Posted on 10/10/2007 9:24:01 PM PDT by Stoat
“You have twisted and mis-stated what I have said in order to call me a liar.”
I don’t have to do any of those things to call you a liar. If you aren’t stating the truth then it’s a lie.
“Notwithstanding an oath you might take to a judge”
Here’s a kicker. I got a traffic ticket turning right on a red light when I wasn’t supposed to. When the prosecutor saw I had a clean record he reduced the points off from 3 to 1 and wrote the infraction as a broken headlight. Then I had to swear before a judge that I was guilty of doing that. Thing is the judge knew I was lying but that’s the way the system works in the city where I had the infraction. I suppose they are working up to lying about a lie while lying.
Tell the judge that you will plead “no contest” to THAT charge. You have not plead guilty to a charge that you are NOT guilty of but you have said that you are willing to accept the punishment for THAT charge to end the whole mess.
You can still get sued for listening to the radio if there are more than immediate family present.
Don’t even think of bringing a stereo to the beach.
Since I haven’t posted anything that isn’t untrue, you may have shown more of your character than you might have wished.
Thanks for the info. So there is an honorable way out.
ASCAP and BMI are shaking down stores in the mall to pay up for a music license in America for playing the radio too.
Since customers are not allowed in garages (workplace hazard and a liability) it wasn’t even as “open” an audience or public an audience as a store.
The collection agencies want more profit (more revenue collection) too.
Too many people in the media are all too quick to say that a “no contest” plea is an admission of guilt.
Pariser believes in a very broad definition of stealing that is echoed by many supporters in the RIAA. She believes that users who buy songs are entitled to one, and only one copy. Burning CDs is just another name for stealing, in her mind. "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'."
Another possible avenue of legal action for the RIAA is the pursuit of businesses that play unauthorized music in stores. The Performing Rights Society (PRS), Britain's version of the RIAA, may give the RIAA some possible ideas with its pending litigation. The PRS is suing the Kwik Fit Group, a car repair shop in Edinburgh, for £200,000 in damages. The case revolves around the complaint that Kwik Fit employees brought in personal radios which they played while working on cars, which could be heard by colleagues and customers. The PRS says this amounts to a public "performance" and should have entailed royalties.
No, the jury is the trier of fact, and determines the credibility of each witness. They apply the facts to the law that they are given.
Note the original post above. The case apparently turned on the credibility of the witnesses.
Let's use copyright law as an example. You and I would probably agree that the current law is badly in need of reform.
Now, if I was called to jury duty, I'd be able to set my views aside, and determine the case based upon the current law. You might not be able to do so. But would you admit that up front, or would you lie about the fact so that you could get on the jury and subvert the law. That's the moral choice that only you can make.
All throughout the distribution chain there was a markup that cut out the “price break” that B.A.D. gave to the consumer.
It was not an isolated event. There were some bands that took to printing “don’t pay more than...” on their albums to force the industry to sell it for the agreed upon price.
I do not encourage anyone to download or steal music. I just post the abuses of the industry that takes money anyplace it sees an opportunity to TAKE it.
How much do I have to pay for hearing that damned whistling “Young Folks” over and over in my head?
Having said that, its still ridiculous.
Between $750 and $9,250, depending on if the jury likes you or not.
“Jurors can always violate their oaths, if they have no moral integrity.”
When a judge lies to me about what rights I have or don’t have as a juror who has no moral integrity? If I agree to their lie knowing it is a lie who has no moral integrity? If I disagree to their lie then I have no moral integrity? Your above statement looks good but that’s not the way it works all the time. Therefore it is not the truth.
Which is a roundabout admission that bands are not the ones being hurt by downloading.
There will be professional musicians in the future, but there will be no record companies. That's why they are being so uncompromising now. They know that any compromise just takes them one step closer to oblivion.
I think there is more than meets the eye here. Something called the Fairness Act; which the entertainment industry seems to ignore while ripping off the public.
Burning CDs is stealing huh? So if someone were to legally download a song, they have no right to have more than one copy in case something happens to their hard drive? Sorry lady, but after I pay for something it is mine to use how I want as long as I don’t profit from it.
Good points. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.