Does the RIAA/MPAA haver paid operatives posting here?

[GullyFoyle]

Take this as a tinfoil hat comment if you wish. I read certain posts about copyright and DRM. I notice a couple of regular posters defending these practices. They actually go out of their way to JUSTIFY some horrendous decisions like Rootkits and law suits against defenseless grannies.
I know the government and political parties have paid operatives posting to and watching various blogs and websites.
Is the same thing true of the RIAA/MPAA?
How else does one explain some of the very strange stances and comments on DRM/RIAA/MPAA/ so on?
These people could be trolling for infringers or planting a corporation-good- just-defending-the-law meme.
Call me paranoid but the same few seem to be the only ones arguing for big business and unethical practices, legal or not.
We all know that the RIAA/MPAA hires outside groups to search computers for downloads. So why wouldn't they be paying a few to check places like this? To muddy the waters with everything is illegal arguments?
If the government can pay shills and disruptors to do this why not big media?
Thanks.
Flame on people.

[adam]

Well how else do you expect Baldrick to pay the bills?

[Cornucopia]

Yeah, I usually take it with a grain of salt, but there are a few times that (not trying to specifically denegrate ANYONE here) they seem to Really be off their meds, when I feel the need to say at least something in response. I guess I'm a sucker for a baiter...

Scott

BTW, Gullyfoyle (sp?), I really like your ReeferMadness? clip on that other thread! https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1408475#1408475 Did you get COPYRIGHT PERMISSION for that?

[junkmalle]

BTW, Gullyfoyle (sp?), I really like your ReeferMadness? clip on that other thread! https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1408475#1408475 Did you get COPYRIGHT PERMISSION for that?

Naw, it was "fair use"!

[GullyFoyle]

What is really sad is that five years ago the idea of paid corporate shills promoting the big business party line would be truly insane. But with everything we have seen over the last few years it isn't outrageous or impossible.
I can understand explaining the law. Sure most of us are goobers with no ability to speak legalese or navigate the intracicies of modern legal practices.
Then there comes a point that is above and beyond anything reasonable.

[ROF]

Tin foil hats make excellent radio recievers.

[Cornucopia]

BTW, Gullyfoyle (sp?), I really like your ReeferMadness? clip on that other thread! https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1408475#1408475 Did you get COPYRIGHT PERMISSION for that?

Naw, it was "fair use"!

Actually, (for those who may not know) this movie passed into the public domain long ago ('60s-'70s), so you CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT WITH IT. Thank goodness!

Scott

[Shadowmistress]

Um... what's the tech problem here? Your disc keeps skipping maybe?

[waheed]

...(not trying to specifically denegrate ANYONE here) they seem to Really be off their meds, when I feel...

Nice way of saying it without pointing any fingers :P

[Cornucopia]

Um... what's the tech problem here? Your disc keeps skipping maybe?

I was wondering if this should be in OT forum instead...

...alright waheed!

Scott

[Nelson37]

Paid corporate shills promoting the big business party line goes back at least 80 years or more, when both Edison and Westinghouse were paying people to partially electrocute themselves (and, in some cases, to fully electrocute others) in order to show the dangers of AC and DC power systems, this is at least in part why we have the electric chair.

Corporations can certainly do bad things, but they produce the food you eat, the car you drive, the vaccines that protect your children, and either directly or indirectly, the job at which you work to pay for these things. Most of which would be either significantly more expensive or would not exist at all without a large conglomerate to underwrite the expense of producing them.

If people who worked for corporations were prevented from posting here, this board would be a lot less populated. Advertising revenue would decline, bandwidth would be limited, and paranoid wackos with little understanding of modern economics would be reduced to tacking rants onto telephone poles. Which are provided by a corporation.

What, precisely, would be wrong with some corporate rep posting here? Or should free speech be limited only to those designated by some authority? Now, if such authority consisted of a group of people who agreed to act in concert, guess what that would be? Bingo, a corporation!

[Shadowmistress]

I was wondering if this should be in OT forum instead...

...alright waheed!

Jeez, damned if I do and damned if I don't.

I just knew from the topic that this thread would probably hover on the top of this forum for the next few days. I'm not used to ignoring threads with new posts in newbie general, that's all.

[GullyFoyle]

Paid corporate shills promoting the big business party line goes back at least 80 years or more, when both Edison and Westinghouse were paying people to partially electrocute themselves (and, in some cases, to fully electrocute others) in order to show the dangers of AC and DC power systems, this is at least in part why we have the electric chair.

Corporations can certainly do bad things, but they produce the food you eat, the car you drive, the vaccines that protect your children, and either directly or indirectly, the job at which you work to pay for these things. Most of which would be either significantly more expensive or would not exist at all without a large conglomerate to underwrite the expense of producing them.

