Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kamikaze on September 10, 2003, 02:08:24 am
-
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/09/10/0046257.shtml?tid=141&tid=188&tid=98&tid=99
This is bloody low, this is a 12 year old girl who's family may not be able to afford a $2000 settlement. They are deliberately, publicly humiliating her and her family for the sake of their campaign and public opinion. It was horrible before, it's still going down.
The RIAA will most likely continue this trend, the first 1 or 2 people afflicted by this may get media coverage and therefore sympathy money. However, the RIAA won't stop, and the media's going to get bored by the third.
I seriously suggest you all stop supporting the RIAA if you are and go for legal, RIAA-less music. :nod:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/9/5/05113/70314
http://www.emusic.com/pitch.html
-
"I come from a land down under
Where beer does flow and men chunder
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?
You better run, you better take cover."
in other words, i'm an australian... and to be quite honest, this all sucks.. i remember something about the US being "The Land of the Free" isn't that in the national anthem?...:doubt:
as far as i can see it.. the US is no longer the land of the free, more like the Land of the civil lawsuits:doubt:
in other words, i don't see how could punishing children could possibly accomplish anything.. besides getting masses of people across the world pissed off at you...
next thing you know, they'll get the power to break into your house and permanantly seize anything of suspicion (SP?)...
Either that, or they'll start goose-stepping and saying "Sig-heil":doubt:
-
This is just ****ing outragous. I mean, sueing an adult for downloading, but a ****ing 12-year old just pisses me off. :mad2:
Land of the free... Yeah... right... :doubt:
-
More and more reason for me to move to the UK when I'm old enough...
EDIT: bastards...
-
Why the UK? It's only slightly better in terms of lawsuits, not as permissive as the rest of Europe, bad food (bar foregn) and crap weather. Go to Oz or france.
-
99% of my music comes from game soundtracks anyway so I'm in no danger...I don't think...:nervous:
Oh, and you Euros: you're not safe. You can get tried for sending encrypted email to certain countries and I'm you can probably get busted for pirating American music or at the very least downloading it from or sharing it with an American.
I ****ing hate the ****ing Recording ****ing Association ****ing of America...:hopping:
-
This is why Holland will be the next superpower in the world... In a millenia or 100 :p
-
LOL The coffee shops alone would ensure world peace for millennia to come :D
Ahem :nervous:
Flipside :D
-
uhh ok im just gonna rant a bit....
1 americans are retards and stupid ****ing morons with some exceptions
2 if you dont want illegal music or movies or games lower the ****ing prices to a reasonable size currently for 2 games you can buy a GF4Ti4200.......
and now the final word: **** RIAA **** MPAA and **** any other agencies like that
-
I'll continue to download, and I'll also continue to buy the albums of the artists that I do like.
It's simple economics when you think about it. Maybe if those fuckwits at the RIAA didn't concern themselves with chasing little girls and maybe made it worth buying a CD they wouldn't have half as many problems as they do.
For example I bought a CD two weeks ago (Cave-In - Antenna, ****ing amazing CD) and it had a free DVD with it and was reasonably priced.
-
yet another moronic deed by the US. Whatever reputation your goverment ever had in my eyes (and believe me, it could be counted on one hand), just went with the wind
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Oh, and you Euros: you're not safe. You can get tried for sending encrypted email to certain countries and I'm you can probably get busted for pirating American music or at the very least downloading it from or sharing it with an American.
first, they would need to resolve my IP, and if they don;tstop weith seeing a .nl, they will have to call my ISP. if they don't stop after douzens of auto-reponding machines, they would be told to get a ****ing warrant valid over here, meaning a dutch court evealuation it. then, they will have to sue me, and it's just the question in what country it happens. probably here. and here, the max is 3 months jail, or €5000,-. but lawsuits on warez are rare here, and the ones that do happen are rarely succesfull.
and if they don;t win the case, i can go to the states, and file a complaint case worth $10,000 just to get back to them, and for a fund for people who get sued.
-
Here is another example of a silly and pointless action by the big bad institution, further compounded by the typically overreacting public. :D I mean, I certainly agree that the RIAA is just being stupid and making their public image even worse than it already is, but the overemotional reactions of the people are perhaps even funnier. :D
These copyright laws are pretty similar in most first-world capitalist nations and they all have their own versions of RIAA-type things, so it is a little naive to think that just moving somewhere else will suddenly make it all legal (you will need to go to one of these messed up countries for that), although it is far more stupid to think that these things are really laws in the first place. Once in a while someone gets caught (out of bad lack, incompetence in covering their tracks or both), but for each one there are maybe fifty million others that get away with it. When maybe one out of three people breaks a law, it can no longer be no effectively enforced and is not much of a law anymore. What is the RIAA going to do, file a lawsuit against the whole nation? :D So continue downloading your music. :D
This is just ****ing outragous. I mean, sueing an adult for downloading, but a ****ing 12-year old just pisses me off.
On this particular point, why does it make any difference what age the person is? I doubt anyone would care much if she was say, 50 years old. I mean, that's like discrimination. :p :D
1 americans are retards and stupid ****ing morons with some exceptions
ooh, you're going to piss off quite a few with that one... :D
It's simple economics when you think about it. Maybe if those ****wits at the RIAA didn't concern themselves with chasing little girls and maybe made it worth buying a CD they wouldn't have half as many problems as they do.
Ah, finally a sensible post; I quite agree here. :yes:
yet another moronic deed by the US. Whatever reputation your goverment ever had in my eyes (and believe me, it could be counted on one hand), just went with the wind
I don't think the RIAA is a government agency; it is essentially a corporation.
-
And the corporations run America. So it all works out in the end :)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
On this particular point, why does it make any difference what age the person is? I doubt anyone would care much if she was say, 50 years old. I mean, that's like discrimination. :p :D
:wtf:
The average 50-year old KNOWS what he does. The average 12-year old however, does not always. Discrimination my ass. Its basic psychology. :doubt:
Besides, whats the use of taking on individual downloaders? There are litterally hundreds of millions of them. They should be going after the big fish instead of picking on 12 year old infants who downloaded a Britney Spears single.
-
And the corporations run America. So it all works out in the end
Certainly, but that's true for all of the larger economies today; that is how capitalism works. All national governments are either controlled by the corporations, militias or criminal gangs. :D
The average 50-year old KNOWS what he does. The average 12-year old however, does not always. Discrimination my ass. Its basic psychology.
hah...where did that come from? How in the world does the 50-year old know any more than the 12-year old? I certainly have seen young people with more intelligence and wisdom than much older ones. I believe I already had this debate with you before in one of the sex threads. Basing your anger on the age of the person is simply a typical emotional overreaction, nothing more.
Besides, whats the use of taking on individual downloaders? There are litterally hundreds of millions of them. They should be going after the big fish instead of picking on 12 year old infants who downloaded a Britney Spears single.
