she couldn't
| defend herself as she is hospitalized once a week, and vehemently denies the
| allegations that she is a pirate.
`----
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/entertainment/2009/3/26/the_riaa_vs_19_year_old.htm
RIAA Sued For Racketeering Yet Again
,----[ Quote ]
| A few people have filed lawsuits against the RIAA for racketeering in the
| past, though these charges have always been dismissed. In one such case,
| where the filed charges were dismissed over the summer, new claims were filed
| again charging the RIAA with racketeering for extortion, mail fraud and wire
| fraud in its ongoing efforts involving weakly supported threats against
| alleged file sharers demanding money to avoid being sued.
`----
http://techdirt.com/articles/20081121/1203512916.shtml
RIAA lied to the US Congress
,----[ Quote ]
| In April the RIAA told US lawmakers that it was not going to chase individual
| file-sharers any more and was going to stop dragging grannies, homeless
| people and kids into court using dodgy evidence obtained by methods that
| seemed to break some state laws.
`----
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1137039/riaa-lied-us-congress
RIAA: "we have no choice" but to file more named lawsuits
,----[ Quote ]
| The RIAA said it would file no more "new" lawsuits against individual
| file-swappers, but it filed more such lawsuits in April. How to explain the
| apparent contradiction? By defining "new" in a particular way.
`----
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/riaa-we-have-no-choice-but-to-file-more-named-lawsuits.ars
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkofE3cACgkQU4xAY3RXLo79zQCgqrD6iCSJryqFKFsDugo3jvCN
iAcAnA5ixVucEGa/6shlZZ3+FiJfUCis
=QZ/U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
High Plains Thumper
> Will The RIAA Shut Down Public School Kids From Singing Pop
> Songs On YouTube?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>> Dave Title points our attention to a public elementary
>> school in New York City (PS22) that is making news for
>> putting together a chorus that sings various pop songs (and
>> sings them well!).
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> But, of course, Title wonders how the RIAA feels about all
>> of this:
>>
>> However, this seems like a video ripe for takedown by the
>> RIAA. These kids did not get the rights to perform this song
>> and they are now spreading their cover for free! This is
>> just the sort of activity the record industry seems to keen
>> on stopping - whether it is a chorus of school-kids or a
>> couple of people doing a karaoke version of the latest
>> Beyonce tune.
> `----
>
> http://techdirt.com/articles/20090527/0253005023.shtml
I found out that Girl Scouts are not permitted to sing or dance
to a boom box around a camp fire, due to the likes of
organisations like ASCAP.
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-96/08-23-96/b02li056.htm
[quote]
Starting this summer, the American Society of Composers, Authors
& Publishers has informed camps nationwide that they must pay
license fees to use any of the four million copyrighted songs
written or published by Ascap's 68,000 members. Those who sing or
play but don't pay, Ascap warns, may be violating the law.
Like restaurants, hotels, bars, stores and clubs, which already
pay fees to use copyrighted music, camps -- including non-profit
ones such as those run by the Girl Scouts -- are being told to
ante up. The demand covers not only recorded music but also songs
around the campfire.
"They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts -- they can pay
for the music, too," says John Lo Frumento, Ascap's chief
operating officer. If offenders keep singing without paying, he
says, "we will sue them if necessary."
No more "Edelweiss" free of charge. No more "This Land Is Your
Land." An Ascap spokesman says "Kumbaya" isn't on its list, but
"God Bless America" is.
Diablo, an all-volunteer day camp that charges girls $44 a week
to cover expenses, would owe Ascap $591 this year, based on the
camp's size and how long it runs. Another composer group, Sesac
Inc., which owns copyrights to such popular tunes as Bob Dylan's
"Blowin' in the Wind," says it plans to ask camps for another set
of royalties this fall.
[/quote]
Even "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted:
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
[quote]
The Chicago-based music publisher Clayton F. Summy Company,
working with Jessica Hill, published and copyrighted "Happy
Birthday" in 1935. Under the laws in effect at the time, the
Hills' copyright would have expired after one 28-year term and a
renewal of similar length, falling into public domain by 1991.
However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term of copyright
protection to 75 years from date of publication, and the
Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 added another 20 years, so
under current law the copyright protection of "Happy Birthday"
will remain intact until at least 2030.
Does this mean that everyone who warbles "Happy Birthday to You"
to family members at birthday parties is engaging in copyright
infringement if they fail to obtain permission from or pay
royalties to the song's publisher? No. Royalties are due, of
course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or
singing it for profit, using it in movies, television programs,
and stage shows, or incorporating it into musical products such
as watches and greeting cards; as well, royalties are due for
public performance, defined by copyright law as performances
which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where
a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a
family and its social acquaintances is gathered." So, crooning
"Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is
fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such
as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license
from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements
are rarely prosecuted).
[/quote]
The problem lies with the definition of copyright. 95 years is
an unreasonable time. Almost anything written almost 100 years
ago is no longer considered "music worthy". A reasonable term
would be something of the order of 50 years, which would
adequately cover the original artist. The purpose of the
additional 45 years is to protect the interest of companies, not
the artist, IMHO.
