NationStates Jolt Archive

Just like the rest of us, LOL.

I wonder if she uses eMule.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/05/24lileks_edit.html

I, for one, don't see this as an ethical lapse, even though I don't like her (well, I do like her "police state" attitude).

Liek omg she shud be arrested/.

That bitch.

Burn her.

Build a bridge out of her!

Just like the rest of us, LOL.

I wonder if she uses eMule.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/05/24lileks_edit.html

I, for one, don't see this as an ethical lapse, even though I don't like her (well, I do like her "police state" attitude).

As deeply amusing as it'd be if that pandering bitch got caught doing that, there's no actual proof she's illegally downloaded anything.

As deeply amusing as it'd be if that pandering bitch got caught doing that, there's no actual proof she's illegally downloaded anything.
I dislike the woman, but I would like to see her get charged just cause of the bloody nose the industry would take just trying to sue someone that can afford to fight them (and then it would be all over the news)

I would like to see them get taken down a notch or two

As deeply amusing as it'd be if that pandering bitch got caught doing that, there's no actual proof she's illegally downloaded anything.
There doesn't have to be. The only way she could have gotten Beatles' songs into her iPod is by downloading them from the net or by ripping the CDs and copying the files. Both illegal activities according to the recording companies.

I find it especially funny that she likes the Beatles, a band who were against censorship --- something Billary seems to love.

as much as I would like to see her thrown into a dark cell where we would never have to hear from her again, I havnen't seen anything here that would implicate her in doing anythign wrong at all. In fact they are talkign more about MP3 conversion of owned CD's as being where the wrong doing possibly happened as if that's not what MPs players are for. :confused:

There doesn't have to be. The only way she could have gotten Beatles' songs into her iPod is by downloading them from the net or by ripping the CDs and copying the files. Both illegal activities according to the recording companies.


Fortunately they don't write the laws. She does ironically enough, and in some cases tragically.

Ripping songs to put in your iPod is illegal!? Uh oh...

Fortunately they don't write the laws. She does ironically enough, and in some cases tragically.
Unfortunately they've been bendign too much towards whatever the recording industry tells them.

There doesn't have to be. The only way she could have gotten Beatles' songs into her iPod is by downloading them from the net or by ripping the CDs and copying the files. Both illegal activities according to the recording companies.

Wait, it's not legal to put music I bought on CD on my iPod? Isn't that the point?

Edit: Bloody H*ll, that's exactly what the music industry believes/wants us to believe.

Wait, it's not legal to put music I bought on CD on my iPod? Isn't that the point?

Edit: Bloody H*ll, that's exactly what the music industry believes/wants us to believe.
I know. It's extremely stupid. The recording industry should just embrace technology and look for ways to make new models work instead of trying to screw everyone.

I know. It's extremely stupid. The recording industry should just embrace technology and look for ways to make new models work instead of trying to screw everyone.

That would imply reasoning skills, which we all know the RIAA lacks.

There doesn't have to be. The only way she could have gotten Beatles' songs into her iPod is by downloading them from the net or by ripping the CDs and copying the files. Both illegal activities according to the recording companies.
That's the key bit. Fortunately, the recording companies don't make or enforce the laws, because if I understand Fair Use properly, they're wrong. Fuck 'em.

I for one couldn't care less about the whole downloading thing. Most popular music is way overrated if you ask me. They're already millionaires as it is. They should be glad they have so much devoted fans rather than complaining about being merely super-rich rather than superduper-rich.

Wait, it's not legal to put music I bought on CD on my iPod? Isn't that the point?

Hillary travels a fair amount. She could argue that she didn't make the copies while inside the United States.

For example, Canadian law expressly permits "private copying for personal use", and has since 1999.

*singing* "Sexy Sadie, what have you done? You've gone and made a fool out of everyone."

*singing* "Sexy Sadie, what have you done? You've gone and made a fool out of everyone."
Ahh, you and your sweet, sweet alto ...

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/fouet.gif

As deeply amusing as it'd be if that pandering bitch got caught doing that, there's no actual proof she's illegally downloaded anything.

True. She couldve illegally ripped a CD.

Or she could have lied about what was on her ipod.

Hillary travels a fair amount. She could argue that she didn't make the copies while inside the United States.

For example, Canadian law expressly permits "private copying for personal use", and has since 1999.

RIAA: Ms Clinton did you illegally copy Beatles songs onto your iPod?

Hillary: That depends on what your definition of "you" is.

Down with The Man.

Down with The Man.

Yeah! Down with Chico too!

Yeah! Down with Chico too!
Wow--you are really dating yourself. :p

Wow--you are really dating yourself. :p
Butcha gotta admit, it was pretty funny. :D
*score*

illegal downloading? wow... she's a celebrity, which means she's loaded with $$$, with all that money you'd think people would buy the bonafide thing that they're downloading... :confused:

RIAA: Ms Clinton did you illegally copy Beatles songs onto your iPod?

Hillary: That depends on what your definition of "you" is.
:D

illegal downloading? wow... she's a celebrity, which means she's loaded with $$$, with all that money you'd think people would buy the bonafide thing that they're downloading... :confused:
Don't be confused--chances are she didn't download. More likely she had someone rip her CDs to her computer and then put them on her iPod, which is the real point the article is making--that the RIAA considers that breaking the law. I personally consider the RIAA to be full of shit. I buy a cd, I get to do what the fuck I want with it.

True. She couldve illegally ripped a CD.

Or she could have lied about what was on her ipod.

I'd figure her for a metallica fan. Or something heavy.

I'd figure her for a metallica fan. Or something heavy.
Not exactly ... The Scissor Sisters, IIRC.
Barry Mannilow, Tom Jones, The Black-Eyed Peas, Eiffel 65, Zamfir, Kenny G, and Gwar.