Of course I agree with that, which is what I was saying before; from their point of view, this is not accomplishing much other than getting people mad at them, which will cause even more people to take up pirating music.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
hah...where did that come from? How in the world does the 50-year old know any more than the 12-year old? I certainly have seen young people with more intelligence and wisdom than much older ones. I believe I already had this debate with you before in one of the sex threads. Basing your anger on the age of the person is simply a typical emotional overreaction, nothing more.
:doubt: Read it again. I said "average"12 year old and "average" 50-year old. And I assume that average 50-year olds have enjoyed a longer (not neccesarily better) education. They alsy have 38 more years of experience in life.
Yes, there are exceptions, but only by complete morons and super intelligent kids.
-
:doubt: Read it again. I said "average"12 year old and "average" 50-year old. And I assume that average 50-year olds have enjoyed a longer (not neccesarily better) education. They alsy have 38 more years of experience in life.
Yes, there are exceptions, but only by complete morons and super intelligent kids.
Even average. Experience certainly does not make a person more responsible, intelligent or anything like that. On this particular point, I bet most 50-year olds (unless they are lawyers) are as clueless about some obscure media copyright laws that are hardly ever enforced as the 12-year olds are.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Certainly, but that's true for all of the larger economies today; that is how capitalism works. All national governments are either controlled by the corporations, militias or criminal gangs. :D
Then we're agreed. Let's go and get drunk.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Even average. Experience certainly does not make a person more responsible, intelligent or anything like that. On this particular point, I bet most 50-year olds (unless they are lawyers) are as clueless about some obscure media copyright laws that are hardly ever enforced as the 12-year olds are.
Hey, you were the one who picked the 50 years of age. They'd be better off going after an adult in general. Prosecuting a child because they download Britney Spears singles = bad. Period.
And please spare me your bull**** explainations CP. No offense, but you speak like the only thing you know are statistics. Go have a social life and judge people then. No offense intended but you act as if you know people. Well, by staying inside 24/7 you don't.
-
Then we're agreed. Let's go and get drunk.
And of course do math, which is what I am doing at the moment. ;7 trying to prove that this dumb thing converges... :sigh:
Hey, you were the one who picked the 50 years of age. They'd be better off going after an adult in general. Prosecuting a child because they download Britney Spears singles = bad. Period.
Whatever, I am just giving an example. Make it 20, 200 or whatever if you like. And why is it bad, period (that is compared to an adult)? This idea is pretty absurd, and I think you well know it but don't want to admit it.
And please spare me your bull**** explainations CP. No offense, but you speak like the only thing you know id statistics. Go have a social life and judge people then. No offense intended but you act as if you know people. Well, by staying inside 24/7 you don't.
As Stryke once said, it gets really funny how people repeatedly say "no offense" followed by something intended to be offensive. But don't worry, you don't offend me. Anyway, this is a pretty lame response to my arguments since it doesn't address anything I said, and yes, offense is intended. :D
-
Sounds to me like cowards willing to sue a far weaker opponent than face a far deadlier one. Bastards. As for their corporation, they can stuff it. They better not come and tell me what I can do with *my* own produced music, because that's the kind of mistake they'd make.
-
I don't think they can do anything to you if it's your own music, unless you get it published and marketed through them.
-
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
--7th amendment
src: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment07/index.html
a CD costs how much now?
-
How long I wonder until 'Industry' decides that all these people making their own music freely available over the Internet are 'damaging their industry' as well. This will probably start hidden behind a fabric of 'This band is releasing records in a style that is simlar to one of our artists, which we have copyrighted'?
Flipside :D
-
I think most peoples problems stem from the fact that they're unwilling to be viewed as a criminal. I download music and yes sometimes I will download a few songs I like and not buy the album, I am a music pirate and I can accept that, if someone decides to sue me then fair game.
That's not to say I'd give them a penny whatsoever but I can accept what I do is piracy and CAN have an adverse effect on an artists profits.
However, if the artists weren't paid such a ****ing pittance in the first place I'm pretty sure that there'd be half as many that gave a **** about their music being downloaded.
Also, the record companies need to realise how big a threat online distribution will be to them if they don't act now and jump in on it before someone else does, I'm personally suprised that a lot of the larger indie labels aren't looking to undercut the bigger companies on the online front. They' d save themselves distribution costs as well as having to pay shops to actually stock their CD's. That alone would be a hell of a saving to both consumer and company.
-
I think it's more a question of exposure, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that there are many record companies doing exactly this, it's just they cannot afford the advertising and media power of the larger Industries, and are so constantly pushed back out of the Limelight.
Flipside :D
-
I think the solution to this is: buy it off amazon! Got Dance of Death (the new Iron Maiden album) for £8.50, when it's £12 in the shops! I personally don't download music (can't say the same about everything, though...), 'cos 1: I prefer to support artists that I like by buying their records, and 2: I hate listening to music on a computer anyway - sounds much better pumped through a proper sound system...
As for the RIAA, though - **** 'em. I HATE big-ass corporations that are terrified of a shrinking profit margin, 'specially American ones. Anyway, their excuse for all this is that they have to protect their sales, which have fallen 30-odd percent in the last few years. Well, did you ever think whay this could be happening? Just possibly because the music industry is pumping out a huge pile of crap. Every single group or singer sounds exactly the bloody same, the songwriting and musicianship is practically non-existent (Busted, anyone?), and bands are being signed purely because they sound exactly like something else that has been popular recently (Good Charlotte is a case in point). If the record labels want to make some decent money, then they need to get some decent ****ing music to publish!
-
Originally posted by 01010
IHowever, if the artists weren't paid such a ****ing pittance in the first place I'm pretty sure that there'd be half as many that gave a **** about their music being downloaded.
You have seen the Napster Bad toon, right?
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
You have seen the Napster Bad toon, right?
Yes.
-
I support services like Apple's iTunes, where you can legally download songs for 99 cents apiece. If this gained wider support, smaller bands and artists could be featured on iTunes and gain almost 100% of the profits from their song sales, without the middlemen of the publishing industry.
Those are the real villans here. We want cheap, instantly avaliable music, but we also want to support our favorite artists so they continue doing their thing. Cutting out the recording industry and letting the money flow directly from listener to musician (with the minor kink of Apple) should be optimal.
-
Originally posted by GalacticEmperor
Those are the real villans here. We want cheap, instantly avaliable music, but we also want to support our favorite artists so they continue doing their thing. Cutting out the recording industry and letting the money flow directly from listener to musician (with the minor kink of Apple) should be optimal.
