OT: RIAA and Their Law Suits

[dogscoff]

I once zipped a four-penny side overdraw on a cold cracker day. There were six of us, and my friends just couldn't believe it. Then, immediately afterwards, I got a seven-bleat hogwild and reamed the old greenknuckle in teeth! Of course, next thing you know the legs open and suddenly all the lads are polerushing to get themselves deep fur-buried.

Ahhh, those were the days. Laugh? I nearly uncreamed my spangwettle!

[Loser]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
If your going to gamble, follow rule 8, Don't drink.

Actually, I've found I play better with a shallow shot of hard liquor and a careful amount of some stimulant, coffee since I've stopped smoking, again. (Ack! More 'self medicating'! Don't try this at home kids. Chemicals are not the solution. )

But only a little too much and I'm

[Atrocities]

Feed the kitty or leave the city.

Seven down, slip the nought, suicide king kills, ***** gives it up on dime down, role a duce and call it momma, match the pot come low hog or one eyed jacks. Cowboys are king.

[ September 18, 2003, 16:54: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[tesco samoa]

I can beat the odds in betting on football and hockey.

But there is an investment of time and keeping strict control on your balance and percentage of bet. 3% of the total is good number for a wager. And you never increase that percentage. That way when times are lean or good your bets reflect that.

And lots of reading. and stats to analyse. It can be done. But one must also look at what they picked and why they picked it. Each week as well.

[Loser]

Strangeness

[Baron Munchausen]

No, not 'strangeness' at all. It's standard business practice these days to sue over anything and everything you can find grounds to file over. And in this case there's a particularly large bonus if they win. Due to a quirk in copyright law you can have the copyright cancelled on works that have been 'abused' in a certain way. If Sharman/Kazaa wins, which is unlikely but still slightly possible -- and will take many years of appeals of course, it could result in just about the whole catalog defended by RIAA being dumped into the public domain. That would give them a great big pool of free stuff to grease their network and attract more people to see the ads that are their actual source of revenue.

[ September 24, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Loser]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
it could result in just about the whole catalog defended by RIAA being dumped into the public domain.

...
No way...

I mean, I don't know law, but...
No way.

[Baron Munchausen]

Oh yes! There is a provision for voiding the copyright on works when the copyright is used in a monopoly fashion.

Kazaa Strikes Back:

http://news.com.com/2100-1023_3-982344.html

The “legal consequences” Sharman is seeking are potentially severe. Sharman is asking the judge to declare the copyright holders guilty of antitrust and related violations, and to bar them from enforcing any of their copyrights.

It's a long shot, but not impossible. Napster was working in this direction before it was finished off.

Last year, federal judge Marilyn Hall Patel ordered an investigation into the record labels’ licensing practices towards Online companies and into the structure of Pressplay and Musicnet, services largely owned by record labels.

"The evidence now shows that the plaintiffs have licensed their catalogues of works for digital distribution in what could be an overreaching manner," Patel wrote in a February 2002 decision that was part of the Napster lawsuit. "The evidence also suggests the (record labels’) entry into the digital distribution marketplace may run afoul of antitrust laws."

If they are 'barred from enforcing' their copyrights they are effectively stripped of them. 50 years of 'Rock-n-roll' would be free for the copying!

[ September 24, 2003, 22:34: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]