|
|
Post by soniktruth on Jun 29, 2003 22:17:06 GMT -5
PHUCKING RIAA STILL AT THEIR EVIL ANTICS IN KEEPING THE MUSIC FROM US. DO THEY NOT LISTEN? I'D SAY 95% OF THE PEOPLE HERE HAVE PURCHASED THE MARS VOLTA CD AFTER DOWNLOADED THE LEAKED OUT VERSION, AS WELL WITH RADIOHEAD. DID YOU HEAR THAT RIAA? PURCHASED! WE ONLY PURCHASE THE QUALITY MUSIC. NOT THE SAME CORPORATE-MADE BULLSHIZ YOU FORCE FEED US. YOU CAN NEVER WIN. WE'LL EVENTUALLY FIND A WAY TO BUTT F.UCK THE RIAA , ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IF YOU'RE ON KAZAA, STOP SHARING HALF YOUR STUFF. ESPECIALLY THE COMMERCIALLY POPULAR MUSIC. THE UNDERGROUND MUSIC, YOU CAN KEEP. BECAU$E THE RIAA DOES NOT PROFIT FROM THESE BANDS.
SO PHUCK OFF RIAA AND YOUR GOVERNMENT MUSIC.
SINCERELY
PARAN0ID ANDR0ID
RIAA
|
|
|
|
Post by MercurySolo on Jun 30, 2003 19:54:54 GMT -5
![]() www.mobileimage.com/images/CalvinPiss.jpg [/img] ........RIAANow they're suing the college students... yeah, that explains the brains of the RIAA "We're losing money, where can we find some... I KNOW!! COLLEGE STUDENTS!!!!!!" anyone who thinks college students have a lot of money (aside from senator's sons) could ask any college student about their daily diet. Chances are you'll get answers of Top Ramen and Ketchup Spaghetti. Rich motherfukas getting richer off the poor while stealing their paychecks from their pop-punk whores Ex-70's wannabe rockers think they real slick they can all line up and suck my thingy |
|
heatjd
Junior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by heatjd on Jun 30, 2003 21:07:11 GMT -5
i bought the mars volta album after hearing it  so they can suck deez nutz. Maybe if crappy bullsheet music would stop coming out and they stop charging 20 freaking bucks for a 36 min cd (linkinpark i laugh at my friends for wasting cash on such a short crappy album) then people would stop downloading |
|
|
|
Post by damnitall on Jul 2, 2003 19:13:48 GMT -5
You said Link'n Park on a ATDI site, YOU LITTLE FOUCKER.
|
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Jul 4, 2003 3:00:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Jul 27, 2003 22:53:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Jul 29, 2003 1:38:53 GMT -5
BOYCOTT BIG BIZ MUSIC
|
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Jul 29, 2003 1:47:49 GMT -5
IN THE PAST MONTH I'VE ORDERED 3 "DISCHORD RECORDS" CD'S, 2 "FRENCHKISS RECORDS" CDS, AND SOME OTHERS....
BIG LABEL CD'S...LET'S HURT 'EM
CD BURNERS OF THE WORLD.......UNITE AND TAKE OVER!!#nosmileys
|
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Aug 23, 2003 7:11:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Aug 29, 2003 23:11:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Aug 29, 2003 23:16:09 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300]FUCK THE RIAA[/shadow]#nosmileys
|
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Sept 10, 2003 23:41:37 GMT -5
12-year-old RIAA victim settles
The RIAA's bullying tactics against a 12-year-old girl and her mother have worked.
Brianna Lahara, who was on the RIAA sue 'em all list for listening to online music, will pay $2000 to the record labels' personal police force so she or her mother won't have to appear in court.
"[...] as this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers," said Mitch Bainwol said in one of his first public utterances since taking over from Hilary Rosen as RIAA boss.
Brianna aparently believed that by paying Sharman Networks $29.99 for its so-called ad-free Kazaa, she was entitled download wharever songs she wanted.
In the meanwhile, the RIAA says it's agreed to settle with other victims for around $3,000 - but that the price for anyone who wants to settle out of court is going to go up
CONGRATULATIONS FOR A JOB WELL DONE BY THE RIAA....NO REMORSE!!!!NIP IT IN THE BUD....GET 'EM WHILE THEY'RE STILL YOUNG....CRACK OPEN THAT PIGGY BANK LITTLE GIRL!!!!