And that is exactly why RIAA want to shut down internet distribution of music and webcasting. They don't give a damn about stuggling artists. What upsets them is that the middlemen (who pay them!) will have to stop screwing both the artists and the general public.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
This is just ****ing outragous. I mean, sueing an adult for downloading, but a ****ing 12-year old just pisses me off. :mad2:
Land of the free... Yeah... right... :doubt:
The 12 year old girl obviously knew about the new crackdown on downloading illegal MP3s... even my sister, who's 10 and doesn't ever use the computer, knew about the RIAA crackdowns... so obviously this girl did... and she kept downloading them, which is plain stupid... what did she think just because she was not considered a legal adult that she would be exempt from the rule?
if it was an adult obviously the fine would be greater than $2000... but yeah, i think it's wrong to make examples out of people like this.
-
Just a little note: the RIAA is not designed to be popular, that's why all the controversial lawsuits are carried out in their name and not in the name of the record companies they represent, it means they suffer less because of it.
Example: a million people saying "I hate the ****ing RIAA"
will cause less bad PR than
"I hate ****ing Sony, Bertelesman, Vivendi, Virgin, Universal, EMI etc"
-
...
I'm not talking to you guys anymore. You guys are just plain scary. The day you guys get an governemnet position of any kind is the day this world is truly doomed. (aimed at those who think its good to prosecute kids in public)
Prosecuting children... sheez... Deal with the real ****ing criminals first. Like murderers and drug dealers and ****. Put your money in that, not going after little girls. Its pathetic.
If you want an example, screw the **** out of an adult.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Prosecuting children... sheez... Deal with the real ****ing criminals first. Like murderers and drug dealers and ****. Put your money in that, not going after little girls. Its pathetic.
If you want an example, screw the **** out of an adult.
so you're not just arguing that they shouldn't have gone for a girl, you're arguing that they shoudn't be going for anyoneviolating the RIAA rules... right? cause that's the impression i got.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
so you're not just arguing that they shouldn't have gone for a girl, you're arguing that they shoudn't be going for anyoneviolating the RIAA rules... right? cause that's the impression i got.
Read my ****ing post. I'm sorry but I specifically said if you want an example prosecute the **** out of an adult NOT a child. You even quoted it.
Read before you act.
-
this 12 year old girl shouldn't be an exception. she violated the rules, she must get punished... i mean do you really think that they should just let her continue downloading illegally just because she's 12? well where's the limit then?
if you violate the rules, you get punished... this may come as a shock to you, but in the society we live in, just because you're a 12 year old girl makes no difference... perhaps it does in how big the fine or punishment is going to be, but you're not exempt from illegal activities because of age or gender :rolleyes:
EDIT:
you say:
Deal with the real ****ing criminals first. Like murderers and drug dealers and ****.
i say:
you're arguing that they shoudn't be going for anyoneviolating the RIAA rules
makes perfect sense to me :doubt:
-
Jezus ****ing christ... Am I dealing with brainless people here? I never said she shouldn't be punished. But 2000 dollar fine and a public prosecution is just too much for a 12 year old. The public part is the biggest concern here. If they want public humiliation go for an adult, not for child gor crying out loud.
Sheez...
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Jezus ****ing christ... Am I dealing with brainless people here? I never said she shouldn't be punished. But 2000 dollar fine and a public prosecution is just too much for a 12 year old. The public part is the biggest concern here. If they want public humiliation go for an adult, not for child gor crying out loud.
Sheez...
wtf is wrong with you. you contradict yourself in every statement!!!
I never said she shouldn't be punished
Prosecuting children... sheez... Deal with the real ****ing criminals first. Like murderers and drug dealers and ****. Put your money in that, not going after little girls. Its pathetic.
If you want an example, screw the **** out of an adult.
do some research... a $2000 fine is next to nothing... public prosecution i'll admit is not right because of her age, but the punishment i don't think there's anything wrong with
-
Originally posted by Stealth
you say:
:doubt:
Basic examply of moronism and twisting my words. Instead of pouring money in having a trial against a ****ing 12 year old use the money kick some thief into jail instead. An adult thief that can actually hurt people.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
do some research... a $2000 fine is next to nothing... public prosecution i'll admit is not right because of her age, but the punishment i don't think there's anything wrong with
FOR A 12 YEAR OLD CHILD. And 2000 dollars can be a helluva ****ing lot for a normal family. A lot of people can't afford it you know.
I soooo hope they crash on your roof with a big ass lawsuit and rip your wallet and bank account empty just for me to see how you like it.
-
FOR A 12 YEAR OLD CHILD. And 2000 dollars can be a helluva ****ing lot for a normal family. A lot of people can't afford it you know.
I soooo hope they crash on your roof with a big ass lawsuit and rip your wallet and bank account empty just for me to see how you like it
a fine's not supposed to be easy to pay! $2000 is NOTHING for a fine!
-
Stealth, you are such a moron :p :rolleyes:
You twist everything she says just to suit your needs. She doesn't even mean anything close to that. If you even had 2 braincells you'd see that.
Now, admins, you can close this :)
-
i'm not twisting everything... look at her posts and you'll see that one second she's saying:
Prosecuting children... sheez... Deal with the real ****ing criminals first. Like murderers and drug dealers and ****. Put your money in that, not going after little girls. Its pathetic.
next minute she's saying
I never said she shouldn't be punished. But 2000 dollar fine and a public prosecution is just too much for a 12 year old.
so we go from "don't prosecute at all" to "yeah, prosecute, but not to that degree"
-
Stealth, you are such a moron
You twist everything she says just to suit your needs. She doesn't even mean anything close to that. If you even had 2 braincells you'd see that.
Now, admins, you can close this
what she's saying is the 12 year old girl shouldn't be prosecuted, because of her age... that they should go for people older. that's wrong, there's no exceptions based on age in this case... if she's old enough to download illegally, she's old enough to take responsibility for her actions.
i do agree that making this public and humiliating is wrong in her case, but the punishment is not
EDIT: And before this thread gets closed... i'd like to say that the RIAA has been warning about taking action for MONTHS... there's no excuse... it doesn't matter if it's a 12 year old girl or a 80 year old man in a wheelchair... if he/she continues downloading illegally, what do you think they should do? "warn" them? they've BEEN warning for the last 4 or 5 months!
-
No what she's saying is that resources can be put to better use then prosecuting little girls. Murderes, thiefs, etc should have a higher priority then those who download a, nSync album. And T is sitting right next to me so I know it.
I 100% agree with her. If the RIAA wants to be effective go squander money somewhere else. Otherwise they should shut their craphole.
-
well i agree with that too, yes, perhaps the government's resources should go into murderers, rapists, etc. but remember the RIAA isn't concerned with these other violators of the law... it's only meant to find people illegally sharing files online (as far as i've heard)... so its resources are going ONLY into finding these people, not into finding murderers, thieves, rapists, drug dealers, etc.
-
Originally posted by Charlotte
No what she's saying is that resources can be put to better use then prosecuting little girls. Murderes, thiefs, etc should have a higher priority then those who download a, nSync album. And T is sitting right next to me so I know it.
