Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants Student Deposed On School Day
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Houston, Texas, case, UMG v. Hightower, the RIAA has served a subpoena on the defendant's son, a high school student, on one day's notice, telling him to be at a lawyer's office at 9:00 a.m. the next day, a school day, for a deposition. The defendant's lawyer objected (PDF)."
DIGG!!
Yes we have those laws to. Is it harassment if you had something stolen and you were suing someone to reclaim the lost property value in Turkey? Cause contrary to what you and many others think about it, Sharing and Downloading of Copyrighted material is illegal in the US, and likely is in Turkey as well. It's not harassment to recover damages using the court system.
Here is what happened:
1.) Some kid broke the law and ripped off an artist.
2.) The RIAA, well within its right to defend itself from theft, took legal action (just like Slashdot said they should seven years ago during the Napster lawsuit..."go after individual infringers!" you all said).
3.) This kid was deposed like anyone who broke the law might be.
4.) Pro-piracy propaganda gets posted to Slashdot about how he's being "Deposed On School Day."
You see, the RIAA scapegoating is done on purpose so that pirates don't feel bad pirating music. If they can remove the artist from the equation and make themselves feel like they're fighting a bad guy, they feel less guilty and ashamed for FUCKING OVER artists and their rights. It will never change the truth that they're just making sure human beings don't get paid for their work, but it's not like pro-piracy arguments have ever made sense or been based on any kind of truth.
"Sufferin' succotash."
That's exactly my point. "May be". The Texas constitution doesn't bar atheists from office. It merely fails to extend the protection from religious tests to atheists. So unless some other law bars atheists from office, they are okay. And if some other law does bar atheists from office, then it's the other law that bars them, not the Texas constitution.
Take an example. Three people, Alex the Atheist, Chuck the Christian and Jim the Jew.
Jim the Jew is elected. What does the constitution say? It says that it's unconstitutional to exclude him from office because of his religious sentiments, because he acknowledges the existence of a supreme being.
Alex the Atheist is elected. What does the constitution say? Nothing at all. Alex the Atheist doesn't acknowledge the existence of a supreme being, so article one, section four doesn't apply to him.
Now let's say Chuck the Christian comes along and tries to bar non-Christians from public office. Jim the Jew gets re-elected, and what's the consequence? Nothing. He still gets to hold public office, because he is protected from a law such as this by the Texas constitution.
Now Alex the Atheist gets re-elected, and what's the consequence? He falls foul of the law Chuck the Christian pushed for, because he isn't protected by the Texas constitution in the same way Jim the Jew is.
Do you see what role the Texas constitution plays now? It doesn't bar atheists from office. It protects non-atheists from having their religious views held against them. It doesn't say anything at all about atheists.
If you don't get it now, I don't think I can dumb it down any more. It's basic English and basic logic.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha