Tweet
Photographers and artists simply don't have the $$$ and the unified voice that RIAA and to a slightly lesser extent the MPAA have in fighting this, and artist-types probably aren't as clever at being good little capitalists as the capitalists are 
Anyway, rebroadcasting a music video is a blatant act of illegality. At least as illegal as sharing music online, if not slightly worse (if you actually upload it to the site, as opposed to just allowing people to access your HD, it's somewhat more active on your part).
As a side note, I presume that if I accidentally leave a hole in my security that allows sneaky sneaksters to grab my iTunes folder and download it, and also happen to post my music listing online, as in "Look at my cool collection, don't I rock", I'm not breaking the law, right? IE, I didn't "allow" people to download music, nor did I intend to distribute it (in this theoretical example).
How do they prosecute Napster types, precisely? As I undedstand it, the sharing is what's being litigated, not the downloading (as one is a more serious offense than another). Do they define the adding of your IP address to a P2P network, and the operation of a P2P software, as 'intent to distribute" or something? Or is there a law that makes this prima facie illegal? And if so, what consequence would that law have for my initial case?
Anyway, rebroadcasting a music video is a blatant act of illegality. At least as illegal as sharing music online, if not slightly worse (if you actually upload it to the site, as opposed to just allowing people to access your HD, it's somewhat more active on your part).
As a side note, I presume that if I accidentally leave a hole in my security that allows sneaky sneaksters to grab my iTunes folder and download it, and also happen to post my music listing online, as in "Look at my cool collection, don't I rock", I'm not breaking the law, right? IE, I didn't "allow" people to download music, nor did I intend to distribute it (in this theoretical example).
How do they prosecute Napster types, precisely? As I undedstand it, the sharing is what's being litigated, not the downloading (as one is a more serious offense than another). Do they define the adding of your IP address to a P2P network, and the operation of a P2P software, as 'intent to distribute" or something? Or is there a law that makes this prima facie illegal? And if so, what consequence would that law have for my initial case?
You are crazy, Combat ! She is showing a NIPPLE !!! Our poor fellow american polytubbies are going into coma when they see that.
Evidently Ms Moore is intimately associated with tounge action.
. Even german cuss words were taken.
Comment