Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Petrarch of the VBB on September 18, 2003, 02:08:07 am
-
Exactly how many people are they wanting to sue?
If we just take Britain and America, then lets see. Now I'm not sure of latest population figures, but I believe the US to be 250,000,000, and Britain to be about 60,000,000, hence a total population of 310,000,000.
Of that, what might it be safe to say use Kazaa?
Can someone give me sensible figure of what % of the population have 'Net access, as I want to work this out, and so prove that they've not a chance in hell.
-
On the subject of the kid the RIAA sued...
http://classic.winamp.com/news.jhtml;$sessionid$ZTL4WNFOMZOHDTN241HBCZQ?articleid=10062
-
not sure about the net connection thing, but if you wanna go minimum, at least 10% of the people with net acces should do warez, if you take an estimate on the amount of **** available.
also, KaZaA as 3.644.636 users online right now, sharing 724.469.339 files.
edit:
i reset my res a bit higher, and now i can see that it's 6.163.712GB
-
RIAA can't affect people in the UK.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
RIAA can't affect people in the UK.
Ah, the good old DPA, yes, but they'll find a way.
-
The RIAA might not be able to touch us in the U.K but don't think for a second that the BPI won't be taking notes at everything happening at the moment.
-
The one advantage we have in Britain is that they would have to prove that any warez downloaded were being done so for profit. So someone who just downloads for home use is, at the moment, not very prosecutable :) But as CP said, it's just a matter of time.
Flipside :)
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97438,00.html
At least one company is against the RIAA.
-
If RIAA had global access then, well, where would it end eh? They would have to sue at least 20 million people !
-
Originally posted by kasperl
not sure about the net connection thing, but if you wanna go minimum, at least 10% of the people with net acces should do warez, if you take an estimate on the amount of **** available.
also, KaZaA as 3.644.636 users online right now, sharing 724.469.339 files.
edit:
i reset my res a bit higher, and now i can see that it's 6.163.712GB
It was in the 6,000,000 ish users online at a time before the RIAA started this crap. :blah:
-
It differs with the time of day, timezone and other crap like that.
-
Apparently since the RIAA started this whole legal business, trafic on Kazaa has actually INCREASED rather than decreased.
I in no way advocate the piracy of copyrighted works which includes art, music, film, and other forms of media...however, the RIAA is fighting a loosing battle for an embattled regime of corruption that is the music industry. Their time is nearly up...they will either adapt to the new century or they will eventually come to pass. At the moment they think that they can adapt by making sure that everyone else falls into line with their thinking, but this is not really acceptable to anyone.
For years we've known that we were paying FAR TOO MUCH for a single and even more for the album. It costs them virtually nothing to produce a CD (in the area of 2 cents or less per CD). With something like 10% going to the artist for that $25 or so that you spend the rest goes into the coffers of our friends in the record industry who tell us what music we want to hear and tell us what were going to pay for it. For a long time there wasn't much to do...now there is.
I hope more services like iTunes show up (and not Microsofts crappy "license to listen" garbage) so that we can go online, get the music we want, pay the flat fee for the service (per song mind you, but its very reasonable) and move on.
These guys at the RIAA are the kind of heavy handed legal garbage that makes democracy look bad. Protection of copyrights...who's copyright are we protecting now...the copyright of the artist to the song or to the middleman who has become obsolete...form your own conclusion.
-
I agree. The RIAA's tactics are basically "Shock and Awe" (anyone remember that phrase?). But realistically, they're reaping the results of their own practices. If they want to actually avoid getting completely screwed over, they have to come up with a service at least as good as iTunes, and preferably a bit cheaper (~25-50 cents a song, in my opinion, would work out fine).
-
So, people don't like the the prices, so they steal it, and you blame the people who sell the songs.
I think it's about time they started smacking some of these kids around, if they were stealing anything else everyone would be all over it. If they were stealing CDs out of stores it'd be different?
-
I agree with most of the above, but I want to make a lil lament about itunes... though I like the new distribution method, I really, really hate DRM. If itunes didn't have DRM it'd be perfect.
