Slashdot Mirror
Head Of ATF To Direct RIAA Anti-Piracy
plasmastate writes "Via Fox News: Bradley A. Buckles, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, is moving over to the RIAA to hunt down music pirates. And visions of David Koresh danced in their heads..."
no, the riaa is just enforcing their contracts.
They aren't stealing from the artists -- the
artists all entered their agreements willingly.
why do you think the RIAA are so evil?
why do you think they want to steal your money?
why do you think they don't really care about the
future of the music distribution business?
why do you think they would rather arrest a 12
year old girl than consider alternative distribution?
Are people stealing when they listen to the radio?
When the copyright claim is valid, yes. (Copyright law often reaches far beyond Congress's legitimate power under Article I Section 8.) So what? So many things are illegal that few Americans get through a week without some violation, at least of a traffic or a tax law.
If you want copyright law to fulfill the goal of promoting "the progress of science and useful arts", yes, you do.
You paint with a mighty broad brush there, bucko. Members of the Open Source and Free Software communities hold a range of opinions on copyright.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Because I made it. Me. Alone. No one else. I am not asking about elements of law, I am asking for a reason why my work should be any more stealable (?) than someone else's.
I would argue that waaaaay too many people are eager to give away other people's rights.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
The part that struck me the most was that the FBI/BATF played Tibetan monk chants through a sound truck day and night. Any God-fearing apocalyptic would assume that the U.S. Government had chosen sides against them for Armageddon, and it was time to die for the Almighty. Clinton/Reno either foolishly didn't get that, or they got it and callously used the tactic anyway.
In Jesus' words: "I preached in the synogogue every day -- why didn't you come for me then?" David Koresh already thought he was the Messiah, and they played right into his hands. What was so awful about this guy, that they suspended due process, the Bill of Rights, and common sense to get him?
It made me sympathetic to the Davidians at the time. I was appalled when they were burned up. I wasn't mad enough to declare war on the U.S. Government, but I wasn't surprised when someone did. A year later, on the anniversary of the Branch Davidian massacre, a right-wing extremist killed scores of people by blowing up the Federal building in Oklahoma City. He said it was because of Waco.
Do I blame Clinton/Reno for Oklahoma City? I don't know.
But I do remember Waco.
sigs, as if you care.
Unless, of course, the HIJACKERS HAD HAD GUNS TOO. I love you frickin' morons. WTF makes you think that "if the laws were different and if people were allowed to have guns on planes," that the terrorists wouldn't have had them too? "Because they'd never have gotten the required permits." Oh really? How many of the hijackers had gone through all the trouble of getting a pilot's license? At least 4, IIRC. What makes you think they wouldn't have jumped through some more hoops and gotten a Concealed Carry permit, too?
And if guns were everywhere, as right-wing nuts like you like to fantasize about, what makes you think we wouldn't have already had a dozen other events like 9/11, or planes shot up all over the place?
Geeze Louise, get a frickin' clue buddy. Guns and planes don't mix! Guns and morons don't either.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
That is in no way what I said. What I said was more like "I created it, therefore I should be compensated for my time and effort if I choose to allow you to use it." You are correct that once it is released to the public I have given up control of it. This is especially true for music and software.
If I create a peice of software that has value when it is used, and I release that software to the public saying "This software will do such and such. The price of this software is such and such." Are you saying that I should not be compensated for my time and effort to create a work that you derive value from?
Is it different because I am not right there in front of you creating it specifically for you? How is this any different from stiffing a cabinet maker for the work he did in your kitchen? He (the cabinet maker) took time and effort to create something that you find useful. Should he not be compensated for it as well?