I 100% agree with her. If the RIAA wants to be effective go squander money somewhere else. Otherwise they should shut their craphole.
Of course you agree 100% with her. :)
-
everyone's entitled to their opinion (obviously) on this matter...
i just think the fact she's 12 years old should have nothing to do with the punishment (fine). i do think it's wrong to make her the object of public humiliation, and getting the media involved and stuff.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
well i agree with that too, yes, perhaps the government's resources should go into murderers, rapists, etc. but remember the RIAA isn't concerned with these other violators of the law... it's only meant to find people illegally sharing files online (as far as i've heard)... so its resources are going ONLY into finding these people, not into finding murderers, thieves, rapists, drug dealers, etc.
Also tying up YOUR legal system and so preventing YOUR country from prosecuting serious criminals quickly. Christ, I don't even live in America and I seem to have more of a grasp on what's going on.
-
okay binary, i never said it wouldn't slow down the legal system... that's obvious, so i'm glad you figured that out :yes:.
but you can't expect the RIAA to use their resources for something else (like finding REAL criminals) because they're not geared for, or sponsored to do that.
-
[color=66ff00]Wow that turned ugly fast.
I'd like to point out that by buying CD's you are not really helping out your favourite bands, you mainly help out the middle men and the RIAA.
Copy the damn CD and send the band £10, cheaper than the CD and the band makes probably 1000% more than what they might have got through 'legit' channels.
This springs to mind
(www.campchaos.com/cartoons/napsterbad/goblin03.html)
[/color]
-
lol Maeg :)
we never said that this whole effort's helping artists :D
-
On this particular point, why does it make any difference what age the person is? I doubt anyone would care much if she was say, 50 years old. I mean, that's like discrimination.
12 year olds typically are more vulnerable to humiliation and don't have resources to wage a legal war , and they make ideal targets for the RIAA. It is they who are discriminating, I haven't seen much media coverage of "56 year old geek gets caught in file sharing". That's not a particularly desirable act, though I'm pretty sure there's no law against it...
Anyhow, much of my concern is that the RIAA isn't learning that a significant portion of its consumer base isn't too happy with the system, or not acting on it. They're being stubborn and continuing to do despicable acts. That's why I'm encouraging people to listen to/support independent/non-RIAA/free music (it seems the RIAA will continue to the bitter end)
BTW: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/09/10/2222214.shtml?tid=123&tid=141&tid=188&tid=99
-
The RIAA seems to be abiding by the Tarkin doctrine - "Fear will keep the local filesharers in line. Fear of this lawsuit."
So, does anyone have $2 million lying around to fund Snapster (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030724.html)?
-
Originally posted by Ashrak
1 americans are retards and stupid ****ing morons with some exceptions
:mad2: :gives a one finger salute:
The RIAA doesn't represent the american people. ass
-
Originally posted by redsniper
:mad2: :gives a one finger salute:
don't let the RIAA represent every American citizen, asshole.
ditto, :doubt: I'd respond to Ashrak's post myself, but I don't feel like being banned...:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
The RIAA seems to be abiding by the Tarkin doctrine - "Fear will keep the local filesharers in line. Fear of this lawsuit."
So, does anyone have $2 million lying around to fund Snapster (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030724.html)?
When I get the cash... :drevil:
-
Lets see.. If Stealth ran for govenor of California...
1) All PCs would be replaced with hot pink I-Macs...
2) School busses would have Hydraulics and Subwoofers , with Jay-Z and Beyonce on repeat.
3) All websites would be based in flash, and would be totally awesome. badass :yes::yes::yes: :D :D
4) 12-year-old children around the country will be prosecuted for J-walking and sharing music over the internet.
-------------------------------------------
Phear...
-
I did say that remark would piss people off. :D But it's good someone else sees the light with that age thing. :yes:
12 year olds typically are more vulnerable to humiliation and don't have resources to wage a legal war , and they make ideal targets for the RIAA. It is they who are discriminating, I haven't seen much media coverage of "56 year old geek gets caught in file sharing". That's not a particularly desirable act, though I'm pretty sure there's no law against it...
I don't see how they are more vulnerable to humiliation; how can the average adult be any less from so than a child? The only way to stop the RIAA (and the media services) from doing this sort of thing is to buy them off, and very few people have enough money for that. It is true that the fee might be difficult for her to pay, but then again, that is true for almost everyone. I suppose her parents will be the ones paying for it anyway, so the resource thing should not be an issue at all (compared to adults, that is). There are sometimes other such cases involving the 56-year old geeks and so on; it's just these events don't get as much media publicity. As I said, nobody aside from corporate lawyers knows about these "laws" that are broken so often; with so many people talking about downloading music everywhere, the average guy, regardless of age, is not going to know about such things. Also, I'm not clear on how exactly they found out that it was the girl who did it and not her parents (it appears that this was on a home computer) without them telling.
Basic examply of moronism and twisting my words. Instead of pouring money in having a trial against a ****ing 12 year old use the money kick some thief into jail instead. An adult thief that can actually hurt people.
Actually you are the one being stupid. Are you expecting the RIAA of all people to go after (physical) thieves? As I said before, the RIAA is not a government branch; it is a corporation, and its goals are only to stop the music "pirates." It's obviously rather ineffective at that, but that is a different issue.
The RIAA seems to be abiding by the Tarkin doctrine - "Fear will keep the local filesharers in line. Fear of this lawsuit."
Well, considering that they have been doing this for some years now and over two-thirds of the nation is still breaking these laws, they aren't doing too good a job. :D
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Lets see.. If Stealth ran for govenor of California...
1) All PCs would be replaced with hot pink I-Macs...
since i hate macs about as much as i hate you, i doubt that would be happening. PCs and Linux 0wnz0r
2) School busses would have Hydraulics and Subwoofers , with Jay-Z and Beyonce on repeat.
fast bags are better on buses than hydraulics
3) All websites would be based in flash, and would be totally awesome. badass :yes::yes::yes: :D :D
i'm on to better things now, like java apps, php, etc. although Flash still 0wns
4) 12-year-old children around the country will be prosecuted for J-walking and sharing music over the internet.
wrong... anyone would be prosecuted, not just 12 year olds
-------------------------------------------
Phear...
-
I don't see how they are more vulnerable to humiliation; how can the average adult be any less from so than a child?
Because adults are usually more thick-skinned emotionally than children, and have more experience at putting things in perspective. If you call a first-grader an idiot, then someone your own age an idiot, who's more likely to burst out crying and who's more likely to give you the finger and forget about it?
Edit: Stealth, KT, please stop making jabs at one another. It's getting old. :doubt:
-
CP i agree 100% :D
-
Because adults are usually more thick-skinned emotionally than children, and have more experience at putting things in perspective. If you call a first-grader an idiot, then someone your own age an idiot, who's more likely to burst out crying and who's more likely to give you the finger and forget about it?