-
Actually, I was talking about the high prices. I personally don't download songs, and haven't since Napster went under. I'm just saying, you figure a good deal of the people downloading songs fall into one of these four categories:
1. Doesn't know it was illegal (probably gone)
2. Uses the downloads to test albums to see if they should buy them (which is what I did)
3. Feels that the prices are too high, and so download the songs (this would be the peope who would use iTunes)
4. Out to beat the Man/Don't give a ****.
-
You can't "steal" IP, the whole concept of ideas/data being "stolen" is silly.
Anyhow, people constantly bring up this money thing. However, do artists really get much money at all? No, of course not. So money just keeps going to the rich, oh what a lovely system.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Anyhow, people constantly bring up this money thing. However, do artists really get much money at all? No, of course not. So money just keeps going to the rich, oh what a lovely system.
Hey you're right, all these artists are dirt poor :rolleyes:
-
If I wanted a really kickass car but I couldn't afford it, would that make it ok to steal it?
-
if you can get away with it. :drevil:
-
[Hammer]
Can't touch this!
[/Hammer]
I love Canada man, the RIAA has not authority here.
-
I'm not sure I understand how it is legal to go after the people sharing the files. The ones actually copying the files are the people downloading...I guess they can't be tracked though :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Hey you're right, all these artists are dirt poor :rolleyes:
No, most of the more mainstream ones aren't, however, a damn sight more literally scrape a living from the meagre earnings they make from their record label.
Do you know, Kurt Cobain was living in the back of his car 7-8 months AFTER Nevermind was released.
-
Whoa, i just realized your right! Major artists AREN'T poor! Infact, they're making millions and millions of dollars a year!!! So, tell me again why downloading music is bad?
-
Originally posted by neo_hermes
Whoa, i just realized your right! Major artists AREN'T poor! Infact, they're making millions and millions of dollars a year!!! So, tell me again why downloading music is bad?
ROFL!
You know, it isn't a good idea to do what an0n tells you...
:lol:
-
i know.
it's funny though. :lol:
-
Originally posted by Solatar
If I wanted a really kickass car but I couldn't afford it, would that make it ok to steal it?
I heard a good quote the other day - 'If I have a barrel of oil, you don't. But information is the easiest thing in the world to duplicate'
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
So, people don't like the the prices, so they steal it, and you blame the people who sell the songs.
I think it's about time they started smacking some of these kids around, if they were stealing anything else everyone would be all over it. If they were stealing CDs out of stores it'd be different?
If the government won't take action to stop companies stealing from me then I'm forced to take action myself. When CDs were a new format I bought CDs all the time. I was willing to pay the extra cost because I believed that CDs were more expensive to make than tapes (Either inherently or due to the economics of scale). The simple fact is that CDs were actually LESS expensive to make that whole time.
At £2 more a CD for my entire collection that adds up to several hundred pounds that was stolen from me by a deception carried out by the record companies.
Price fixing is illegal. There are laws in the EU that state that a company found guilty of operating a price fixing cartel can be subjected to fines equal to 10% of their annual profit in the EU.
Forget the high price of music, forget the fact that the companies pay their artists a very small fraction of the money they make. What I take issue with is the fact that the extra charge you pay on CDs over the cost of tapes is an illegal price hike. So when the record companies complain about theft I ignore every word they say since they don't come to me with clean hands. They are breaking the law with every CD they sell and if they dare to try to sue a single brit I will be the first one trying to convince the UK govenment that the time to tax the music industry of that 10%
-
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if they don't want you to do something, then they shouldn't make it so dammned easy to do.
Take home taping, they said that was killing music, but they kept selling the blank tapes.
As long as there is music, there will be piracy, they'll never win.
And speaking of Piracy, today (the 19th) is International Talk Like a Pirate Day. YARRR!
www.yarr.org.uk
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
As long as there is music, there will be piracy, they'll never win.
:nod:
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
As long as there is music, there will be piracy, they'll never win.
i can describe the RIAA's fight in typical austrailan fashon..
"About as easy as pushing **** up a hill with a stick"
or.. how effective they are..
