|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
RIAA with paramilitary
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Freak
Isn't this against a law of some kind?
Posted by: jimbo
obviously but htey shouldnt be doing that. for one reason, i dont think they have any evidence to back that up.
according to law, it is ok to share songs with friends, to burn those cd w/the songs you got from your friend, but it is not ok to download the music from sites.
Posted by: chaosisreality
So it's ok to break the law in the first place?
The article says they did not break into homes and rip open your CD-Burner, it says they busted a street vendor selling bootleg CD's. They would do the same to a vendor with pirated games, illegal trade, or drugs.
Posted by: Gunslinger
 Quote:
Originally posted by chaosisreality
So it's ok to break the law in the first place?
|
Irrelevant. The ends do not justify the means. The RIAA has no right to enforce the law. Rather, they only have the right to require that the proper authorities enforce it.
Posted by: chaosisreality
Say the American Government sent CIA agents undercover, and in the process of the operation made the biggest drug bust in history, ending an entire drug ring. But operations is outside CIA jurisdiction, so they would not be able to convict them. THe ends don't justify, but they sure match up to justice.
Downloading music is worng, and people still do it. It is a minor offense, but an offense netherless. It's illegal to do drugs, it's illegal to pirate music, it's illegal to do a lot of things. Doing something wrong, even if it's minor does not mean it's right. (And in this case, I'm applying that to the RIAA too. What they did certainly isn't right, but it produced the desired effect).
Oh, and anyone who replies to this with a "Oh how can you relate drugs to music downloading" needs to reread my post and the article again.
Posted by: Gunslinger
What's your point?
Posted by: INeedHelp
*MOVED*
this post has been imaginaryly moved to rants and raves forum, please allow the wastes slide out of your colons and cool off
thank you for your cooperation
your imaginary super godly ultimate administrator
Posted by: Gunslinger
Posted by: SpecOpsHoov
Is the RIAA even authorized to enforce the law?
Posted by: INeedHelp
technically... no
Quote:
|
The recording industry can't compel an Internet service provider to disclose without judicial review the names of customers who trade music online, a federal appeals panel in Washington ruled Friday.
|
basically they can't take law into their on hands, so same here, RIAA have no right to tell that man who's selling dupes to do it off, but police does, or RIAA can do it w/ a judge's warrent or something simliar
1st edit: wtf??? what's wrong w/ my url tag... bah here's the link http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/bu...s,+judge+rules+
Posted by: Freak
This thread wasn't about if downloading music is right or wrong. It's about whether or not it's legal for the RIAA to take the law into their own hands.
Posted by: SKYHN
Impersonating a police officer is a federal offense.
Posted by: AK47
But it's hella fun
Posted by: SKYHN
Quote:
Originally posted by AK47
But it's hella fun
|
So is getting every song you can think of for free 
Posted by: AK47
Haha, not in an inferior format 
Free movies and software are better
*looks around for movie police* 
Posted by: Darky!
Quote:
Originally posted by chaosisreality
(And in this case, I'm applying that to the RIAA too. What they did certainly isn't right, but it produced the desired effect).
|
So your saying beeing a vigilante is "ok"?
Posted by: Blackknight
Quote:
Originally posted by Darky!
So your saying beeing a vigilante is "ok"?
|
Quote:
Originally posted by chaosisreality
What they did certainly isn't right...
|
Read?
Posted by: Darky!
EDIT: To make things more clear, he put it in a way that makes it sound like its "ok" to be a vigilante when its "justified".
Posted by: Freak
They weren't really impersonating police officers. They had Kevlar with RIAA on the back, not FBI or NYPD or anything government related. But forcibly making vendors get off the street might be something like public harassment
Posted by: chaosisreality
Quote:
Originally posted by Gunslinger
What's your point?
|
My point was that even though they may have been wrong, they still accomplished the goal. That's why I brought up the drug scenario. In some cases, the police have to bend the rules in order to accomplish the goal, which is to end the objective enemy (Drug cartel, or anything). So in this case, you have the RIAA overstepping it's boundaries, in order to accomplish the goal. And they probably did so with full knowledge of the consequences, but you never know until you try something. The RIAA officers in question will probably be punished under their jurisdiction, and the officers who ordered it warned.
