Replies

Well, then, I see instead of answering strightfoward questions, you have resorted to responding to posts that were not even addressed to you.

You said in post #295:

Think about all this in terms of individuals -- people who depend on the protection provided by copyright to feed their kids

I said: Name one.

I have asked you that no less than three times. And you have chosen not to answer any even once. The only conclusion I am gather is you made an assertion you cannot back up, and so you have decided to pretend you neither said it, nor am I asking you to back it up.

This only shows your ignorance on this topic. All you can do is parrot jhoffa_ (or is it the other way around?) instead of doing so much as actually reading up on the subject.

While I do believe you would be against what Hatch is suggesting, due to the fact he is a US Senator, I am much more willing to buy both you and jhoffa_ would not care if the RIAA and friends did it themselves.

As such, I have nothing more to say to you.

"Name one?"

Honestly, I read right over that as a rhetorical question. Because it's so obvious -- a point I addressed in my subsequent post. But OK, I'll play, and instead of "naming one," I'll even show you a whole bunch: All Music Guide. Just type in, say, "Smith" or "Jones," and you'll get a long list of names of people who depend on copyright protection to make a living.

As for your assertion that I would approve of the government, the RIAA or anybody else doing what Hatch proposed, I suggest you read back near the top of this thread and find my first post, which addresses that specific point.

And not to mention -- your whole point about "choosing not to answer even once" is quite disingenuous. Because I certainly DID answer, if without even realizing it: As I wrote in post #299, "Every professional songwriter, every painter, every filmmaker, every poet, every novelist, every newspaper reporter, every photographer..."