"couldn't pull a greasy stick out of a dead-dog's Arse"
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if they don't want you to do something, then they shouldn't make it so dammned easy to do.
Take home taping, they said that was killing music, but they kept selling the blank tapes.
As long as there is music, there will be piracy, they'll never win.
And speaking of Piracy, today (the 19th) is International Talk Like a Pirate Day. YARRR!
www.yarr.org.uk
Arrrr.....
But anyway, the music companies are moronic and don't understand that price gouging is what is killing their sales. I mean, come on, CDs are retailing for up to $20, depending on the CD.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
i can describe the RIAA's fight in typical austrailan fashon..
"About as easy as pushing **** up a hill with a stick"
:lol:
Reminds me of one I've used on several occasions,
"Like stapling **** to a wall"
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
So, people don't like the the prices, so they steal it, and you blame the people who sell the songs.
I think it's about time they started smacking some of these kids around, if they were stealing anything else everyone would be all over it. If they were stealing CDs out of stores it'd be different?
No, thats not the point of the pricing complaint. The pricing complaint is that the companies who do the marketing are essentially gouging customers by charging large amounts of money more than it costs them to make it. At present, the record companies are probably making 90% profit...and since they all sit in a nice little cartel they set prices however they want.
The biggest problem...almost nothing goes to the artist. As it has been pointed out, we've got artists living the luxury life...and there are a few of those people around. For everyone of those there is a thousand other artists not recognized (ever tried dealing with these companies, I have friends who have and its not a fun experience), who scrape out a living on the bottom of the barrel, many who disappear forever their talent unheard by the rest of the world....people who have ever right and every bit as much talent as our multimilliondollar celebs do or more.
Its not a matter of the end consumer being asked to pay alot, its a matter of the end consumer being forced to pay alot more than they should have to and the artist getting virtually nothing out of it.
Stealing should never be condoned...but it is symtomatic of a larger problem. If you've got widespread stealing and crime sprees in the city streets, you know you have social problems. If you have widespread stealing of music online, you know that there is a problem.
People are willing to pay their money...but they would prefer to do it in a tight budget and get their monies worth. And to the point that reducing prices won't eliminate piracy...the answer is of course it will not. Piracy will ALWAYS be an element in human society...but it will be reduced, hindered, and relegated to a small group of people instead of the widespread masses.
Finally...yes I blame the people who sell the songs. They set the prices, they do the marketing research, they know exactly how much money they bring in and they aren't doing badly by it either. What they are upset about is the fact that a new medium (just like previous times in history - read about the telegraph, the telephone, and the introduction of the newspaper into european society) is destroying the old order just like the printing press destroyed the old order of the scripture writing monks.
Its happened before, it will happen again. Eventually history will record the gradual reduction and disappearance of the big record companies replaced by small online outlets for music.
-
don't musicians get most of their money from concerts and other merchandise (shirts,stickers,posters, etc)?
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
don't musicians get most of their money from concerts and other merchandise (shirts,stickers,posters, etc)?
As far as I know yes, most musicians actually make way more more off the merchandise than CD sales. But I'm pretty sure it's still not all that much.
-
I have to say that I did agree with the RIAA argument initially, just because piracy is wrong. Then they complained that they were 'loosing millions of dollars a year' and I suddenly switched sides. They're not bothered about the fact that people are pirating the music; they're bothered that they're loosing money because people are pirating the music.
None of those overpaid, greedy bastards has any right to complain that they're 'loosing money'. It's not as if they'd notice the difference on their paycheques, coz most of them probably can't even recognise numbers with more than 6 digits in them.
Same principle as Microsoft's ludicrously-overpriced software, except in that case I might be willing to pay £400 for Office XP if they'd actually tried debugging it.
-
Originally posted by 01010
As far as I know yes, most musicians actually make way more more off the merchandise than CD sales. But I'm pretty sure it's still not all that much.
Maybe if everyone pirated their CD's and used the money to buy a T-shirt instead....
:D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Maybe if everyone pirated their CD's and used the money to buy a T-shirt instead....
:D
The money would go mostly to the artist and anyone that would buy merchandise over a CD gets the thumbs up in my book cause it's what I do if I have chance.