This is simply abuse. A non-profit organisation around a camp
site singing a popular tune is going beyond the reasonable means
of seeking compensation.
Years ago I remember my high school band teacher telling me, that
if I gigged in a small night club or pub, I would probably not
have to worry about copyrights. However, it seems that nowadays,
for the sake of greed, these companies would go after the small
performers and amateur performers.
Thus, if I perform a popular tune at amateur hour at a small
coffee shop, I/the restaurant are owing to pay a royalty fee,
which adds impetus to not perform at all, which I gather is what
they want.
Then too, if what I perform "sounds like" someone's copyrighted
rendition of a public domain song (and there was some artist
clown some years back who wanted to sue another performer, for
using several notes from his song, a "theme"), then I suppose I
could open myself up for a lawsuit.
It is nothing more than a pretense for greed, IMHO, not much
different than the patent FUD that Linux infringes on Microsoft's
software patents.
--
HPT
DFS
> I found out that Girl Scouts are not permitted to sing or dance
> to a boom box around a camp fire, due to the likes of
> organisations like ASCAP.
>
> http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-96/08-23-96/b02li056.htm
> It is nothing more than a pretense for greed, IMHO, not much
> different than the patent FUD that Linux infringes on Microsoft's
> software patents.
And not any different than you going to work each day and demanding to be
paid.
You're an idiot, HPT
High Plains Thumper
http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
It is a well detailed summary of the anti-competitive acts of
monopoly maintenance by the Microsoft Corporation, authors of the
Windows brand of OS software. It outlines the anti-competitive
acts against Linux including patent FUD, which is found on Page
23 of the document:
[quote]
In an apparent escalation of its patent FUD strategy, Microsoft
sued the navigational system vendor, TomTom, for patent
infringement at the end of February 2009. Three patent claims
related to Linux are included in the lawsuit.[135] At least two
of them are related to highly questionable patents on long file
name support in Windows, which have been partially invalidated by
an EC patent court on the grounds that Microsoft’s patent claims
were “not based on inventive activity”.[136] While Microsoft has
publicly claimed that its action is not directed against Linux or
open source, and the case was settled in March 2009 pursuant to a
mostly confidential agreement, this represents an aggressive
development of Microsoft’s use of spurious or highly questionable
patent claims to intimidate and eliminate competition from Linux
in order to maintain or strengthen its dominant position in the
OS market.
135. See Bruce Perens, Analyzing Microsoft’s TomTom Lawsuit,
DATAMATION.COM, Mar. 1, 2009, available at
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3807801/Bruce-Perens-Analyzing-Microsofts-Linux-Lawsuit.htm
and Richard Hillesley, TomTom – The drums of a patent war with
Microsoft? ITPRO.COM, Mar. 5, 2009, available at
http://www.itpro.co.uk/610093/tomtom-the-drums-of-a-patent-war-with-microsoft.
136. See, e.g., Federal Patent Court declares FAT patent of
Microsoft null and void, HEISE ONLINE, Mar. 2, 2007, available at
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/86141.
[/quote]
> You're an idiot, HPT
Who's the idiot? I'd give up the ad hominem attacks if I were
you, it makes you look incredibly stupid.
--
HPT
Nigel Feltham
How is it the same - it's more like going to work for one day as a teenager
then expecting to be not only repeatedly paid again for that day's work for
the rest of your life but paid whenever anyone else in the world does the
same job you did on that day.
These people are doing the equivalent of a Carpenter making and selling one
chair then wanting to be paid again everytime someone sits on not only that
chair but any other chair made in a similar style.
How is it fair to claim (as some UK singers and bands from the 50's have
been doing) that still being paid for a days work (or just an hour or 2's
work in some cases) you did 50 years ago isn't enough and you want it
extended to 75+ years with the cash continuing to be paid to their
kids/grandkids if they don't live till the end of the 75 years all because
they churned out a non-physical product on that day?
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>>> I found out that Girl Scouts are not permitted to sing or dance
>>> to a boom box around a camp fire, due to the likes of
>>> organisations like ASCAP.
>>>
>>> http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-96/08-23-96/b02li056.htm
>>
>>> It is nothing more than a pretense for greed, IMHO, not much
>>> different than the patent FUD that Linux infringes on Microsoft's
>>> software patents.
>>
>> And not any different than you going to work each day and demanding to be
>> paid.
>>
>> You're an idiot, HPT
Strong meat from Mr. DFS!
> How is it the same - it's more like going to work for one day as a teenager
> then expecting to be not only repeatedly paid again for that day's work for
> the rest of your life but paid whenever anyone else in the world does the
> same job you did on that day.
>
> These people are doing the equivalent of a Carpenter making and selling one
> chair then wanting to be paid again everytime someone sits on not only that
> chair but any other chair made in a similar style.
>
> How is it fair to claim (as some UK singers and bands from the 50's have
> been doing) that still being paid for a days work (or just an hour or 2's
> work in some cases) you did 50 years ago isn't enough and you want it
> extended to 75+ years with the cash continuing to be paid to their
> kids/grandkids if they don't live till the end of the 75 years all because
> they churned out a non-physical product on that day?