GREEDY PIGS!!
|
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Sept 10, 2003 23:58:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Sept 11, 2003 0:08:56 GMT -5
FUCK THE
[shadow=red,left,300]RIAA[/shadow] #nosmileys
|
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Sept 11, 2003 0:19:44 GMT -5
gentlemen, meet the enemies former CEO of RIAA(hilary rosen)  CURRENT ASSHOLE IN CHARGE (rothen bainwol) LOOK, PIGS IN A BLANKET#nosmileys#nosmileys
|
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Sept 11, 2003 0:36:53 GMT -5
[shadow=purple,left,300]Beware !
I bear more grudges
Than lonely high court judges
When you sleep
I will creep
Into your thoughts
Like a bad debt
That you can't pay
Take the easy way
[/shadow] - morrissey(the more you ignore me, the closer i get)#nosmileys
|
|
|
|
Post by soniktruth on Dec 19, 2003 15:28:06 GMT -5
Record Industry May Not Subpoena Providers
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Friday the recording industry can't force Internet providers to identify subscribers swapping music online, dramatically setting back the industry's anti-piracy campaign.
The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a trial judge's decision to enforce copyright subpoenas used by the recording industry. The subpoena power was established by a law passed before the explosive growth of swapping music online.
"It's an incredible ruling, a blow for the little guy," said Bob Barnes, a grandfather in Fresno, Calif., who was targeted by one of the earliest subpoenas from the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) but isn't among the hundreds who have been sued so far.
The ruling does not make it legal to distribute copyrighted music over the Internet, but it removes one of the most effective tools used by the recording industry to track such activity and sue downloaders.
The appeals court said the 1998 copyright law doesn't cover popular file-sharing networks used by tens of millions of Americans to download songs. The law "betrays no awareness whatsoever that Internet users might be able directly to exchange files containing copyrighted works," the court wrote.
The appeals judges said they sympathized with the recording industry, noting "stakes are large." But the judges said it was not the role of courts to rewrite the 1998 law, "no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture and software industries."
Sen. Norm Coleman, who has criticized the use of such subpoenas, predicted that any efforts to broaden the 1998 law would "face some serious obstacles" in the Senate.
"We clearly have to do a better job of getting law and technology and ethics into better sync," said Coleman, R-Minn.
Legal experts said the appeals ruling probably will not affect the 382 civil lawsuits the recording industry already filed since it announced its campaign nearly six months ago. It also was not expected to affect financial settlements with at least 220 computer users who agreed to pay penalties from $2,500 to $7,500 each.
But it will make identifying defendants for future lawsuits much more difficult and expensive. The ruling forces the recording industry to file civil lawsuits against "John Doe" defendants, based on their Internet addresses, then work through the courts to learn their names.
Cary Sherman, president of the recording industry group, said the ruling "unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation."
Sherman promised to "continue to defend our rights online on behalf of artists, songwriters and countless others involved in bringing music to the public."
Earlier this week, the recording industry sent letters to the 50 largest U.S. Internet providers asking them to forward written warnings in the future to subscribers caught swapping music.
Details were still being worked out, but if Internet providers agree, subscribers who swap even modest collections of music online could receive the ominous warnings.
The letters demanding an end to the practice would be forwarded without revealing subscriber identities to music lawyers. The warnings would be mailed directly to Internet account holders — potentially alerting parents or grandparents about illegal downloading in their households they might not know about.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates had approved use of the disputed subpoenas, forcing Verizon Communications Inc. to turn over names and addresses for at least four subscribers. Since then, Verizon has identified scores of its other subscribers under subpoena by the music industry, and some of them have been sued.
Verizon's lawyer, Sarah Deutsch, called the ruling "an important victory for all Internet users and all consumers." She said the music industry should be required to file traditional civil lawsuits — which are more expensive and time-consuming — to prosecute downloaders.
"Consumers' rights cannot be trampled upon in the quest to enforce your copyright," Deutsch said.
The appeals court said one argument by the recording industry "borders upon the silly" — the trade group's claim that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites) compels Internet providers to turn over the names of people suspected of operating pirate Web sites upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office.
Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.
one step closer to victory!!
#nosmileys#nosmileys
|
|
so they can suck deez nutz. Maybe if crappy bullsheet music would stop coming out and they stop charging 20 freaking bucks for a 36 min cd (linkinpark i laugh at my friends for wasting cash on such a short crappy album) then people would stop downloading