****it cause then the record companies can't complain about it hurting their artists and it just exposes them as the fraudulent, greedy, corrupt, money grubbing bastards that most of them are.
-
i've been thinking about it too...
apparently the RIAA has been fining the 261 people that it caught with fines up to $150,000.00!!!
This 12 year old girl, got a $2000 fine... which everyone said "is too much for the poor, uneducated girl who didn't know she was doing something wrong!!!", is NOTHING on what other people got! think about it. $2000, compared to $150,000... yeah.
also, i have doubts about this kid's family living in "poverty"... because if they were all that poor, why would they have a cable line, and why would they even have a computer in the first place :rolleyes: see? i think their 'poverty level' is not really a question...
-
It's kinda hard to be poor and live in Manhatten (That's where she was, right?)... Unless you're homeless...
-
This 12 year old girl, got a $2000 fine... which everyone said "is too much for the poor, uneducated girl who didn't know she was doing something wrong!!!", is NOTHING on what other people got! think about it. $2000, compared to $150,000... yeah.
What are you saying? That her fine should be more or their fines should be less?
-
I think that the RIAA should be consistant. Instead of gourging as much money from each individual as possible.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
What are you saying? That her fine should be more or their fines should be less?
that people like Tiara shouldn't be *****ing about the fine $$$, cause it's really nothing compared to what everyone else got :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Stealth
i've been thinking about it too...
apparently the RIAA has been fining the 261 people that it caught with fines up to $150,000.00!!!
This 12 year old girl, got a $2000 fine... which everyone said "is too much for the poor, uneducated girl who didn't know she was doing something wrong!!!", is NOTHING on what other people got! think about it. $2000, compared to $150,000... yeah.
also, i have doubts about this kid's family living in "poverty"... because if they were all that poor, why would they have a cable line, and why would they even have a computer in the first place :rolleyes: see? i think their 'poverty level' is not really a question...
Can you seriously not see how SUING a TWELVE year old and not the parents is morally bankrupt?
-
Originally posted by 01010
Can you seriously not see how SUING a TWELVE year old and not the parents is morally bankrupt?
since it was the 12 year old that downloaded MP3s illegally and not the parents, then no... i honestly don't :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
and besides, it's not like the child was forced to pay the money on her own, of course her parents paid it for her
-
Actually, random people online payed for it. Her and her parents didn't have to pay a dime.
-
Bet she's still grounded though...I would have been as my parents don't think ignorance is an excuse.:D
-
Originally posted by Stealth
since it was the 12 year old that downloaded MP3s illegally and not the parents, then no... i honestly don't :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
and besides, it's not like the child was forced to pay the money on her own, of course her parents paid it for her
So you think it's ok for huge ****ing corporate conglomerates to sue kids?
That's a pretty messed up perspective on life my friend.
-
I swear if they sue me i'm going to sue them for....Emotional distress, and Something else. ****ing RIAA, now i'll have to watch my back around every corner.
-
Originally posted by neo_hermes
I swear if they sue me i'm going to sue them for....Emotional distress, and Something else. ****ing RIAA, now i'll have to watch my back around every corner.
Bring a private prosecution against the record companies for price fixing. It is against EU law and I believe the americans have a similar law. State the fact that CDs cost more than tapes and yet cost less to make as your cause of action. Sue them for exactly what they sued you for plus lawyers costs. Laugh your head off when all the other people being sued by the RIAA do the same.
-
Originally posted by 01010
So you think it's ok for huge ****ing corporate conglomerates to sue kids?
That's a pretty messed up perspective on life my friend.
Yes it is.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
If the government won't take action to stop companies stealing from me then I'm forced to take action myself. When CDs were a new format I bought CDs all the time. I was willing to pay the extra cost because I believed that CDs were more expensive to make than tapes (Either inherently or due to the economics of scale). The simple fact is that CDs were actually LESS expensive to make that whole time.
At £2 more a CD for my entire collection that adds up to several hundred pounds that was stolen from me by a deception carried out by the record companies.