EDIT-gtg, to finish+
Posted by: Erekose
uhm, doodie, the RIAA doesn't have officers, that is the point. This is like McDonald's sending a bunch of fry-cooks to go break up a back yard barbecue... No, it's not even that. It's if the lobbyist in Washington, DC for McDonald's had a so-so burger once at a neighbor's house that was passed of as McDougal's and they went around kicking over grills and spitting in the potato salad. If I came in to some place wearing "tactical"-like gear with a bunch of letters stenciled across the back, flashed some identification in someone's face, and started ordering them around their perception that I was a government official is next to the same thing as me shouting from the rooftops "I AM THE MAN IN BLACK, DO AS I SAY!"
...do you understand what we are saying? The perceived threat is the same as the threat being made. And well all know there is no way this side of slapjacks and bamboo shivs that a street vendor is going to "give up" his stash, comprende?
Posted by: AK47
Quote:
Originally posted by Freak
They had Kevlar with RIAA on the back
|
Haha... kevlar.
What a joke
Posted by: chaosisreality
Quote:
Originally posted by Erekose
uhm, doodie, the RIAA doesn't have officers
|
By officers, I meant their higher echelon, the leaders and board chairmen (I am not sure how the RIAA does it anyway).
The point is moot. "Hey, I shot someone, and now I'm gong to jail. Hey mang, that whole torture and interrogation thing had it's concequences. Hey Angry music downloaders of America, we overstepped our boundaries!"
Are the street vendors going to sue? They could have, but that time is past. If the RIAA had used force (Guns, brutality) then it would be considered more wrong. In this case, they didn't. So next halloween, go dress up as a CIA agent. Is anyone going to arrest you? No. They may have put over the appearance of police, but seeing the absence of weapons and the words RIAA stenciled on their backs, any person with half a brain would be suspicious. Of course, bootleggers really don't have a brain.
So this arguement is what, again? That the RIAA was wrong, they will probably be warned, and all of the downloaders being pressured to stop are getting a good chuckle out of it. Is that it?
Posted by: Erekose
you do know what "vigilante" is, yes? now don't get me wrong, i am not saying you are ignorant or anything, but the RIAA has their forum for expressing their grievances, and they have done much by way of those forums to change the way people look at bootlegging and pirating. now our concern here is that, because they have some sort of idea in their collective heads that they are actually a law enforcement agency they are going around and harassing persons on the street (no matter what those people are doing at the time, or what laws they are/are not breaking). what's next? will they start arresting people? trials? excecutions? see where we are going?
of course the thought of the RIAA actually "convicting" and executing bootleggers is laughable, but then again so is the thought of them running around in g-men swat garb flashing ids and confiscating items. you see, they stole those items from that man on the street, it doesn't matter that the items were bootlegged copies of music, they removed the items from his possesion through fraud, coercion, and threat (even if it was perceived and not fact). the government and its duly appointed agents may do this, but not ordinary citizens (and yes, even a retired ATF or FBI agent is once again a citizen) have no such policing powers.
then again i may be wrong
Posted by: Gunslinger
Quote:
Originally posted by chaosisreality
My point was that even though they may have been wrong, they still accomplished the goal. That's why I brought up the drug scenario. In some cases, the police have to bend the rules in order to accomplish the goal....
|
The end result becomes moot when you break a number of laws to achieve that goal. The police don't have to bend the rules at any time. They merely choose to do so as an acknowledgement of incompetence, resentment toward the system, or both. The ends do not justify the means, and that's all there is to it.
Posted by: AK47
Quote:
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The ends do not justify the means, and that's all there is to it.
|
It varies case by case. In theory, it shouldnt, but it does
Bending the law to nail a serious offender can be ok.
Posted by: Gunslinger
I disagree. It has the potential to set a dangerous precedent....such as invading a country under the pretense of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and coming up empty on both counts, yet praising it as success even when that pretense remains unresolved.
I would rather a serious offender live the high life than sacrifice the integrity of the system.
Posted by: INeedHelp
Quote:
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I disagree. It has the potential to set a dangerous precedent....such as invading a country under the pretense of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and coming up empty on both counts, yet praising it as success even when that pretense remains unresolved.
|
Amen brother!!!
Posted by: AK47
Well, Iraq is a whole different ****ed up situation..... I can't argue for that one
|
|
|
|
|
