Senator Dickface

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by number6@19 June 2003 - 09:43
I actually came in here to see if anyone was talking about this story after I read it on the BBC web site.

I don't think it will happen, because it flies in the face of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" ideal that is so central to the constitution of the UK and US.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that property cannot be destroyed, as there is a long history of pirates having all their equipment confiscated (which is much the same thing).

What is astounding about all of this, however, is the fact that AOL seem to think that the best way to combat music piracy is to continue to push their own music download product "MusicNet". Now, I don't know if the BBC have got it wrong, but they quote the costs of membership to MusicNet as:

"The basic AOL $3.95 deal will give users 20 streamed songs and 20 downloads per month.

Fans can sign up for more access for up to $17.95 (£11.40) per month, which buys unlimited streams and downloads, and the ability to burn - or copy - 10 songs to blank CDs per month."

So you can burn 10 songs onto a CD per month for £11.40??!!!!!

Now THAT is piracy.

6

So I gather that we are talking about two different things here.. so unless you have the "premium" package you cant "burn" anything to a blank CD, and with it you have the "ability to burn" up to 10 songs per month to a blank CD. Is this just some fancy wording on aol's part, or am I misunderstanding your post ?

So, to my way of thinking, regardless of what, you can ONLY "burn" 10 songs per MONTH.. the average CD holds what 15-18 songs, so it would actually take 2 MONTHS to burn 1 CD and that would cost you $35.90 (US) !!

The "unlimited" part means nothing if you intend to "burn" ..

Thats not even "piracy".. thats "HIGHWAY ROBBERY"


As far as "Senator Dickfaces" proposed legislation goes.. I agree with you, I dont think it stands a snowballs chance in hell of passing, because it would have to include issues that fall OUTSIDE of filesharing that cannot be exempted under a "blanket immunity" under existing federal laws.. doing so would immediatly render any such provision "unconstitutional" as it would deny the requirement MANDATING legal redress for injury or damages, for example, lawsuits brought under PRODUCT LIABILITY statuates.

Personally, I would take a "very dim view" upon ANY elected official that sponsors or supports ANY type of legislation that has the potential to limit,deny or errode my constitutional rights or civil liberties and I urge anyone of a similar mindset to send such officials a "message" at the election booth. Just my opinion.

@Ratfaced: Nice e-mail !

Edit: correction

[Skillian]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@20 June 2003 - 15:34
I had to do it....sent him an email through The Reg's link.

I read your views re: Protecting copyright infringement with interest.

I then read this: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,...3,59305,00.html

and realised that if your system was in operation then most of the economy would hit the floor, as the number of PCs in business using unlicensd software is huge.

All these systems would crash...having a huge knock on effect.

As you can see, its not just small business, a Major American Airline is quoted as having unlicensed software.

Oh yes...and YOU.

Making you just another hypocritical corrupt politician, we may have fun publicising the fact during the next elections in Utah.

Nice one Rat Faced

[Xanex]

HAHAHAHA this is pure genius

You can tell when someone knows dick all about the way computers or the internet actually works when they refer to "new technology"

I would like to see them destroy pc's in other countries, they may make it exempt for the companys etc from these things but as we have already discussed US laws cant be enforced in other countries unless something is agreed between the said countrys.

Any destruction of a pc outside the us in this case would cause political uproar, . even if the us pass it it will not be enforced by other countrys.


Xan