Pyramid schemes can very easily be turned into steady state systems.
Then we are not talking about a pyramid scheme.
Yes. It's still a pyramid scheme.
Again, read the link I posted to you
Who the fsck do you think you are? With your level of intellect, you don't have time in a thousand lives to read everything that I'd like to throw at people of your mentality.
But how does one go about actually disbanding, oulawing or disintegrating an association like the RIAA?
The only way to do it is get to the root of the problem. The root of the problem is pyramid scheme and plutocracy.
If you read the page at sec.gov, it quotes:"The fraudsters behind a pyramid scheme may go to great lengths to make the program look like a legitimate multi-level marketing program". Remove the words "multi-level marketing" to make it reflect reality. They obviously had to include some language which wouldn't implicate themselves. That one's called obfuscation.
Except that is not the basis of how the pyramid scheme works
What do you call a pyramid scheme was has evolved into a steady state system of continually siphoning money from lower levels while returning the minimum amount possible?
The pyramid scheme, is a scheme, because the person who starts it (potentially the two people below him) make the money, while the people at the bottom get nothing
That's a rather juvenile way to look at it. That's a single use short-term pyramid scheme.
Using your exceptional powers of reasoning, can you think of a way to turn a single use pyramid scheme into a steady state system constantly generating the maximum amount of revenue with the minimum amount of effort?
How do you know it covered or didn't cover recording devices?
If it was a concern then it should have. If it doesn't then it shouldn't suddenly be a problem now.
Do you always whine about what you ate for breakfast at lunchtime?
And again, do you have the contract - do you know if it was or was not addressed?
Again. If it was a concern then it should have been addressed at the time of signing. If it wasn't a concern then it shouldn't be a concern now. Technology has not changed that much since then. Everyone knows you can record using a tape deck. We've been able to do that since the 70s. If the RIAA can prove that the satellite companies planned - BEFORE that two years ago - recording devices into their units they can sue for not disclosing this informationOh, I get it. Your entire argument is based on the fact that no one saw the possibility of recording ahead of time. Everyone thought that the XM/Sirius receivers would be welded into the stereo systems of production line vehicles with security systems preventing the speakers from ever being rewired. Perhaps the plan was for 50000 volt charges to be rigged to the panels covering the car stereo head unit.
"I have been pushing for years to have a redundant ISP for our traffic," Bradham said. "But we're a nonprofit. We don't have the money available to do that."
How much does this guy make every year? Less money spent on extravagant CxO and board member salaries means more money for a redundant ISP... and they could still keep nonprofit status.
If they didn't then they're so inept that shouldn't warrant any extra help from the taxpayers. If they did, and signed the agreement anyway (the agreements have been signed), then they made their decision back then.
Their tax returns, the rebate check they get may be higher then what you get...but they are still paying more taxes
I asked you to consider the basic structure of a pyramid scheme. You demonstrate that you have no conceptual understanding nor desire to learn. I will continue to respond to your ridiculous posts at 1.
Why would you assume the RIAA was not involved in those agreements?
If they were then the argument is over. They agreed to it back then. What's the problem now?
You still, totally, ignored my statement that the satellite radio companies did not give full disclosure
It wasn't a corporate secret that these things would have 1/8" stereo audio jacks. If there was a problem with potential recording it should've been addressed at the agreement signing time.
I'll pass this along to you: other posters have informed me that broadcast rights are garnered through agreements with ASCAP/BMI.
Same line of logic still holds, as well as the new question of how does the RIAA presume to have authority over a contract made between parties which doesn't even involve them? I gather that ASCAP has been doing this for quite some time and, if there were a legitimate problem with recording security of the hardware, it would've been addressed at signing time.
If so then how does the RIAA have any authority to have a beef about those broadcast rights? Apparently ASCAP/BMI had the authority to enter the agreement and they didn't see any problem with the hardware which was in use by satellite broadcasters. If they had seen a problem they wouldn't have signed the broadcast agreements. Simple as that.