I don't remember them forcing you to buy them, and doesn't say.. Lucky Charms do the same thing with its cereal?
Forget the high price of music, forget the fact that the companies pay their artists a very small fraction of the money they make. What I take issue with is the fact that the extra charge you pay on CDs over the cost of tapes is an illegal price hike. So when the record companies complain about theft I ignore every word they say since they don't come to me with clean hands. They are breaking the law with every CD they sell and if they dare to try to sue a single brit I will be the first one trying to convince the UK govenment that the time to tax the music industry of that 10%
So don't buy them, my god. You think you're some sort of vigilante and all that's really happened is you just don't like how a certain thing is done. I never understood why people complained something cost too much money, so they steal it.
-
Originally posted by 01010
So you think it's ok for huge ****ing corporate conglomerates to sue kids?
That's a pretty messed up perspective on life my friend.
You think it's ok for people to steal cause they're young?
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
You think it's ok for people to steal cause they're young?
Quote me where I said that because I don't believe I did.
What I did however say was that it's morally wrong (at least on my scale) to sue a 12 year old, I'd say the parents are legally responsible for that child and so the onus is upon them make sure that child acts responsibly. If you're going to sue children you should do it through the parents.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
I don't remember them forcing you to buy them, and doesn't say.. Lucky Charms do the same thing with its cereal?
So don't buy them, my god. You think you're some sort of vigilante and all that's really happened is you just don't like how a certain thing is done. I never understood why people complained something cost too much money, so they steal it.
Didn't you read my comments? I said that while I didn't mind paying the price at the time it was because I didn't realise at the time that I was the victim of an illegal price fixing operation.
Would you tell someone who bought an illegally cut and shut car that they had no right to get their money back? Even though they were scammed out of their money by an illegal con?
Price fixing is ILLEGAL. The record companies have all been involved in a scam for many years over this. If now they are losing money because people are doing something illegal to them I really couldn't give a damn. They conned the general public for years and now the general public is doing the same to them. Sounds like they are simply getting some of their own medicine.
-
Originally posted by 01010
What I did however say was that it's morally wrong (at least on my scale) to sue a 12 year old, I'd say the parents are legally responsible for that child and so the onus is upon them make sure that child acts responsibly. If you're going to sue children you should do it through the parents.
bull****, you're changing your story and you know it.
they're not forcing HER to pay it, of course they're letting her parents pay the fine for her!!! my god, do you think just because this kid's underage that she's exempt from illegally sharing MP3s!? THAT is immoral...
and just for the record, they did do it through the parents
-
Originally posted by Stealth
bull****, you're changing your story and you know it.
they're not forcing HER to pay it, of course they're letting her parents pay the fine for her!!! my god, do you think just because this kid's underage that she's exempt from illegally sharing MP3s!? THAT is immoral...
and just for the record, they did do it through the parents
How am I changing my story? It's obvious the parents are going to pay the fine because, y'know, not many twelve year olds (I know at least) earn quite that much money a year. I'm still saying that the act of suing a child is reprehensible.
It's not even like I'm saying don't punish them, I'm saying the responsibilty should be on the parent for the child and the record companies should sue the parents. I know if I was a twelve year old, my dad would've gone to town if I'd have landed him a two grand fine and I'd have been more scared of that than any piece of paper.
-
Originally posted by 01010
How am I changing my story? It's obvious the parents are going to pay the fine because, y'know, not many twelve year olds (I know at least) earn quite that much money a year. I'm still saying that the act of suing a child is reprehensible.
It's not even like I'm saying don't punish them, I'm saying the responsibilty should be on the parent for the child and the record companies should sue the parents. I know if I was a twelve year old, my dad would've gone to town if I'd have landed him a two grand fine and I'd have been more scared of that than any piece of paper.
no, you really don't know wtf you're saying, you're just arguing for the sake of it.
the RIAA sued a 12 year old because she was illegally sharing music online. end of story. nothing "immoral" about it... she got caught doing something illegal, and she got punished for it... i don't see how that's wrong in any way. oh, and another thing... she got one of (if not THE) lowest fine that anyone got. those 261 people that got caught their fines ranged all the way up to $150,000.00. now if i were her (or her parents) i'd be f-ing glad that i (or my child) didn't land a 150 grand fine, and instead it was a lousy $2000.00 one.