Don't you remember what first grade was like? Both will do the latter, although the first grader will be more adept at hurling retaliatory insults your way. :D This idea that the experience of adults makes them any better at dealing with such situations is quite false, especially in cases like this, where the 12-year old does not have to actually do much herself other than sit through the court hearings that she would most likely find pretty boring.
CP i agree 100% :D
great :D :yes:
-
The lack of understanding of even the most basic elements of psychology is astounding in this place. I bet you guys don't go out often :p
-
Originally posted by Charlotte
The lack of understanding of even the most basic elements of psychology is astounding in this place. I bet you guys don't go out often :p
Agreed.
Originally posted by Darth CP5670Actually you are the one being stupid. Are you expecting the RIAA of all people to go after (physical) thieves? As I said before, the RIAA is not a government branch; it is a corporation, and its goals are only to stop the music "pirates." It's obviously rather ineffective at that, but that is a different issue.
As has been stated in this thread before: Though the RIAA is not a branch of the US government, its lawsuits do hamper the judicial systems of the United States and other nations. Preventing these nations from using their systems to bring true enemies of the peace to justice.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
a fine's not supposed to be easy to pay! $2000 is NOTHING for a fine!
For one, what's the point in paying a fine, if you can't afford paying it. For two, there's no ****ing reason in the world, why the goverment should prosecute children for downloading music, EVER. Sure, murder, theft, whatever, but then deal with those. First get a drop on the real crime rate, THEN start bagging p2p downloaders. Not to mention that it shouldn't be a crime in the first place. Freedom of information, anyone?
It's not like they're gonna win that lawsuit anyway. Let 'em prove that it was this particular 12 year old girl who d/l-ed the music. I could just as well say that it was my dog who did it. They can't prove otherwise.
Which again brings me to the point: Don't make moronic lawsuit. Which can be expanded to Move out of america.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Don't you remember what first grade was like? Both will do the latter, although the first grader will be more adept at hurling retaliatory insults your way. :D
Tell that to my nephew.
-
The RIAA is living in the early '70s. They really think they can control the way you listen to music. Not gonna happen. The record industry needs to slash CD prices, provide something like Apple's ITunes where you can download individual songs cheaply, and give the consumer greater choice in music. Oh, and WMCoolmon, I've drawn another parallel to Tarkin--remember what happened to Tarkin when he grew overconfident in the power of his Death Star?;7
-
does anyone have a link to this on a real news site like CNN, NBC, or some newspaper? if so, i might just think of forwarding this to some newspapers out here, and see if they want some riot since there's no real news here anyway.
-
As has been stated in this thread before: Though the RIAA is not a branch of the US government, its lawsuits do hamper the judicial systems of the United States and other nations. Preventing these nations from using their systems to bring true enemies of the peace to justice.
hehe, darth CP; I like that. :D :yes:
Anyway, there are two things wrong with this. The most glaring issue is that this has nothing to do with the age of the defendant. Look at my previous posts; I am not saying anything against the uselessness of the lawsuit itself, but rather against the age of the person as a reason to call it invalid. What you are describing would still be just as much of a problem if an adult was taking the fire instead. Furthermore, it will delay and not cancel such lawsuits (and by a decidedly miniscule amount considering how many other kinds of lawsuits go on every day), during which time the arrested criminals are generally kept in police custody or at least constant surveillance, so there is no problem there either.
For two, there's no ****ing reason in the world, why the goverment should prosecute children for downloading music, EVER. Sure, murder, theft, whatever, but then deal with those. First get a drop on the real crime rate, THEN start bagging p2p downloaders.
How many times do I need to say it; the RIAA is not a government branch. As far as they are concerned, "real crime" amounts to downloading copyrighted music, and so that is what they will be going after.
Tell that to my nephew.
That is what most kids will do anyway. In fact, if anything, the first-grader will be much more aggressive in the situation Coolmon described; the adult will just shrug off any derisive comments, but the child will not let it go that easily and will send a barrage of insults back and will always try to get the last word in. :D
-
okay, so spend the money on something that actually helps prevent piracy. Sueing 12-year-old girls doesn't. Lowering cd prices (for instance) does. So let 'em do that.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That is what most kids will do anyway. In fact, if anything, the first-grader will be much more aggressive in the situation Coolmon described; the adult will just shrug off any derisive comments, but the child will not let it go that easily and will send a barrage of insults back and will always try to get the last word in. :D
For some reason, I question your knowledge about children. I wonder why is that? :doubt:
-
okay, so spend the money on something that actually helps prevent piracy. Sueing 12-year-old girls doesn't. Lowering cd prices (for instance) does. So let 'em do that.
Sounds good. But suing anyone else is just as silly as suing 12-year old girls; that is what my point is.
For some reason, I question your knowledge about children. I wonder why is that?
Perhaps because you don't have any better counterargument than that. :D This is one of the things I do know a little about because I was a first grader at one time too, and my brother also was more recently.
-
So what? So was I, so is my nephew right now, my brother was some 20 years ago, my other nephew will be in 5 years. that doesn't make you good people's person
-
Especially since CP never leaves his house; how can he say stuff like that about people even though he hardly knows any?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Sounds good. But suing anyone else is just as silly as suing 12-year old girls; that is what my point is.
.
Good point. That's another american thing. Europeans in general don't have a tenth of your lawsuits.
Plus, at least some people sue when they have something to gain. This case is so vague and unprovable, that I'm willing to bet good money on that the girl will end up paying nothing.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Good point. That's another american thing. Europeans in general don't have a tenth of your lawsuits.
Why not? Do they have to pay a fee to sue?
-
So what? So was I, so is my nephew right now, my brother was some 20 years ago, my other nephew will be in 5 years. that doesn't make you good people's person
So I know what a first-grader thinks like. :p And what is a "good people's person?" :wtf:
Especially since CP never leaves his house; how can he say stuff like that about people even though he hardly knows any?
That is at the moment; when I was in first-grade I saw other people of the same age in school. Besides, I think you agree on what I said about the first-grader's behavior, since none of you are arguing on that point itself but keep going onto something else. :p
Good point. That's another american thing. Europeans in general don't have a tenth of your lawsuits.
You are changing the subject, so I assume you have changed your earlier stance to agree with me. :D Also, lawsuits will always be there in more or less the same intensity in first-world capitalist economies (almost all of europe); it's just that they get much more publicity here.
Plus, at least some people sue when they have something to gain. This case is so vague and unprovable, that I'm willing to bet good money on that the girl will end up paying nothing.
That's what I thought in the first place, but from that article it appears that the parents pleaded guilty or something. :wtf: There are definitely finer points to this whole thing that the article does not address.