I'm sure that would be right up DFS's alley.
--
Q: How many supply-siders does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. The darkness will cause the light bulb to change by itself.
baaaaabaa...@gmail.com
>
> I'm sure that would be right up DFS's alley.
I await the day when you Linux freetard freakazoids actually practice
what you preach.
Hell, Schestowitz apparently won't even proofread a Linux paper
without being compensated.
Most Linux supporters in this group use Windows by day.
Doesn't that bother you people?
I suppose not.
So when Schestowitz finally graduates, let us see him give away his
work like he expects others to do.
Homer
> This is simply abuse. A non-profit organisation around a camp site
> singing a popular tune is going beyond the reasonable means of
> seeking compensation.
Read this:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090421/0328544592.shtml
I fail to see what possible, defensible, inalienable "rights" publishers
have to prevent people from doing nothing more sinister than utilising
their own memory and vocal cords for their own private purposes. This is
not an assertion of "rights", it's an abuse of /power/, and one of the
most sickening and dangerous social and political developments of our
time. Once others have the legally mandated "right" to assert powers
over others' /minds/, you know liberty, democracy and common decency
have been defeated by totalitarianism, as Orwell so convincingly and
vividly demonstrated.
If possessing an unlicensed copy of published material is a violation of
copyright law, to the extent that even /singing/ a song purely from
memory is such a "violation", then surely the mere fact that this
"protected" data is stored in the human mind must mean that is /also/ a
"violation", as surely as if it were stored on a HDD or CD-R.
Such thinking (and subsequent action) sets a very dangerous precedent,
and it isn't difficult to see where this will lead, if allowed to
continue unchecked. But who is there to stop this sinister progression?
Not the bent politicians, that's for sure.
And exactly how "bent" are these politicians? Well, the US
Administration claims the underground ACTA negotiations, to "protect"
global Intellectual Monopolies, are a "matter of national security", for
example, and as such the process cannot be made transparent, as demanded
by the democratic process. Circumventing democracy in underground
bunkers, is the surest sign yet that a society has collapsed into
fascism. Where have we seen this before?
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which
| the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf
| denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty.
| Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of
| the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today
| among human creatures." ~ Abraham Lincoln
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
02:10:58 up 1 day, 6:09, 3 users, load average: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00
Hadron
> DFS wrote:
>
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>>> I found out that Girl Scouts are not permitted to sing or dance
>>> to a boom box around a camp fire, due to the likes of
>>> organisations like ASCAP.
>>>
>>> http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-96/08-23-96/b02li056.htm
>>
>>> It is nothing more than a pretense for greed, IMHO, not much
>>> different than the patent FUD that Linux infringes on Microsoft's
>>> software patents.
>>
>> And not any different than you going to work each day and demanding to be
>> paid.
>>
>> You're an idiot, HPT
>
> How is it the same - it's more like going to work for one day as a teenager
> then expecting to be not only repeatedly paid again for that day's work for
> the rest of your life but paid whenever anyone else in the world does the
> same job you did on that day.
Just as I thought COLA idiocy could not plumb any more depths.
Tell you what : Ask Liarmutt or Pete Koehlmann how their companies
charge their customers.
>
> These people are doing the equivalent of a Carpenter making and selling one
> chair then wanting to be paid again everytime someone sits on not only that
> chair but any other chair made in a similar style.
Err, its not a chair .....
>
> How is it fair to claim (as some UK singers and bands from the 50's have
> been doing) that still being paid for a days work (or just an hour or 2's
> work in some cases) you did 50 years ago isn't enough and you want it
> extended to 75+ years with the cash continuing to be paid to their
> kids/grandkids if they don't live till the end of the 75 years all because
> they churned out a non-physical product on that day?
>
>
Don't want it? Dont buy it. What confuses you?
SW and "Services" are sold as licenses to use.
Holy cow. If YOU wrote an OS would you expect to paid once and then
provide free updates and upgrades for years?
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper spake:
>
>> This is simply abuse. A non-profit organisation around a
>> camp site singing a popular tune is going beyond the
>> reasonable means of seeking compensation.
>
> Read this:
>
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090421/0328544592.shtml
>
> I fail to see what possible, defensible, inalienable "rights"
> publishers have to prevent people from doing nothing more
> sinister than utilising their own memory and vocal cords for
> their own private purposes. This is not an assertion of
> "rights", it's an abuse of /power/, and one of the most
> sickening and dangerous social and political developments of
> our time. Once others have the legally mandated "right" to
> assert powers over others' /minds/, you know liberty,
> democracy and common decency have been defeated by
> totalitarianism, as Orwell so convincingly and vividly
> demonstrated.
>
> If possessing an unlicensed copy of published material is a
> violation of copyright law, to the extent that even /singing/
> a song purely from memory is such a "violation", then surely
> the mere fact that this "protected" data is stored in the
> human mind must mean that is /also/ a "violation", as surely
> as if it were stored on a HDD or CD-R.