If anything, the RIAA should be targeting ASCAP/BMI. The satellite broadcasters are no way at fault here.
The RIAA does not know what the internal plans of the satellite radio companies are
Who signed the agreements allowing XM/Sirius to make public broadcast of what would otherwise be CDs pressed for personal use only? Whoever signed that contract is the only person with the authority to be raising questions about the recording security of the hardware.
If the RIAA wasn't involved with those agreements, then the RIAA has absolutely no business shouting about their terms.
Maybe it should have fallen on the shoulderes of the satellite radio companies to be honest and disclose their plans
And maybe, before the recording labels signed the agreements to allow for broadcast use of their product, they should have asked,"What of the recording security of the hardware which you will use?"
These things don't happen overnight. XM/Sirius must've been in the works at least 2 years before their products hit store shelves.
they pay WAY MORE taxes then you do
And they get way more back. You have studied the basic functionality of a pyramid scheme, haven't you? The people at the top always appear to pay more.
he issue is that some of their receivers have the ability to record and the RIAA doesn't like that a user can record a song from the broadcast
There is no way the recording labels could possibly not have known about the hardware ahead of time. If they didn't bother to ask about the hardware before signing the licensing deals it shouldn't be up to my tax dollars to go back and figure it out for them. What kind of fscking business are they running? If they had a problem with it, they should've approached it at contract time.
I don't see how the sattelite radio equipment makers can be thinking straight in this matter.
Other way around. How the fsck could the big record labels not know in advance what hardware was going to be used? If they had a problem with the recording security of the hardware they could have refused to grant the service broadcast rights for their music.
Simple as that. No lawsuit needed. No wasted taxpayer money. No more overpriced attorneys.
"The music industry is an important partner, and we continue to listen to their concerns in hopes of finding a resolution that benefits everyone, especially consumers," said Nathaniel Brown, a spokesman for XM.
I can't quite believe that XM got this far by pulling random CDs off the shelf and spinning them radio dj style without first negotiating at least a few contracts ahead of time. I don't personally believe in license agreements but they must have had to sign a contract somewhere which allows them to get around "for personal use only... not for broadcast".
If the music labels had a problem, shouldn't they have approached it at the front-end?
I'm sick of this suing customers/pointing the evil finger at them after the point of sale. It's fscking stupid.
Re:I like the idea of breaking up families.
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 1
What if all music were GPLd? Then a rip would be a derivative work and would be perfectly legal to freely redistribute as long as you made the source (raw) available.
Just because I am also in favor of expanding the boundaries of transfer and work for hire
In a society which wasn't plutocratic I'd agree with you. Perhaps we'll have to meet in a better world. I'll even buy the beer.
As it is the system is rigged and expanding the boundaries of personal responsibility only plays into the hands of the established rulers. Those rulers never have the best intentions for society in mind. They are first, as they should and must be. But the Constitution, and the Framers, were looking for a better society. In that sense the plutocracy needs to have limitations.
When you fix the plutocracy then I will be the man right behind you supporting the fullest expansion of personal responsibility. I think I've already shown how dogged I can be. I'm a good guy to have on your side.
We aren't talking about takings. We're talking about conveyances that are willingly made by authors.
Bullying from a superior economic position has long been recognized by laws. Rarely enforced though. Again... *yawn* Plutocracy.
I think that I can confidently say
You can say whatever you like. You're obviously just supporting the winning side. The winning side only wins due to superior economic influence.
If the laws were written and enforced, for example, to support the rights of the individuals, you'd be at the forefront of the file-sharing charge. You're just in it for the retainer fee.
Slashdot Mirror
Who the fsck do you think you are? With your level of intellect, you don't have time in a thousand lives to read everything that I'd like to throw at people of your mentality.