-
Originally posted by Charlotte
The lack of understanding of even the most basic elements of psychology is astounding in this place. I bet you guys don't go out often :p
yeah. good one. when in doubt, always start insulting the people arguing, instead of just the arguing... right? wrong[/b]: that's stupid. :doubt:
Lowering cd prices (for instance) does. So let 'em do that.
No it doesn't. even if they make CDs $0.01, the majority of people are just too lazy to go out, when on their fast internet connection they can download an entire CD and burn it in the time it would take them to get in the car, go to Walmart or Target or wherever, and buy it... plus they don't waste gas, plus they can be downloading it and doing something else in the meantime...
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Good point. That's another american thing. Europeans in general don't have a tenth of your lawsuits.
Plus, at least some people sue when they have something to gain. This case is so vague and unprovable, that I'm willing to bet good money on that the girl will end up paying nothing.
Apparently an anti-RIAA group has offered to pick up the $2000 tab. It doesn't say if they'll be covering legal fees and whatnot.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5074227.html
-
[color=66ff00]Ok methinks everyone is forgetting that CP argues simply for the sake of arguing...
Just ignore. Why is that so hard?
[/color]
-
another thing, on that link about two posts up... apparently the girl is saying she's "very sorry" and that she didn't know it was illegal... although she was using Kazaa, and was sharing over 1000 MP3s...
i think that's a little suspicious, because anyone who uses Kazaa, and particularly anyone with over 1000 MP3s (that's quite a lot for a 12 year old) KNOWS about the RIAA crackdowns... it's a known fact! if she carried on downloading, then she obviously had it coming! i know many people that stopped filesharing because of the new enforced rules. just because she's 12 years old did she think she was going to be exempt from it? And a $2000 fine is NOTHING[/size]... NOTHING at all... other people are getting $15,000 and $25,000 fines for the same thing.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
No it doesn't. even if they make CDs $0.01, the majority of people are just too lazy to go out, when on their fast internet connection they can download an entire CD and burn it in the time it would take them to get in the car, go to Walmart or Target or wherever, and buy it... plus they don't waste gas, plus they can be downloading it and doing something else in the meantime...
So explain to me why sales of CD singles in America are actually UP this year?
The simple fact is this. RIAA are spouting a bunch of bulls**t. Most music that has been released recently is aimed at 14 year old girls. It's all Britney Spears/Cookie cutter boy band crap. The result is that everyone apart from the 14 year old girls have stopped buying albums. If a song comes out people might buy the single but considering albums now cost around £14-15 no one is willing to pay that much for one.
THAT is the problem. Instead of suing 12 year olds RIAA should concentrate on telling the big companies to make something worth buying. Then they might see an improvement in their sales figures.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
another thing, on that link about two posts up... apparently the girl is saying she's "very sorry" and that she didn't know it was illegal... although she was using Kazaa, and was sharing over 1000 MP3s...
i think that's a little suspicious, because anyone who uses Kazaa, and particularly anyone with over 1000 MP3s (that's quite a lot for a 12 year old) KNOWS about the RIAA crackdowns... it's a known fact! if she carried on downloading, then she obviously had it coming! i know many people that stopped filesharing because of the new enforced rules. just because she's 12 years old did she think she was going to be exempt from it? And a $2000 fine is NOTHING[/size]... NOTHING at all... other people are getting $15,000 and $25,000 fines for the same thing.
But where would she get the info from? We're all a bunch of computer fanatics; she's a girl in a low-income housing project. It's not like she's browsing computer geek news. For all we know she and her mother might not read or watch the news at all.
And a $2000 fine for a low-income housing resident can be worse than a $15,000 fine for someone with a decent income. They might be dead broke.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So explain to me why sales of CD singles in America are actually UP this year?
The simple fact is this. RIAA are spouting a bunch of bulls**t. Most music that has been released recently is aimed at 14 year old girls. It's all Britney Spears/Cookie cutter boy band crap. The result is that everyone apart from the 14 year old girls have stopped buying albums. If a song comes out people might buy the single but considering albums now cost around £14-15 no one is willing to pay that much for one.
THAT is the problem. Instead of suing 12 year olds RIAA should concentrate on telling the big companies to make something worth buying. Then they might see an improvement in their sales figures.
Agreed.:nod:
-
think that's a little suspicious, because anyone who uses Kazaa, and particularly anyone with over 1000 MP3s (that's quite a lot for a 12 year old) KNOWS about the RIAA crackdowns... it's a known fact!
No, it isn't. I could easily download that many MP3s and still not know anything about the RIAA, if I only used Kazaa. I think the only places I've heard about the RIAA has been on the forums I visit, and maybe one or two sites.
On the other hand, ignorance of the law is no excuse, so it *is* still legally acceptable to punish her. Is it really morally acceptable, though?
-
It's nice to know that the RIAA with it's massive media and financial backing is doing so much to protect us from such well known evil forces as 12 year old girls :doubt:
Seriously though, it's a question of (1-3) What the girl did, and (4-6) The RIAA using her as an example for it.
1 : Legal/Illegal
2 : Right/Wrong
3 : Mostly Harmless/Mostly Damaging
4 : Fair/Unfair
5 : Effective/Pointless
6 : Media viable/Media suicide
My own opinions are :-
1 : Illegal
2 : Wrong
3 : Mostly Harmless
4 : Unfair
5 : Pointless.
6 : Media Suicide.
4 Points to the little girl, 2 to the RIAA, not really the best call on their part ;)
Flipside :D
-
Karajorma, Flipside, WMCoolmon, and Woolie Wool:
I don't use Kazaa, i hardly ever download MP3s nowadays, but i've heard it because of the radio, people talking about it, etc.
now, even if she hadn't heard of the RIAA crackdowns, SURELY she knew that MP3 downloading is illegal! (i highly doubt that an honor student wouldn't know that... i mean after all, she is pretty used to downloading music...)
See, in every country in the world, it doesn't matter if you know you're doing something illegal or not... if you're caught doing it, you can't plead "oh but i didn't know it was wrong!"... you get punished for it regardless. there's a junior in college who's also been fined $15,000 for file sharing. he's got to come up with this money on his own, and he's a full time student that has to pay for classes, board, food, etc. with only part time jobs during the summer. i feel no sympathy whatsoever for this girl, in fact, i'm glad she got caught, because it will send a message to all young teenagers (or pre-teenagers) that are still continuing to download MP3s etc. that the RIAA doens't give a **************** whether you're 10 years old or 100 years old... if you're breaking the law, you're going to get punished... end of story.
and she got away lightly... very lightly... in fact in the end she's probably going to end up with more money than she started with, since many people would gladly pay her fine and legal fees. i think it's a good lesson to everyone that said "oh well it's just idle threats, they'll never actually take any action".
But where would she get the info from? We're all a bunch of computer fanatics; she's a girl in a low-income housing project.