Whoa - that's Verdigroth's playlist too! :eek:
The only thing missing is William Hung.

turn here into a porn star ( zoofilia ):fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Don't be confused--chances are she didn't download. More likely she had someone rip her CDs to her computer and then put them on her iPod, which is the real point the article is making--that the RIAA considers that breaking the law. I personally consider the RIAA to be full of shit. I buy a cd, I get to do what the fuck I want with it.

exactomundo. your money, your property. :)

Why isn't Kenny G dead yet?

Why isn't Kenny G dead yet?
He was never really alive, silly! :)
He's a golem under the same contract as "Dick Clark".

...if you want proof, consider his E Flat for forty five minutes, forty seven seconds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_G

There doesn't have to be. The only way she could have gotten Beatles' songs into her iPod is by downloading them from the net or by ripping the CDs and copying the files. Both illegal activities according to the recording companies.

While I consider the first one to be a defensible position - albeit that I think that the sharing or uploading of copyrighted material should be considered the criminal activity instead of the downloading - the second is not. Especially in the many countries where the record companies actually add a small amount to the price of cds because you have the right to make a backup or "car-copy".

I for one couldn't care less about the whole downloading thing. Most popular music is way overrated if you ask me. They're already millionaires as it is. They should be glad they have so much devoted fans rather than complaining about being merely super-rich rather than superduper-rich.

It's mostly the record companies rather than individual artists. With the odd exception like Metallica.

Who gives a shit what Hillary does with her music and her iPod? She could masturbate with it wile listening to Ladysmith Black Mambazo for all I care.

As for ripping and downloading, I have over 3000 songs on my computer that I have downloaded over the last 3 years, including nearly every Beatles song in their catalog.

The RIAA can Suck my **** and lick my ***** after they **** their **** with **** and stick it in their ***** with a hard ****.

Music is art and you can no more own it than the French Government and the Louvre own the Mona Lisa.

Music is ART and you cannot OWN it no more than the French Government and the Louvre own the Mona Lisa.

Do you believe one can own ideas - like through patents ?

Do you believe one can own ideas - like through patents ?


ART and IDEAS are very different things. You cannot patent classical music, or Rock and Roll, or Jazz, or Cubism, or French Impressionsim, or a sculpture.

ART and IDEAS are very different things. You cannot patent classical music, or Rock and Roll, or Jazz, or Cubism, or French Impressionsim, or a sculpture.

I actually do not see why not, nor why they would be so fundamentally different. Ideas are created. Art is created. Ideas are spread, Art is spread. Both can benefit humanity.

Why would the creators and propagators of ideas and art not have the right to be rewarded ? You may not be able to patent classical music, but how about a specific piece ? Last time I checked painters/inventors/scientists and gallery owners/factories/magazine owners still needed to buy food to survive.

I actually do not see why not, nor why they would be so fundamentally different. Ideas are created. Art is created. Ideas are spread, Art is spread. Both can benefit humanity.

Why would the creators and propagators of ideas and art not have the right to be rewarded ? You may not be able to patent classical music, but how about a specific piece ? Last time I checked painters/inventors/scientists and gallery owners/factories/magazine owners still needed to buy food to survive.


Intellectual Property Rights are nearly impossible to police and control, plain and simple. You can own a copyright on a book, but you cannot control how people will be influenced by it. You cannot control people taking the ideas you wrote and making them their own, or changing them, or using them in their books, unless you actually catch them or they lift it directly world-for-word. You cannot control ideas.

How many inventions out there haven't been improved and changed as they spread across the world or outlived their usefullness? Bottom line, once you create something and you put it out into the world to share with everyone else, it is no longer yours, no matter how you try to control it.

God forbid

Intellectual Property Rights are nearly impossible to police and control, plain and simple. You can own a copyright on a book, but you cannot control how people will be influenced by it. You cannot control people taking the ideas you wrote and making them their own, or changing them, or using them in their books, unless you actually catch them or they lift it directly world-for-word. You cannot control ideas.

Technically you are now making a case in favour of the possible ownership of art... since most art is something definate. A book. A sheet of music. A building. A painting. You cannot control the response people have to it, but the source of those responses is something well defined.

Technically you are now making a case in favour of the possible ownership of art... since most art is something definate. .

Wrong. There is nothing definite about art. You cannot define what art represents. The artist might say what it represents, but it is not necessarily what others will see. For example, I might find a particular painting absolutely inspiring, while you find it repulsive or see nothing in it at all. Same goes for music, books, sculpture, etc.


A book. A sheet of music. A building. A painting. You cannot control the response people have to it, but the source of those responses is something well defined.

What is the source? The actual canvas or the paint? The first manuscript, or the pages it was printed on? The first notes of the song, or the CD it was recorded on? Again, impossible to enforce, define, or control.

This is just money hungry music execs trying to fuck over the artists as well as the consumers, plain and simple. And as for those recording artists trying to "protect" their music, I say make better music and maybe people will buy it.:cool:

Build a bridge out of her!

ROFLMAO! :D

ok, ok...

But can you also not build a bridge from stone?

RIAA: Ms Clinton did you illegally copy Beatles songs onto your iPod?

If she honestly believes that what she did was fair use, the correct answer to that question is, "No."

Who gives a shit what Hillary does with her music and her iPod? She could masturbate with it wile listening to Ladysmith Black Mambazo for all I care.

The RIAA can Suck my **** and lick my ***** after they **** their **** with **** and stick it in their ***** with a hard ****.
ModDAMN you gotsa titillating way with script. *grrrrowl*
:D

ROFLMAO! :D

ok, ok...

But can you also not build a bridge from stone?
Oh, yeah.

...
BEDEVERE:
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A duck!
:D