If people who worked for corporations were prevented from posting here, this board would be a lot less populated. Advertising revenue would decline, bandwidth would be limited, and paranoid wackos with little understanding of modern economics would be reduced to tacking rants onto telephone poles. Which are provided by a corporation.

What, precisely, would be wrong with some corporate rep posting here? Or should free speech be limited only to those designated by some authority? Now, if such authority consisted of a group of people who agreed to act in concert, guess what that would be? Bingo, a corporation!

While corporatism in itself is not wrong, unbridled greed is. How many times does the bible discuss the disadvantage of both greed and being rich?
You do make an interesting point in the free speech department. Rumor has it that in the fifties there were more paid informant FBI agents in the communist party itself than there were real communists. With this in mind at what point does free speech cross into paid propaganda?
We also have these warnings AGAINST corporatism;
"Forces one to consider the possibility that when corporate evil reaches a certain status, it simply cannot be defeated."
-- New York Times blurb from their review of the book "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben"
"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power--Benito Mussolini
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
--Theodore Roosevelt, April 19, 1906
"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower.
"The two party system just means that the corporations cut two checks instead of one."
-- Barry Crimmins.
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
"According to Business Week, the average CEO [Chief Executive Officer] made 42 times the average blue-collar worker's pay in 1980, 85 times in 1990 and a staggering 531 times in 2000."
-- AFL-CIO "Executive Paywatch"
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world -- no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."
-- Woodrow Wilson, U.S. President during World War I.
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."
-- Abraham Lincoln, letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Nov 21, 1864. Reference: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling power. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing."
--President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (One Thousand Americans, George Seldes, page 5.)

Obviously these people, many our elected and respected officials, knew something we have chosen to forget.

[Nelson37]

I do not believe greed is wrong, no more so than lust. It is only when others are unjustly harmed in its pursuit that a problem occurs. An example of harm that is not unjust is the buggy whip factory put out of business by the advent of the automobile.

Throughout history, there is no shortage of people who have achieved power by convincing the masses that the reason they are "downtrodden" is that the folks in the big house on the hill have taken it away from them. Unfortunately, the first thing they do upon gaining power is to move into the big house on the hill. This is in reference to the politician's quotes, respected some of them may be but many of them are just not overly bright, and certainly not motivated to tell the truth.

It is a simple fact that people are not all equal in their abilities. Given that some have more valued abilities than others, they should be free to obtain better compensation. This creates inequalities in ownership of material goods. A system of equal legal protection and a free market economy have evolved as the most effective, efficient, and equitable way to get the most benefit to the most people.

"To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" meant that everybody sits on their ass and does nothing, as there is no incentive to work harder or innovate.

[thecoalman]

Let the Truth be Known

Their primary purpose is to spy on the activities of average citizens in order to gather tactical information and discover "subversives" who are not bowing to the will of the Liberati's UN-backed Federal Government.

[GullyFoyle]

It is a simple fact that people are not all equal in their abilities. Given that some have more valued abilities than others, they should be free to obtain better compensation. This creates inequalities in ownership of material goods. A system of equal legal protection and a free market economy have evolved as the most effective, efficient, and equitable way to get the most benefit to the most people.

That is the problem. Most of the wealth is inherited and has absolutely nothing to do with ability.
When our own political leaders continually warn against the evils of corporatism something MUST be going on that scared them. Scared them for generations. Scared them so much they considered it a threat to the american government and the people of the United States.
Either way I don't want to get this thread off topic.
The main idea is that some posters may be paid to espouse the corporate party line. And that those same posters may actually be spying or attempting to seduce others into illegal activities.
The second point is this idea is not unreasonable.

[SLK001]

I don't know about paid "operatives", but paid "observers", yes. Got my check just the other day!

[fritzi93]

We have an agent provocateur in our midst? Cool. Ah, for the "Good Old Days" when there were great slanging matches here. (Will Hay, where are you? And Jimmalenko was quite a brawler until he got aspirations of joining management.) Then the Boss cracked down.

Whatever happened to Da Barrister anyway? He was far more likely to be one than any peRson On this Forum.

Seriously, you shouldn't be surprised if unfriendly eyes are watching this forum. Of course they are. So behave, no warez, etc, etc.

[gll99]

Does the RIAA/MPAA haver paid operatives posting here?

Are you serious?

How does it look as a statement?

the RIAA/MPAA have paid operatives posting here...

Your mission mr Phelps is to find them and eliminate them
You primary contact will be Ricky Overton Fenwick tracking him will lead you the underground cell. You have 5 days to complete your mission Good Luck. This tape will self destruct in 5.... Ouch ouch ouch that was too fast....!!!!

[Nelson37]

If those who inherit are able, they will keep the wealth, primarily by investing it into other enterprises and creating jobs. If they are not able, they will squander the wealth and it will devolve back into the general population. Who should have wealth, those who know how to get and maintain it or those who do not?