It certainly defies common sense. It is as though they are
grappling for every penny and farthing they can, rather than what
is considered common sense and decency. It is nothing more than
a pretext for greed.
> Such thinking (and subsequent action) sets a very dangerous
> precedent, and it isn't difficult to see where this will lead,
> if allowed to continue unchecked. But who is there to stop
> this sinister progression? Not the bent politicians, that's
> for sure.
It is dangerous. There should be no penalties or fines without
proper due process. The problem is that these organisations are
basically para-police organisations, chartered to fine but not a
function of government.
> And exactly how "bent" are these politicians? Well, the US
> Administration claims the underground ACTA negotiations, to
> "protect" global Intellectual Monopolies, are a "matter of
> national security", for example, and as such the process
> cannot be made transparent, as demanded by the democratic
> process. Circumventing democracy in underground bunkers, is
> the surest sign yet that a society has collapsed into fascism.
> Where have we seen this before?
When children are not permitted in schools to sing a popular tune
for a talent show, girl scouts are not allowed to sing a popular
song around a camp fire, and someone with a guitar is not allowed
to strum and sing to a popular tune in a gathering larger than a
family is simply abuse. Particularly if a song sounds similar to
a professional artist although original and is told to remove it
from a non-profit (or profit) blog is abuse. The whole industry
has simply gone mad.
--
HPT
DFS
> When children are not permitted in schools to sing a popular tune
> for a talent show, girl scouts are not allowed to sing a popular
> song around a camp fire, and someone with a guitar is not allowed
> to strum and sing to a popular tune in a gathering larger than a
> family is simply abuse.
They are allowed, though they might have to pay first.
> Particularly if a song sounds similar to
> a professional artist although original and is told to remove it
> from a non-profit (or profit) blog is abuse. The whole industry
> has simply gone mad.
Then starting tomorrow you should announce to your employer that you'll be
working for free from now on. You will, right? Or are you just "mad"?
Copyrighted songs and software and movies are ideas and expressions of ideas
and are the private property of the creator. Sure, it's politically
incorrect and unseemly to force Girl Scouts to pay for licenses to sing
copyrighted songs at their camps, but it's not immoral or illegal. My guess
is the problem ASCAP has with giving them exceptions - which they did,
you're uninformed as usual - is it invites legal challenges from other
groups who claim they should be excepted as well.
union...@gmail.com
> Holy cow. If YOU wrote an OS would you expect to paid once and then
> provide free updates and upgrades for years?
So when can we expect an update for Happy Birthday?
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> When children are not permitted in schools to sing a popular
>> tune for a talent show, girl scouts are not allowed to sing
>> a popular song around a camp fire, and someone with a guitar
>> is not allowed to strum and sing to a popular tune in a
>> gathering larger than a family is simply abuse.
>
> They are allowed, though they might have to pay first.
Why should girl scouts pay a performance licensing fee to sing
their favourite song around the camp fire, when they already have
a legally paid for CD that is in the CD player? Or if they sing
it acapella from memory? And that without making a profit?
>> Particularly if a song sounds similar to a professional
>> artist although original and is told to remove it from a
>> non-profit (or profit) blog is abuse. The whole industry
>> has simply gone mad.
>
> Then starting tomorrow you should announce to your employer
> that you'll be working for free from now on. You will, right?
> Or are you just "mad"?
Try to keep on topic, you look incredibly stupid with your ad
hominem spiels.
> Copyrighted songs and software and movies are ideas and
> expressions of ideas and are the private property of the
> creator. Sure, it's politically incorrect and unseemly to
> force Girl Scouts to pay for licenses to sing copyrighted
> songs at their camps, but it's not immoral or illegal.
Says who? The RIAA? All of this has suddenly come about when
the copyrights of 50 years were extended to 75 with another 20 in
1998, making it 95 years. They have lost all common sense.
"Hey, you with the brown beret standing around the camp fire
singing "I Did It Again" acapella, get your hands up!"
The girl scouts were not passing around illegally burned copies
of CD's.
> My guess is the problem ASCAP has with giving them exceptions
> - which they did, you're uninformed as usual -
More ad hominem ....
> is it invites legal challenges from other groups who claim
> they should be excepted as well.
Nonsense. That argument in essence is like "we discontinued
certain OTC medications because meth houses use them to make
illegal drugs" (which has happened already in US.)
--
HPT
chrisv
>>
>> Holy cow.
Fsck off, asswipe. Your masters in Redmond are calling.
Nigel Feltham
> Why?
> Did you forget the words?
No but you cannot post the lyrics for Happy Birthday here or even sing the
song in public without risking getting sued for copyright theft - it's
still in copyright till 2030 in USA and 2016 in Europe despite being based
on a song written in 1893 (called 'Good morning to you', the writers of
which got the copyright on happy birthday in 1935 after suing for the
similarity to the earlier song and winning) and despite the original
copyright holders having died in 1946.