That's no excuse, as i've covered above in my post... i never surf the internet looking for news. i've heard about this from word of mouth, and from occasionally listening to the radio. and this girl apparnetly is no fool when it comes to downloading music... she wasn't caught with 2 or 3 MP3s, she was caught with over 1000, and still using Kazaa... unless she never left the house, never talked to anyone, etc. she'd have known about how what she was doing was wrong. i think the reason she kept it up is the "Oh it'll never happen to me" attitude... although when using Kazaa i'm sure she had to install it at sometime, and so she must have read the Kazaa user contract.
I think there's no "moral issue" involved here... they are sueing 200 and something odd people, one of them randomly happened to be a girl... now tell me why she should be exempt from punishment although she was doing the same thing everyone else is getting punished for! If they let her get away with it, now THAT would be morally wrong.
-
The RIAA using her as an example for it.
just for the record, the RIAA is not using her as an example... they mentioned her name among the other 261 (?) people they're fineing, and the media got ahold of how she's only 12 years old and made a big deal out of it... if it's anyone's fault for the publicity of it all it's the media, not the RIAA... they're doing their job. a nd in the end it's done nothing but benefit her, since it's likely (very likely) she won't have to pay a cent in the end, and it'll send a nice message to all other underage MP3 downloaders who think they can get away with it
-
The question I am dealing with here is not to do with whether the girl knew what she was doing or not. It is actually completely irrelevant whether she did or not, if ignorance is no defence then knowledge is not a conviction.
You are right, the RIAA is doing precisely what it was created to do, but it has hit a stumbling block in the form of the very thing they represent, the Media.
There is the recording Media, who are being made more and more aware of the fact they are being ripped off. Regardless of whether people choose to download MP3's or not, I did not say that I myself used Kazaa either, you will note I classed it as both illegal AND wrong.
What I am saying is that the other kind of Media, i.e the Visual Media got their hands on the story, and it all broke loose. Why is this? Because the visual Media pamper to the wishes of the majority, it is financially the only route they can take. However, the record companies churn out Media and expect to [I[Change the public[/I]. It's all very well paying money for an album thats playlist goes 'crap, crap, crap, oh I like this one, crap, crap.... etc'. There is the option of buying singles of course, but unless you are into Britney Spears or some other such teenybopper music, happy hunting!
Personally, I write my own music and listen to old school Vangelis and FSOL, so it doesn't bother me, but I can understand peoples frustration.
At the end of the day, I do not condone the sharing of MP3's, but it WILL continue, I did not condone chip cloning, but how many people here have an Athlon processor? The Music Industry will just have be competitive like the rest of the market if they wish to survive., and stop using the RIAA to throw their tantrums.
Flipside :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
So I know what a first-grader thinks like. :p And what is a "good people's person?" :wtf:
Exactly my point. You don't. Having seen first graders in your life doesn't make you know what they think like. Having SOME social skills helps
-
Ok methinks everyone is forgetting that CP argues simply for the sake of arguing...
Just ignore. Why is that so hard?
The answer to that is simple: everyone in this thread is doing the same, and ignoring it would deprive them of extra fun. Remember, if they didn't like arguing, they would not be in here, as nobody here can get anything out of this aside from possibly fun. :D
Exactly my point. You don't. Having seen first graders in your life doesn't make you know what they think like. Having SOME social skills helps
um, I can still observe others interacting without bothering with it myself. I will quote myself here instead of writing the same thing again:
I think you agree on what I said about the first-grader's behavior, since none of you are arguing on that point itself but keep going onto something else.
-
Okay, I'm taking psychology classes at school, I've got 7 years worth of experience in communicating with them, and I most definately know that in such cases they will NOT give you the finger.
Okay, so maybe they will give YOU the finger.
They can give the finger to each-other, to people they feel they're equal with. Adults are bigger, more evolved, and generally a symbol of power. Work it out.
Anyway,
No it doesn't. even if they make CDs $0.01, the majority of people are just too lazy to go out, when on their fast internet connection they can download an entire CD and burn it in the time it would take them to get in the car, go to Walmart or Target or wherever, and buy it... plus they don't waste gas, plus they can be downloading it and doing something else in the meantime...
This has to be the SINGLE, MOST STUPID argument I have ever heard. CD quality, in any case is better than MP3 quality. Mp3 quality reaches CD quality at 300 kbps and up. With CD's you get 20 songs at once, you don't have to wait for an hour to download them, then buy a CDR to burn them, then wait for a quarter hour to finish them burning. You get a guarantee that they work on EVERY cd player. You get a cool cover. If the cd's would cost about $6-7, insdead of the $16-17, I'd buy them daily. Not only because it's cheaper, but it makes me feel like I'm paying enough for what I get, therefore I spend more.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
You get a guarantee that they work on EVERY cd player.
Not really, thanks to the 'copyprotection' placed on some audio CDs thanks to our RIAA and big business buddies we all love and buy from otherwise they wouldn't be so large. Missing bits that some CD players can't compensate for...
-
Okay, I'm taking psychology classes at school, I've got 7 years worth of experience in communicating with them, and I most definately know that in such cases they will NOT give you the finger.
Okay, so maybe they will give YOU the finger.
They can give the finger to each-other, to people they feel they're equal with. Adults are bigger, more evolved, and generally a symbol of power. Work it out.
I suppose you have tried it? This "symbol of power" comes mainly from their behavior; the adult will retain it until he starts throwing petty insults, at which point the kid will see an equal who is ready to compete instead of putting himself on "higher" ground like other adults, and the rest is obvious. Nobody is going to spontaneously burst out crying because of that.
But we have strayed off topic here. Tell me exactly how the adult could better cope with this particular situation than the 12-year old who has her parents. The girl is in a much better position than any adult would be, because her parents will be the ones doing the talking, paying and whatever else.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I suppose you have tried it? This "symbol of power" comes mainly from their behavior; the adult will retain it until he starts throwing petty insults, at which point the kid will see an equal who is ready to compete instead of putting himself on "higher" ground like other adults, and the rest is obvious. Nobody is going to spontaneously burst out crying because of that.
But we have strayed off topic here. Tell me exactly how the adult could better cope with this particular situation than the 12-year old who has her parents. The girl is in a much better position than any adult would be, because her parents will be the ones doing the talking, paying and whatever else.
I agree that the 12 year old is in a much more comfortable situation than the college students being sued for $15,000 however the fact that what is being done is morally bankrupt still remains.
Stealth: Having 1000 mp3's is not an indication of knowledge as far as I can tell, also, I have over 1600 MP3's and almost all are CD rips, which I feel I'm well within my rights as a consumer to do, so how do you know that this is not the case with this young girl?
