On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:27:03 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

wrote:

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:17:39 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

wrote:

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:33:43 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

wrote:

I always get a kick out of those hollywood and musical types.
They will rally around and tell us how we are supposed to share
our money with the less fortunate

Yeah, people like Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus did not send cease and desist orders or just sue people who
shared his works.

(referring to the part you snipped)

You are so full of false equivalences, there should be a bull****
nutrition label included with each of your posts.

Advocating that people be either charitable or taxed for the
purpose of helping their fellow man has NOTHING to do with
copyright law. Identify the artists to which you refer and examine
their charitable giving or taxes paid. If you find many that are
activists and who do not contribute or pay taxes, come back and let
me know.

They just want to "share" whatever is tax deductible or what will
advance their career.
I don't see anything charitable when a multimillion dollar corporation
like RIAA representing millionaire artists sues a single mother
because her 12 year old daughter has some bootleg MP3s on her
computer.


And yet, another Fretwell quick left turn diversion. Are people in
your part of Florida so stupid that they can't see right through you?

What was your point if it was not millionaire artists enforcing
archaic copyright laws?
If I patent the cure for cancer I get 17 years of protection but Rick
Dees has copyright protection for Disco Duck until 2033