This is a strange one - the lyrics are still in copyright but the tune is
public domain having been published before copyrights were introduced in
1909. The Lyrics were also not written by those who obtained the original
copyright on them either but were won in court because they used the same
tune as the good morning to you song that's now public domain.
How does this type of copyright benefit anyone then - Warner music currently
get the royalties on this song ($2m per year) over 60 years after the death
of the writers of a public domain song with same tune despite neither
Warner or the original copyright owner writing the bit that's now
copyrighted.
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
http://www.unhappybirthday.com/
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/7/5/112441/6280
Hadron
But meanwhile in the real world freetards equate something like that
with the more enforced prevention of stealing NEW money making songs.
union...@gmail.com
> Did you forget the words?
Oh! What a nice glib reply! A beautiful twist to my own snotty reply
to Hadron.
No Moshe I did not forget the words. But here, let me help you.
Carefully watch my lips ...
Hadron says the pirates, I mean Big Music Companies, deserve money
every time little girls sing to each other. And they should get the
money because music is copyrighted, just like software is
copyrighted. Software needs updates, and money is needed to do the
work for getting updates out. And thats why Big Music Companies
should get money, since money is needed to get updates from long dead
composers. Are you keeping up with this Moshe? You look confused. I
must be explaining this badly. Sorry, it makes so much sense when
Hadron says it.
Hence my own little contribution to this thread.
Hadron
> On Jun 1, 6:30 am, Moshe Goldfarb <goldfarbmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 May 2009 21:12:48 -0700 (PDT), unionpe...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 29, 11:50 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Holy cow. If YOU wrote an OS would you expect to paid once and then
>> >> provide free updates and upgrades for years?
>>
>> > So when can we expect an update for Happy Birthday?
>>
>> Why?
>> Did you forget the words?
>
> Oh! What a nice glib reply! A beautiful twist to my own snotty reply
> to Hadron.
>
> No Moshe I did not forget the words. But here, let me help you.
> Carefully watch my lips ...
> Hadron says the pirates, I mean Big Music Companies, deserve money
> every time little girls sing to each other. And they should get the
Of course Hadron never said that. You are a liar. I also dont think they
should get money for singing newer songs as "amateurs". They should pay
if they use material for commercial gain.
> money because music is copyrighted, just like software is
> copyrighted. Software needs updates, and money is needed to do the
> work for getting updates out. And thats why Big Music Companies
> should get money, since money is needed to get updates from long dead
> composers. Are you keeping up with this Moshe? You look confused. I
> must be explaining this badly. Sorry, it makes so much sense when
> Hadron says it.
>
> Hence my own little contribution to this thread.
Which was just lies and bullshit as usual. How do you sleep at night?
Peter Köhlmann
> union...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> On Jun 1, 6:30 am, Moshe Goldfarb <goldfarbmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 May 2009 21:12:48 -0700 (PDT), unionpe...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On May 29, 11:50 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Holy cow. If YOU wrote an OS would you expect to paid once and then
>>> >> provide free updates and upgrades for years?
>>>
>>> > So when can we expect an update for Happy Birthday?
>>>
>>> Why?
>>> Did you forget the words?
>>
>> Oh! What a nice glib reply! A beautiful twist to my own snotty reply
>> to Hadron.
>>
>> No Moshe I did not forget the words. But here, let me help you.
>> Carefully watch my lips ...
>> Hadron says the pirates, I mean Big Music Companies, deserve money
>> every time little girls sing to each other. And they should get the
>
> Of course Hadron never said that. You are a liar. I also dont think they
> should get money for singing newer songs as "amateurs". They should pay
> if they use material for commercial gain.
So those little girls naturally should pay, if they perform while asking
to donate money for their sick and poor little school comrade
Yes, it sounds so much better now, Hadron Snot Quark
>> money because music is copyrighted, just like software is
>> copyrighted. Software needs updates, and money is needed to do the
>> work for getting updates out. And thats why Big Music Companies
>> should get money, since money is needed to get updates from long dead
>> composers. Are you keeping up with this Moshe? You look confused. I
>> must be explaining this badly. Sorry, it makes so much sense when
>> Hadron says it.
>>
>> Hence my own little contribution to this thread.
>
> Which was just lies and bullshit as usual. How do you sleep at night?
>
I guess much better than you miserable filthy scum
--
My other computer is your windows box
chrisv
>Hadron quacked:
>>
>> Which was just lies and bullshit as usual. How do you sleep at night?
>
>I guess much better than you miserable filthy scum
Probably not. Once you become a complete turd, like Quack, "little"
things, like being a bald-faced lying asshole, don't bother you much.
union...@gmail.com
> unionpe...@gmail.com writes:
> > On Jun 1, 6:30 am, Moshe Goldfarb <goldfarbmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 31 May 2009 21:12:48 -0700 (PDT), unionpe...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 29, 11:50 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Holy cow. If YOU wrote an OS would you expect to paid once and then
> >> >> provide free updates and upgrades for years?
>
> >> > So when can we expect an update for Happy Birthday?
>
> >> Why?
> >> Did you forget the words?
