Utah "Strike Force" Honored for Copyright Raids

reply to post by Unity_99


You are talking absolute nonsense, as far I can see.

Where exactly is the fascism you are salivating over, in the article the OP provided?

So according to your post - you would support me taking anything derived from your intellectual capacity and using it to profit privately? OK - so in that case, most grateful if you could send me a download link for your hard drive's contents.

Look forward to your reply.

Here's an example I have posted several times, yet haven't had it answered thus far.
The example is a bit different than what these people were doing, yet probably represents the vast majority of "pirates".

I bought Metallica's Master of Puppets on cassette in 1986.
Due to my unairconditioned car, I had to buy the cassette again about 1988.
I think it was about 1992 that I bought the c.d.
And again in 1996 or '97.
And again around 2002.
One more time in 2005, however,
I downloaded it for free in 2010.

The problem is,
I paid Metallica for the "rights" to that album in 1986.
I don't understand why I need to continue to pay those royalties every time I replace the media that it was stored on.

Shouldn't I only need to pay for the actual cost of replacing the media, rather than continuing to pay Metallica for their awesome album?
I paid them in 1986, the fact that my cassette's and c.d.'s wore out doesn't negate the fact that I already paid for the rights,
does it?

reply to post by Oaktree

Quite true on that point and it is because of those issues that SOPA and the rest are so scary.


The INTENT is to stop those people making multiple copies for profit, even if that profit is a membership fee for d/ling (to the tune of 158 million)

Those are pure and simply a crime...

But consider this a radio station buys the right to broadcast a song...
For you to hear it you have to buy a radio, but then you listen FOR FREE
Then they sold us recorders so we can record a copy of that song...
So why did tape recorders become legal if we are not allowed to copy a song for personal use?

Then came TV and video recorders... same thing you can watch a movie for free, record it and cut the ads and you have a copy

Are video tape recorder illegal? Is not there sole purpose to record a copy of some artists work?
Today we have the computer and we copy to a hard disk

WHERE is the difference?

These laws need to be clearly rewritten so the difference is understood.

Does not the FBI warning on every DVD movie state "No COMMERCIAL copying"? It used to
Do Software manufactures not allow you to make a back up copy or run the copy on another computer in your house ie PC, laptop and some allow office?

reply to post by zorgon


I agree that the people this thread features are criminals.
Regardless of my opinions on copyright laws, they were breaking the law.
What they were doing was blatant and (I assume) for profit.

Whether or not a special "strike team" dedicated to piracy is in order is another question.

Truthfully, I suspect that the actual monetary damage that these folks caused to the recording industry qualifies for grand theft, however they are far from the norm, IMO.

But consider this a radio station buys the right to broadcast a song...
For you to hear it you have to buy a radio, but then you listen FOR FREE Then they sold us recorders so we can record a copy of that song...

So why did tape recorders become legal if we are not allowed to copy a song for personal use?

Then came TV and video recorders... same thing you can watch a movie for free, record it and cut the ads and you have a copy
Are video tape recorder illegal?
Is not there sole purpose to record a copy of some artists work?
Today we have the computer and we copy to a hard disk

WHERE is the difference?

reply to post by zorgon


While I know that you already realize this, I'll still answer.

Sony, Samsung, Hitachi, etc. all have representatives, in the way of lobbyists working hard on their behalf.
We, The People, do not.

Originally posted by Oaktree
We, The People, do not.

Don't sell "We the People..." short just yet we still have the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Refuses to View ASCAP Appeal
ology.com...

ASCAP & BMI - Protectors of Artists or Shadowy Thieves?
www.ram.org...

Connecticut Town Tells ASCAP, BMI, SESAC To Get Lost Over ...
www.techdirt.com...

It's Not Stealing, It's Sharing: The Most Important Legal Cases That ...
blog.tunecore.com...

Supreme Court Denies ASCAP Appeal | Music News | Rolling Stone
www.rollingstone.com...

We the People - 1 ASCAP - 0

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
What's insane? They have taken reasonable measures - regarding body protection etc. Given that the individual inside has a disposition to breaknig the law for their own benefit

I have said it before, and I will say it again.

The only reason why anyone willingly acts as an apologist for fascism, is simply because the individual in question has not yet been a recipient of fascist treatment themselves.

I will hope that for your sake, ComeFindMe, you eventually do have the educational experience of police kicking down your front door, and dragging you away for processing. After you've actually had it happen, your perspective might change, concerning it happening to other people.

reply to post by zorgon


Unfortunately, ASCAP is little more that a shakedown scam, and they are usually doing battle against the RIAA and MPAA.

An Urgent Message From Marilyn Bergman (ASCAP vs RIAA)

Over the years, ASCAP has worked tirelessly to convince Congress and the courts that all songwriters, composers and music publishers are entitled to fair compensation for their copyrighted musical works.

As you know, ASCAP represents the performing right, a large and growing part of your compensation.

Our friends at The National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) will be representing the mechanical right interests of songwriters and music publishers in this hearing.
They will be fighting vigorously to protect those mechanical right interests to ensure that musical compositions are compensated fairly.

On the other side of this fight stands the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Digital Media Association (DiMA). 3
Both the RIAA and DiMA have proposed significant reductions in mechanical royalty rates that would be disastrous for songwriters and music publishers.

The RIAA has proposed the outrageous rate of approximately 5 to 5.5 cents per track, and DiMA is proposing even less.

ASCAP vs. RIAA/ DiMA

After managing restaurants for twenty years, these scammers stuck out like a sore thumb.
They would sit at the bar or a table, and after a minutes ask to speak with a manager.

They would show their badge, and threaten a lawsuit against the restaurant for playing their artists music without a license.
Understand that the music they were referring to was being played via satellite or cable, with a legal subscription to either service.

They would then offer to make not make a case of it, because the simple solution was to pay them a yearly fee, which would "bring us into compliance" with applicable copyright laws.

ASCAP is a joke, and I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA had a hand in keeping this case away from the SCOTUS.

P.S. Any anger you may detect in my reply is solely directed at ASCAP, I have always admired Zorgon's contributions to ATS

Originally posted by petrus4

I have said it before, and I will say it again.

The only reason why anyone willingly acts as an apologist for fascism, is simply because the individual in question has not yet been a recipient of fascist treatment themselves.

I will hope that for your sake, ComeFindMe, you eventually do have the educational experience of police kicking down your front door, and dragging you away for processing. After you've actually had it happen, your perspective might change, concerning it happening to other people.

Please don't presume to know how I would or would not act. I notice you have avoided the other issues I raised - namely whether there may have been information on the potential raid that led to a decision to wear heavy gear being taken?

Perhaps the fact that someone who is significantly involved in the criminal activity of copyright infringement and fraud might have other more nefarious (and dangerous) sidelines?

Please understand the language you use before you use it. You accuse me of being an apologist for fascism? Please show me exactly where I have done this? I suspect you are mistaking my support of the arrest of the criminal in the video (which you have sensationalised to death) as evidence of support of fascism. It is not. It is support of the upholding of the law where the law has been broken.

Do not confuse the two. I expect you to address the point above in the manner of any conventional debate - no sidelining - show me the evidence for your statement or clarify that what you said is actually incorrect. Thank you.