As for the paid operatives, again, so what if there are? How would you go about preventing it and why would you want to? The things you suggest they might be doing that are illegal are already against forum rules. In what way would you seperate these supposed "agents" from the, again supposedly, "normal" users?

[shelbyGT]

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechwallstreet.html

[adam]

this idea is not unreasonable.

I'd be suprised if anyone on this board actually agreed with that. Viewing, sure. But being paid to argue with people about legalities? That would be about the most ridiculous job description I've ever heard. And in all the years I've been here I've never seen anyone who even comes close to posting in such a manner. I keep seeing R's and O's and F's popping up, and I agree he is very zealous in his defense of copyright law and copyright protections, but...and I don't know any nicer way to say this...if he were really a propaganda machine then he would know the law better and his arguments in general would be much more persuasive.

[shelbyGT]

...if he were really a propaganda machine then he would know the law better and his arguments in general would be much more persuasive

agreed. and he already stated he has burnt commercial dvd's for personal use...

[GullyFoyle]

this idea is not unreasonable.

I'd be suprised if anyone on this board actually agreed with that. Viewing, sure. But being paid to argue with people about legalities? That would be about the most ridiculous job description I've ever heard.

And yet the government does pay people to not only observe but also post to various political forums. Essentially what happens is they are expected to either get the message across that something is positive instead of negative or create enough doubt that others may question the veracity of certain stances.
I have seen arguments created that do try to turn the negative into a positive, the SONY rootkit fiasco for example. Or the defense of the RIAA when they sue people who claim they have never downloaded anything.
If there were more than one and they were working together you could have a good cop bad cop scenario. One would spew the RIAA party line while the other would seem helpful and attempt to explain the nuances and technicalities of the system. Clearly the "nice" guy would be the one garnering some sympathy and would be contrasted against the bad guy with much more radical ideas.
Thus making the nice guy much more reasonable and seemingly believable.
They don't even have to know they are working together or for the same company. All they need be given is a position statement that defines the parameters and creates certain boundaries never to be exceeded.
That allows them to enter into arguments which even further solidifies their "personalities".
Then again this could all be paranoid tin foil hat psychobable.

[gll99]

@Adam
My use of it (R.O.F) was completely in jest.

Copyright: As discussed here.

Some present arguments based on what they would like it to be which unfortunately in law is mostly incorrect.
Some present arguments based on what it is but sometimes interpret it incorrectly.
A very few present arguments based on what it is and interpret it correctly.
Some just argue.

Laws can still be challenged and I suspect that at least some of these have yet to stand the test of time and the highest courts. My feeling is that the excessively high amounts sought in lawsuits is to prevent challenges from reaching the higher courts and for that reason alone there should be some selected representative no fault and no penalty cases allowed to proceed to end this.

What seems to frustrate many people is that the copyright laws are too one sided and intrude into areas of personal freedom and choice. Many also feel that these concessions were obtained fraudulently by either false claims and/or by directly lobbying politicians using high profile and well paid fulltime legal teams. Some also argue that since few artists seem to benefit from these laws even they have been deceived by these same lobbiests. Some will also argue that there are other ways to reward artists directly for granting a more expanded use of their creations. The counter groups are never has well organized or funded and therefore do not appear to have the ears of politician who ultimately make the laws.

I think most people agree that there should be copyright laws of some type but in the balance the fulcrum seems to be set much too far in one direction.

btw) In Canada as it stands, I can backup my DVD's and I can transfer my CD music to mp3 or make a cd backup for my car as long as it's for personal use. Along with many other changes proposed by the movie industry, lobbiests from the music industry have made inroads with our lawmakers and new legislation is coming. I fear we will lose many rights we enjoy now.

[Nelson37]

While perhaps more legally feasable, personal use transfer is not likely to be interfered with. It is piracy they have been trying to stop.

The new technologies are already being dealt with by those who wish to ensure personal use, again piracy in mass quantities is what they are fighting, and rightfully so.

And now, since Gullyfoyle has completely blown my cover, I shall have to end this assignment and start a new intensive surveillence operation elsewhere.

[Headbanger's Ball]

Does the RIAA/MPAA have paid operatives posting here?

Are you asking if ROF is a tool?

[guns1inger]

Australia has no fair use or personal transfer legislation. While technically illegal here to even record TV shows, the US provisions regarding timeshifting with VHS are enough to stop it being prosecuted. There is no such provision for digital recording of TV programmes, although devices to allow it are on sale here, and have no other use.

As for how many RIAA stooges there may be in our midst, I suspect there would not be many, and most would not remain. Baldrick has made it clear, and is supported by longer term members, that anything illegal is frowned upon and not welcome. There are so few crumbs here, and much better targets elsewhere, that there is little to be gained by wasting resources here.

Nice shiny hat, by the way