>
> > Oh! What a nice glib reply! A beautiful twist to my own snotty reply
> > to Hadron.
>
> > No Moshe I did not forget the words. But here, let me help you.
> > Carefully watch my lips ...
> > Hadron says the pirates, I mean Big Music Companies, deserve money
> > every time little girls sing to each other. And they should get the
>
> Of course Hadron never said that. You are a liar.
What? Did I mix things up again? Let me go back and see.
1) Roy posted "Will The RIAA Shut Down Public School Kids From Singing
Pop Songs On YouTube? "
2) High Plains Thumper told the Girl Scout tale.
3) DFS said "And not any different than you going to work each day and
demanding to be paid."
4) Nigel Feltham disagreed and asked how they could be the same
5) You jumped in with "Just as I thought COLA idiocy could not plumb
any more depths." Then blah blah blah, and a bit later came the If
You Wrote an OS bit.
6) then me.
Ahhh, I see my mistake. It was DFS that came up with those ideas. I
do apologise for mixing you two up. You wrote so elegantly and
smoothly I thought it started with you. But Hadron, why the sharp
reaction? Its not as if you found what he posted revolting. You took
his ideas and ran with them. What's the problem? Is it because I did
not give DFS his due? I do hope it is not that you just wanted to
throw around some cheap shot insults.
> I also dont think they
> should get money for singing newer songs as "amateurs". They should pay
> if they use material for commercial gain.
Whew! That's a relief. You sure did not indicate that in the
previous message. Wait a minute. Are those lawyer weasel words? Do
Girl Scout campfires count as commercial gain?
> > money because music is copyrighted, just like software is
> > copyrighted. Software needs updates, and money is needed to do the
> > work for getting updates out. And thats why Big Music Companies
> > should get money, since money is needed to get updates from long dead
> > composers. Are you keeping up with this Moshe? You look confused. I
> > must be explaining this badly. Sorry, it makes so much sense when
> > Hadron says it.
>
> > Hence my own little contribution to this thread.
>
> Which was just lies and bullshit as usual. How do you sleep at night?
Well, I have a deviated septum so I need to sleep on my side to keep
my nose open. Amazingly, needing to sleep this way makes a couch more
comfortable than a bed. It is soooooo relaxing to nestle into the
back dip of a couch, and a nice pillow against the arm keeps my head
at the right level with respect to the spine. It makes for a nice
relaxing night. Thanks for asking. How do you sleep?
union...@gmail.com
Oh, hog generous! ASCAP gave them a pass. Most likely the Boy Scouts
as well.
So DFS, does this mean that generally, you're OK with the idea that
girls singing to themselves around a campfire can be copyright
pirates?
chrisv
>But Hadron, why the sharp reaction?
Because "Hadron" is a piece of shit, that's why. What else would call
an honest person making an honest mistake a "liar"? What else would
call honest people "liars" while itself being a shameless liar?
--
"OK, so wheres the proof that hes a troll of any kind and does lots of
nymshifting?" - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark, defending
flatfish
Homer
> On May 31, 9:03 pm, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> Copyrighted songs and software and movies are ideas and expressions
>> of ideas and are the private property of the creator.
According to the law, yes, but then the /law/ is morally wrong. It even
admits as much, otherwise it would not concede that such "protections"
should be for a limited time only - they'd be permanent.
Perhaps you'd care to explain how something can be deemed to be
someone's "property" for a /limited time only/, then forcibly removed
from them, for no other reason than the passage of time, if that
"something" is indeed any type of /real/ property?
The fact is that /knowledge/ is /nobody's/ "property" ... it's the
cumulative works of all mankind. Listen to any song ... it's just
elements of other songs which have come before - some more obviously so
than others. The same can be said of films, books, so-called inventions,
or any other "creation". In fact there has only ever been /one/ creator
... everything else is nothing more than a remix at best, and simple
observation at worst.
The idea that any published knowledge can be claimed as exclusive
property is perverse, not only because of the obvious fact that it must
either be a derivative work (knowledge does not simply appear in
someone's mind from nowhere, it must be acquired) or a simple
observation, but also because there is no way to prove originality
without first consulting with every person in the world, living or dead.
Not all ideas are /published/, since not everyone has either the means
nor the will to do so.
So the premise of Intellectual Monopoly has nothing whatsoever to do
with /creation/, but is instead just about /registration/ (e.g. like
gold prospectors staking a claim), and as such is utterly indefensible.
That's not "proof" of ownership, it's opportunistic theft from the
communal pool of all mankind's knowledge - or more accurately, like
kidnapping a hostage for ransom.
But by far the most sinister aspect of Intellectual Monopoly is the fact
that it asserts ownership and control over others' /minds/, since it
attempts to prohibit and inhibit the dissemination of that which is
readily observable with the senses. To compound this perversion, the
Intellectual Monopolists then have the audacity to demand to be paid
each and every time this knowledge passes from one individual to another
... even to the extent of a group of children singing songs in private.
It's beyond perverse. And this payment has /nothing/ whatsoever to do
with "work", since the work to "create" (i.e. remix) this knowledge
happened precisely /once/, and the /creators/ have already been paid at
least /once/ for their labour.
