Diafel, I'm sorry, but I think you assumed too much from Rum's post.
I just want to be clear here. I really don't agree with this comment, and unless you can prove that people here are downloading from illegal sources, I think you should readdress it.
As far as I'm concerned, and unless it can be PROVEN beyond a doubt, NO ONE HERE is downloading from illegal sources, nor are they trying to justify it by citing laws that they think support it.
The comment you made above implies that people who don't agree with SC's methodology must be stealing from them, especially when they cite laws that support their position. That, in and of itself, is inflammatory and could give the impression, especially to newcomers, that certain ones among us (myself included) are pirates. Not cool.
Any one of us on "the other side" of the "SC METHODOLOGY" argument could be insulted and feel slighted and I wouldn't blame them.
That comment alone is akin to calling us out.
Yet again.
And you wonder why fights start?
The whole issue has risen due to two sides barking back and forth. However its often compared to good versus evil which no matter how you say it no one here at least from my view for the most part has issues with protection of product or property. I believe most anyone here has a concern of some sort.
As mentioned by Joe it doesnt mean all have to agree on all the details or level of methodology or how things are being handled and some have the right to agree or support it. I see the anti Cheer crew dipping into rude comments etc but also see the mightier than though attitude flamed back at anything that differs from the cheer squad.
Agree to disagree but no one is going to swell one side to the other. Really lets just all find a common center to the biz and discuss those things. Find atleast a common understanding that yours is not the only right answer. Talk about something else but avoid the tug of war mentality that has ripped this portion of Dans House apart as it did on the other side of the fence.
I have no stake in this claim asides Dan being a great friend and I respect his efforts to try and give some sort of balance. Find the middle it will stay afloat much better. There are very valuable knowledgeable folks here from both sides lets get back to sharing. I propose any new news on the topic be posted with no need to argue. Sorry but I hate seeing folks at others throats over one topic when so much can be discussed with kindness and improvement for all. Sorry for the long winded comment but it has been a long time coming.
I agree with what you said but, speaking for myself, I consider everyone here one this forum to be an equal and I have never taken the
" mightier than though attitude " with intention. I am very passionate about this business and get caught up in the retoric that goes back in forth. With that being said, Let me be the first to extend the olive branch of peace to everyone here that I may have offended of "pi**ed off". We can agree to disagree and respect each other, cant we? After all from a forum, can you really know what a person is really like? Just me thinkin.
I just want to be clear here. I really don't agree with this comment, and unless you can prove that people here are downloading from illegal sources, I think you should readdress it.
As far as I'm concerned, and unless it can be PROVEN beyond a doubt, NO ONE HERE is downloading from illegal sources, nor are they trying to justify it by citing laws that they think support it.
The comment you made above implies that people who don't agree with SC's methodology must be stealing from them, especially when they cite laws that support their position. That, in and of itself, is inflammatory and could give the impression, especially to newcomers, that certain ones among us (myself included) are pirates. Not cool.
Any one of us on "the other side" of the "SC METHODOLOGY" argument could be insulted and feel slighted and I wouldn't blame them.
That comment alone is akin to calling us out.
Yet again.
And you wonder why fights start?
I proved that there is a person here downloading and sharing music. I got banned... I posted the proof right here in this forum. As for those of you who don't agree with SC methods, I have no problem with you. I have a problem with you all denying that there is a lot of downloading going on. I don't understand why it is more important to some of you (Bird) to not use your discs to avoid the simple auditing process.
The whole argument that they have no right to audit your system is countered with them saying you have no right to use their music in any format except that which you bought it in. So they will allow you to use it if you prove you have the discs. To me that is like saying you can get on the airplane if you prove you don't have weapons. If I want to fly, I'm gonna let them search my luggage to keep the rest of you safe.
And just WHAT did you prove?I proved that there is a person here downloading and sharing music. I got banned... I posted the proof right here in this forum. As for those of you who don't agree with SC methods, I have no problem with you. I have a problem with you all denying that there is a lot of downloading going on. I don't understand why it is more important to some of you (Bird) to not use your discs to avoid the simple auditing process.