If you read the page at sec.gov, it quotes:"The fraudsters behind a pyramid scheme may go to great lengths to make the program look like a legitimate multi-level marketing program". Remove the words "multi-level marketing" to make it reflect reality. They obviously had to include some language which wouldn't implicate themselves. That one's called obfuscation.
Using your exceptional powers of reasoning, can you think of a way to turn a single use pyramid scheme into a steady state system constantly generating the maximum amount of revenue with the minimum amount of effort?
Someday... just someday...
Maybe that explains it...
You're pretty good at making an argument out of nothing. Too bad
You brought up taxes. It is what it is. Sorry if you don't agree. You're wrong.
Yes. I got the flamebait because I forgot to check that Bradham is the network engineer.
Line of logic still holds. The museum has plenty of bigwigs and money makers in the upper levels. Maybe they could chip in sometime.
Do you always whine about what you ate for breakfast at lunchtime?
Again. If it was a concern then it should have been addressed at the time of signing. If it wasn't a concern then it shouldn't be a concern now. Technology has not changed that much since then. Everyone knows you can record using a tape deck. We've been able to do that since the 70s.
If the RIAA can prove that the satellite companies planned - BEFORE that two years ago - recording devices into their units they can sue for not disclosing this informationOh, I get it. Your entire argument is based on the fact that no one saw the possibility of recording ahead of time. Everyone thought that the XM/Sirius receivers would be welded into the stereo systems of production line vehicles with security systems preventing the speakers from ever being rewired. Perhaps the plan was for 50000 volt charges to be rigged to the panels covering the car stereo head unit.
What kind of "I'm stupid" drug are you on?
I asked you to consider the basic structure of a pyramid scheme. You demonstrate that you have no conceptual understanding nor desire to learn. I will continue to respond to your ridiculous posts at 1.
It wasn't a corporate secret that these things would have 1/8" stereo audio jacks. If there was a problem with potential recording it should've been addressed at the agreement signing time.
I'll pass this along to you: other posters have informed me that broadcast rights are garnered through agreements with ASCAP/BMI.
Same line of logic still holds, as well as the new question of how does the RIAA presume to have authority over a contract made between parties which doesn't even involve them? I gather that ASCAP has been doing this for quite some time and, if there were a legitimate problem with recording security of the hardware, it would've been addressed at signing time.
If anything, the RIAA should be targeting ASCAP/BMI. The satellite broadcasters are no way at fault here.
If the RIAA wasn't involved with those agreements, then the RIAA has absolutely no business shouting about their terms.
These things don't happen overnight. XM/Sirius must've been in the works at least 2 years before their products hit store shelves.
And they get way more back. You have studied the basic functionality of a pyramid scheme, haven't you? The people at the top always appear to pay more.
No wonder you're posting AC.
Simple as that. No lawsuit needed. No wasted taxpayer money. No more overpriced attorneys.
If the music labels had a problem, shouldn't they have approached it at the front-end?
I'm sick of this suing customers/pointing the evil finger at them after the point of sale. It's fscking stupid.
8 more...
Only 14 more posts to go 'til 1000 on this topic.
What if all music were GPLd? Then a rip would be a derivative work and would be perfectly legal to freely redistribute as long as you made the source (raw) available.
I bet that would work...
As it is the system is rigged and expanding the boundaries of personal responsibility only plays into the hands of the established rulers. Those rulers never have the best intentions for society in mind. They are first, as they should and must be. But the Constitution, and the Framers, were looking for a better society. In that sense the plutocracy needs to have limitations.
When you fix the plutocracy then I will be the man right behind you supporting the fullest expansion of personal responsibility. I think I've already shown how dogged I can be. I'm a good guy to have on your side.
You can say whatever you like. You're obviously just supporting the winning side. The winning side only wins due to superior economic influence.
If the laws were written and enforced, for example, to support the rights of the individuals, you'd be at the forefront of the file-sharing charge. You're just in it for the retainer fee.