-
I'm rather tired about all this "RIAA is perfectly okay since they're on the legal side of things", yes in a court this is the case, until/unless law changes. However, industry works by serving people, namely consumers. There are a few ways of making money off of consumers, you can try to brainwash them into accepting your ways even if they're a disadvantage to consumers, you can try to accept the consumer demands on distribution, you can monopolize and try to kill competition to force acceptance, make a better product and so on. The action to take depends on other factors.
With the RIAA it is clear that a large portion of consumers are unhappy and will not "consume" the RIAAs product, mainly because of better alternatives (competition). What the RIAA needs to do is compete with the competition outside of suing them to death, because that'll never end the issue (unless p2p is completely banned or something). They also need to accept consumer demands.
At the moment they are gambling on the judicial system being on their side and "toughing it out", instead of "evolving". I think this is mainly out of greed, possibly out of uncertainty (of business success [However, they do know their old model used to work, they're trying to force it to still work]). This isn't acceptable for consumers (their values are more affecting than the industries, assuming they can think for themselves).
A change benefits unhappy consumers, but what can they do? It seems doubtful the RIAA would listen to polite suggestions, requests, and demonstrations. So consumers are left with a few choices, deprive the RIAA of income to force a conclusion or let the RIAA keep their consuming desires in check. Whatever the technical legalities of the matter, industry cannot survive without consumers and consumers want industry to serve them how they like, it is natural and expected for consumers to act towards a better balance.
I think simply saying "IT'S ILLEGAL!" is being short-sighted (however I believe that it is probably better to damage the RIAA using legal means, like just listening to independent music or buying music from a reasonable source).
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Why not? Do they have to pay a fee to sue?
No, we have something we call 'common sense'.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The answer to that is simple: everyone in this thread is doing the same, and ignoring it would deprive them of extra fun. Remember, if they didn't like arguing, they would not be in here, as nobody here can get anything out of this aside from possibly fun. :D
[color=66ff00]I was mainly pointing it out for charlotte and anyone else that doesn't know that you enjoy discussion. I guess they probably abandoned the thread earlier though. ;)
No offense intended BTW, just trying to avert the possability of flaming. :nod:
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Stealth
and so she must have read the Kazaa user contract.
Not necessarily. Not everyone reads the EULA to every piece of software. I don't. I just click the checkbox and install the damned thing.
-
Read the user contract? Ever seen how friggin big those things are? And how much gibberish and technical terms it has? No way on earth can a little 12 year old understand it :p
Besides, I never read it. Did it once and I squandered 15 minutes of my life and a few dozen braincells... :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Besides, I never read it. Did it once and I squandered 15 minutes of my life and a few dozen braincells... :p
T, you know you are contradicting yourself again, right?
i never read them myself, but officially, you have too. so in court this goes, if you use the software, you read and understood the EULA, you agreed on that by clicking the dang box.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
T, you know you are contradicting yourself again, right?
i never read them myself, but officially, you have too. so in court this goes, if you use the software, you read and understood the EULA, you agreed on that by clicking the dang box.
[color=66ff00]OK this is getting into the silly area of argueing just for the sake of it, you know what she means. Picking at irrelevant details is stupid unless you've honestly got nothing better to do. :rolleyes:
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]OK this is getting into the silly area of argueing just for the sake of it, you know what she means. Picking at irrelevant details is stupid unless you've honestly got nothing better to do. :rolleyes:
[/color]
1) it's friday, i have vowed to never work on friday, so i have nothing better to do.
2)i needed something else to post then just "i agree, but", i also posted more then that one sentence.
-
Actually since the EULA counts as a contract doesn't that mean it doesn't apply to minors? Minors are not legally obliged to follow any terms set in a contract they signed.
Doesn't that also mean you can get around any EULA by saying your 12 year old installed the program? :D
-
And of course, the Good ol' British love of the underdog :)
Flipside :D
-
It's all moot now anyway cause the family have coughed up the dough.
-
[color=66ff00]I visited penny arcade where Tycho and gabe took their usual wry stab at the RIAA, anyhow Tycho left a bunch of links to anonymous file sharing apps:
http://www.filetopia.org/
http://mspencer.net/blocks/
http://www.blubster.com/main1.html
http://www.projectelf.com/WhatIs.html
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
Anyhow, I've taken a look at Freenet before and let's face it it's not anywhere near as friendly or popular as Kazaa, I was wondering what you guys (that have used them) thought of the other apps? What has the most potential?
[/color]
-
Er... don't suppose anyone knows a piece of tech to actually let me use Kazaa anonymously? I mean, not that I'm downloading big truckloads of RIAA-protected music or owt like that, but it's nice to know if the option's there.
-
I will now deal with the arguments against me:
This has to be the SINGLE, MOST STUPID argument I have ever heard. CD quality, in any case is better than MP3 quality. Mp3 quality reaches CD quality at 300 kbps and up
Do some research. 128 is CD quality, now 300.
Stealth: Having 1000 mp3's is not an indication of knowledge as far as I can tell
Not necessarily. Not everyone reads the EULA to every piece of software. I don't. I just click the checkbox and install the damned thing.well you're legally supposed to read the user agreement, so saying "well most people don't" doesn't really help your argument :doubt:
Read the user contract? Ever seen how friggin big those things are? And how much gibberish and technical terms it has? No way on earth can a little 12 year old understand it
I don'to understand how you can all argue this.
Has anyone heard of Napster? I know i have, and i know everyone i've spoken to has heard of it... the lawsuits filed against Napster hit headlines multiple times... there's no way a 12 year old honor student doesn't know about that... because EVERYONE knows about that... my neighbor's 10 year old daughter has heard about Napster...
Napster was closed down because it was geared to sharing ILLEGAL MP3s... Kazaa, WinMX, Morpheus, etc. are all clones. It's not like she had 1000 MP3s on her computer from CD Rips, it says she USED KAZAA... how can you be so idiotic so as to say "oh but poor 12 year old honor student in school... she was so poor she probably never knew she was doing anything illegal". that's bull****. the kid deserves to get punished AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSE DOES!!! being 12 years old doesn't exempt you from anything.
Now even if she did not know... that's no excuse... as i've said before, you get punished for knowing what you did wrong or not. saying "i didn't know i was doing something wrong" doesn't work...
If the girl has not heard of Napster or any of the anti-MP3-sharing lawsuits, then she deserves a fine.
-
Maeg: Try Earthstation 5, it seems to be pretty popular and I believe it's anonymous. By the way, Freenet isn't really anonymity, it's giving up responsibility. You give up a chunk of hard drive space and files are stored there, but they're encrypted. So noone knows what they have, and therefore can't be responsible for having it. This hasn't been tested in court yet iirc. (though there was that guy who was off the hook 'cause kiddie pr0n was put on his comp by a virus, similar?)
About EULAs, have they been tested in court? Do you really have a legal obligation by clicking a button to "yes, I agree"?
Tiara: I was comprehending EULAs when I was 10.... ;) :p