The whole argument that they have no right to audit your system is countered with them saying you have no right to use their music in any format except that which you bought it in. So they will allow you to use it if you prove you have the discs. To me that is like saying you can get on the airplane if you prove you don't have weapons. If I want to fly, I'm gonna let them search my luggage to keep the rest of you safe.
"Them" is not the Airline Company doing the searching through your luggage, it's a government agency and therein lies the BIG difference.
And just WHAT did you prove?
The only thing you proved was that someone with the same internet ID as in a website was POSSIBLY involved in download and file sharing. Not the same thing. I know for a fact that there are several Spanish or Italian Diafels out in the internet world. Not me. What they do has nothing to do with me, so if you find a Diafel file sharing, what would that prove about me? NOTHING!
As for "you all denying that there is a lot of downloading going on" that simply isn't true. No one is denying it. Please do show us where you got that information?
And Bird isn't the only one tossing SC discs!
The big difference with your airplane analogy is
a) The GOVERNMENT regulates the airline industry and have a RIGHT to decide that issue, and
b) national safety is at risk, hardly true with SC discs.
c) NOTHING has been decided in court one way or the other about media shifting, so either argument is correct until such time as it has been.
Sorry, but the manus don't get to make up the law as they go along. By the same token, neither do we.
So it MUST be decided in court. Not gonna happen, though.
A judge or the FBI would have a RIGHT to ask. A disc manufacturer doesn't.So when someone videos or takes pictures of SC logos or CB logos or Stellar logos on your system and signs and affidavit stating you are using a computer and you end up in court, you would let the judge audit your system since they are part of the government? Or you'd rather wait for the FBI to be involved. I don't understand that mentality...
So when someone videos or takes pictures of SC logos or CB logos or Stellar logos on your system and signs and affidavit stating you are using a computer and you end up in court, you would let the judge audit your system since they are part of the government? Or you'd rather wait for the FBI to be involved. I don't understand that mentality...
LOL. You are a little angry there. I proved what I tried to prove and he never denied it. He did say that he was trying to change sides, but the damage has already been done to my business. MY RIGHT TO RUN MY BUSINESS AND MY RIGHT TO FAIR COMPETITION HAS BEEN INFRINGED UPON. Your rights are fine right up until they infringe on mine. That's where lawsuits come from. Expect to see lawsuits.
It seems that there was just a $1.5 million judgement in a sharing music case. At this point in time, the law seems to lean towards the manufacturers. It seems a few hours of your time to prevent a lawsuit would be worth the effort. You said you know it's been decided in court, yet you still want to scream your rights are being violated. I would think that by filing a lawsuit, they would have the right to ask. They have to have some type of proof in order to file the lawsuit. They had pictures of us using SC and using the computer so don't say they didn't have proof enough to file the suit.
Not sure where you got that I'm angry. No emotion involved, but assumptions like this is what get the fights started. If I'm angry, trust me, I'll tell you and I'll make no bones about it, either.
As for the accusation, just because he didn't deny, proves nothing.
I'm not going around denying I'm a bank robber every time the bank gets held up, either.
As for him saying that he was trying to change sides, I guess I missed that. However, should you be happy that that effort is being made instead of continuing to vilify him?
Let him change! Isn't that what you want?
It seems that there was just a $1.5 million judgement in a sharing music case. At this point in time, the law seems to lean towards the manufacturers. It seems a few hours of your time to prevent a lawsuit would be worth the effort. You said you know it's been decided in court, yet you still want to scream your rights are being violated. I would think that by filing a lawsuit, they would have the right to ask. They have to have some type of proof in order to file the lawsuit. They had pictures of us using SC and using the computer so don't say they didn't have proof enough to file the suit.
Did they show you the pictures or simply claim they had them?
A place to debate everything and anything!