If a company manufactures a spade, I expect to have to pay for that
spade only /once/, not each and every time I dig a hole with it.
But then a spade, like any other tangible goods, is /real/ property,
unlike this fictitious substance called Intellectual "Property".
The fact that this Intellectual "Property" can be duplicated with
nothing more than the senses, should be enough evidence to prove that it
cannot be any kind of "property" at all. Indeed the fact that this
"property" *is* just a mass duplication of a given single past event,
should be sufficient to convince people that demanding payment for these
facsimiles is profoundly wrong, irrespective of any supposed "proof" of
originality.
> So DFS, does this mean that generally, you're OK with the idea that
> girls singing to themselves around a campfire can be copyright
> pirates?
People like DooFuS probably believe we are morally obligated to pay the
Intellectual Monopolists just for /remembering/ a song, much less
/singing/ it. He's the living embodiment of totalitarian ideals.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which
| the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf
| denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty.
| Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of
| the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today
| among human creatures." ~ Abraham Lincoln
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
21:30:19 up 6 days, 1:28, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Hadron
> Verily I say unto thee, that union...@gmail.com spake thusly:
>> On May 31, 9:03 pm, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>>> Copyrighted songs and software and movies are ideas and expressions
>>> of ideas and are the private property of the creator.
>
> According to the law, yes, but then the /law/ is morally wrong.
ZZZZzzzzz..............
better than a sleeping pill and an omnibus of Willy Poaster
"contributions" to get to sleep.
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that union...@gmail.com spake thusly:
>> On May 31, 9:03 pm, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>>> Copyrighted songs and software and movies are ideas and expressions
>>> of ideas and are the private property of the creator.
>
> According to the law, yes, but then the /law/ is morally wrong. It even
> admits as much, otherwise it would not concede that such "protections"
> should be for a limited time only - they'd be permanent.
What? The fact that something is for a limited time implies, to you, an
admission of immorality? That makes no sense.
> Perhaps you'd care to explain how something can be deemed to be
> someone's "property" for a /limited time only/, then forcibly removed
> from them, for no other reason than the passage of time, if that
> "something" is indeed any type of /real/ property?
Like with some many other debates, there is an arbitrary nature to the
setting of the time... much like with the question as to when someone should
be able to vote or drive.
> The fact is that /knowledge/ is /nobody's/ "property" ... it's the
> cumulative works of all mankind.
What? If John Doe writes a song, it is not *your* work, it is his. If he
writes a piece of software, it is *his* work, not yours.
> Listen to any song ... it's just elements of other songs which have come
> before - some more obviously so than others. The same can be said of films,
> books, so-called inventions, or any other "creation". In fact there has only
> ever been /one/ creator ... everything else is nothing more than a remix at
> best, and simple observation at worst.
We learn from others... so our work is not our own? What? That is absurd.
When you buy a car, the ideas that went into that car were learned from
others... should you not have to pay for it? Only pay the price of the
parts and not the labor?
> The idea that any published knowledge can be claimed as exclusive
> property is perverse, not only because of the obvious fact that it must
> either be a derivative work (knowledge does not simply appear in
> someone's mind from nowhere, it must be acquired) or a simple
> observation, but also because there is no way to prove originality
> without first consulting with every person in the world, living or dead.
> Not all ideas are /published/, since not everyone has either the means
> nor the will to do so.
So if you work for years of your life and go into debt to make a cure for
cancer... and finally succeed, you should not be able to charge anyone for
the fruits of your labor? Just give it away?
> So the premise of Intellectual Monopoly has nothing whatsoever to do
> with /creation/, but is instead just about /registration/ (e.g. like
> gold prospectors staking a claim), and as such is utterly indefensible.
> That's not "proof" of ownership, it's opportunistic theft from the
> communal pool of all mankind's knowledge - or more accurately, like
> kidnapping a hostage for ransom.
Again: you are claiming one's personal work belongs to others. How do you
figure this? Your noting that people learn from each other is not a good
answer.
> But by far the most sinister aspect of Intellectual Monopoly is the fact
> that it asserts ownership and control over others' /minds/, since it
> attempts to prohibit and inhibit the dissemination of that which is
> readily observable with the senses. To compound this perversion, the
> Intellectual Monopolists then have the audacity to demand to be paid
> each and every time this knowledge passes from one individual to another
> ... even to the extent of a group of children singing songs in private.
I would agree that there are abuses and absurdities... and questions that
are not easy to answer. How would you suggest the author of a work be
compensated?
> It's beyond perverse. And this payment has /nothing/ whatsoever to do
> with "work", since the work to "create" (i.e. remix) this knowledge
> happened precisely /once/, and the /creators/ have already been paid at
> least /once/ for their labour.
Ah, so if you work for years to make a cure for cancer, the only person who
should pay you is the first person you cure. Absurd.
> If a company manufactures a spade, I expect to have to pay for that
> spade only /once/, not each and every time I dig a hole with it.
When you pay for one spade you do not pay for its replacement through all
time.
> But then a spade, like any other tangible goods, is /real/ property,
> unlike this fictitious substance called Intellectual "Property".
>
> The fact that this Intellectual "Property" can be duplicated with
> nothing more than the senses, should be enough evidence to prove that it
> cannot be any kind of "property" at all. Indeed the fact that this
> "property" *is* just a mass duplication of a given single past event,
> should be sufficient to convince people that demanding payment for these
> facsimiles is profoundly wrong, irrespective of any supposed "proof" of
> originality.
If you are so certain it is wrong, can you defend that view... with
something other than the fact we all learn from others?
>> So DFS, does this mean that generally, you're OK with the idea that
>> girls singing to themselves around a campfire can be copyright
>> pirates?
>
> People like DooFuS probably believe we are morally obligated to pay the
> Intellectual Monopolists just for /remembering/ a song, much less
> /singing/ it. He's the living embodiment of totalitarian ideals.
That makes no sense.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
union...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:52:21 +0200, Hadron wrote:
> > unionpe...@gmail.com writes:
[...snip all my wonderful words...]
> >> Hence my own little contribution to this thread.
>
> > Which was just lies and bullshit as usual. How do you sleep at night?
>
> He sleeps at night because he makes his living with Windows
> software.
Wow! Moshe finally found me out, making a living with Windows! And
it took only how long? Moshe, please tell me how you did that, I like
a good detective story. Was it the headers that gave me away? I'll
go check ... using the Google trick that Erik showed me a few days
ago. Get my message into Google, click "more options", then click
"Show original". There it is, full headers and everything. Lets see
what it says. Path, From, Newsgroups, no nothing there. Ahh, there
it is:
"X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:
1.9.0.10)
Gecko/2009042708 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc9 Firefox/3.0.10,gzip(gfe),gzip
(gfe)"
What??? That says Fedora, what's going on? Ohhhhh, I posted that from
home, not work. That explains it. But at work its all Windows, just
like Moshe says.
Except for what our supplier gives us, but just that bit is Linux.
Thats right Moshe. Make a living with Windows.
Oh, and our product runs Linux. But Moshe has me pegged all right,
make a living with Windows.
I see our compile farm is Linux too. Imagine that. Well I guess it
has to be if we have Linux in and Linux out. But other than that, its
all Windows.
My editing environment is something called "vi". Even though it
doesn't come from Microsoft, it still means my desktop is MS Windows,
right?
Moshe, my desktop says it is CentOS-5. CentOS is from Microsoft,
right Moshe? So you have me naked in the spotlight. Can't keep
anything from you, no sir. No point in trying is there?
Moshe has nailed it spot on. Make a living with Windows, sure 'nuf.
Except for the input.
And the output.
And all the stuff in the middle,
I make a living with Windows, just like Moshe said.
DFS
> union...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> But Hadron, why the sharp reaction?
>
> Because "Hadron" is a piece of shit, that's why. What else would call
> an honest person making an honest mistake a "liar"?
cola "advocates"
> What else would
> call honest people "liars" while itself being a shameless liar?
You.
Hadron
Except no one believes a word of it. No real linux user worth his salt
would post with googlegroups.
Hadron
> Exactly.
> Of course he earns his living with Windows.
> Just like the majority of the Linux "advocates" in COLA do.
>
> And here we go with the Linux advocacy double standard again.
> Notice how the freetards don't say a word about it yet if it was
> a person posting negative to Linux messages, no matter how
> truthful, the first thing they would do is make a point of the
> person posting through Google Groups.
Cue Liarmutt : "I killfiled the entire source <grin>. But I believe in
freedom. *slurp, cough*".
union...@gmail.com
> unionpe...@gmail.com writes:
> > On Jun 2, 6:45 am, Moshe Goldfarb <goldfarbmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:52:21 +0200, Hadron wrote:
> >> > unionpe...@gmail.com writes:
>
> > [...snip all my wonderful words...]
>
> >> >> Hence my own little contribution to this thread.
>
> >> > Which was just lies and bullshit as usual. How do you sleep at night?
>
> >> He sleeps at night because he makes his living with Windows
> >> software.
[...snip more of my wonderful words...]
> > Moshe has nailed it spot on. Make a living with Windows, sure 'nuf.
> > Except for the input.
> > And the output.
> > And all the stuff in the middle,
> > I make a living with Windows, just like Moshe said.
[...and here comes Hardon...]
> Except no one believes a word of it. No real linux user worth his salt
> would post with googlegroups.
Now let me get this straight. You think Linux users are too
intelligent to post through Google? Hadron! Get a grip! You are
trying to insult me with a _compliment_!
chrisv
> Hadron snotted:
>>
>> Except no one believes �a word of it. No real linux user worth his salt
>> would post with googlegroups.
>
>Now let me get this straight. You think Linux users are too
>intelligent to post through Google? Hadron! Get a grip! You are
>trying to insult me with a _compliment_!
A trolling asshole like "Hadron" will take a cheap shot from whatever
angle he can, man!