. I'm still saying that the act of suing a child is reprehensible.
you're very hard headed, do you know that? it's not a hard concept to understand...
Step 1) 12 Year Old Girl Illegally Downloads MP3s
Step 2) 12 Year Old Girl Gets Caught by the RIAA Downloading MP3s
Step 3) 12 Year Old Girl Gets Fined by the RIAA Because She Was Caught Illegally Downloading MP3s.
comprende?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
no, you really don't know wtf you're saying, you're just arguing for the sake of it.
the RIAA sued a 12 year old because she was illegally sharing music online. end of story. nothing "immoral" about it... she got caught doing something illegal, and she got punished for it... i don't see how that's wrong in any way. oh, and another thing... she got one of (if not THE) lowest fine that anyone got. those 261 people that got caught their fines ranged all the way up to $150,000.00. now if i were her (or her parents) i'd be f-ing glad that i (or my child) didn't land a 150 grand fine, and instead it was a lousy $2000.00 one.
you're very hard headed, do you know that? it's not a hard concept to understand...
Step 1) 12 Year Old Girl Illegally Downloads MP3s
Step 2) 12 Year Old Girl Gets Caught by the RIAA Downloading MP3s
Step 3) 12 Year Old Girl Gets Fined by the RIAA Because She Was Caught Illegally Downloading MP3s.
comprende?
I only seem hard headed because you don't seem to be able to comprehend my posts.
When have I ever said that what she did wasn't illegal? Please point that out to me, in fact, I've even gone so far as to state that I know it's wrong and it doesn't stop me from doing it and if I was caught in the act of "copyright infringement" I would take the punishment.
I even said that the child should be punished just not by the record companies, that responsibility lies on the parents of the child. The record companies should sue the parents of the offending child.
I can't put it in any plainer english for you Stealth, I hope you grasp the concept of what I'm trying to tell you this time.
-
Originally posted by 01010
I only seem hard headed because you don't seem to be able to comprehend my posts.
When have I ever said that what she did wasn't illegal? Please point that out to me, in fact, I've even gone so far as to state that I know it's wrong and it doesn't stop me from doing it and if I was caught in the act of "copyright infringement" I would take the punishment.
I even said that the child should be punished just not by the record companies, that responsibility lies on the parents of the child. The record companies should sue the parents of the offending child.
I can't put it in any plainer english for you Stealth, I hope you grasp the concept of what I'm trying to tell you this time.
yeah, but your story keeps changing, and your logic is flawed... quote me on that.
OK, so you're saying the RIAA shouldn't sue the child, but it should sue the parents instead.
that's stupid.
why?
because the parents didn't download MP3s illegally, the kid did...
therefore the kid should get punished by the RIAA, not the kid.
and what fing difference does it make whether the child should be sued or the parents!? In the end the FAMILY has to come up with $2000 regardless, so it's all gravy in the end.
if anything, if the parents were sued it would probably be worse for the kid, because they'd be a lot harder on the parents, than on the child. in the end the child's fine came to $2000, while other people were getting fines up to $150,000.
i'm sure you can see the difference.
kthx.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
yeah, but your story keeps changing, and your logic is flawed... quote me on that.
Forget the rest for the moment, it's the same old crap you've been plying for however many posts now. I'm more interested in why you keep saying that my story keeps changing because as far as I can tell I've pretty much been consistent on all the points I've made. If you're going to make a statement at least make it true.
For reference (in nice plain English for you):
My initial stance was:
"It's disgusting that a huge conglomeration of the top record companies (earning more money a year than the entire population of my town would in a lifetime) can get away with suing a 12 year old girl for copyright infringement (which is bull**** under laws of fair use anyway, but hey, enough with semantics)"
My stance now is:
"It's disgusting that a huge conglomeration of the top record companies (earning more money a year than the entire population of my town would in a lifetime) can get away with suing a 12 year old girl for copyright infringement (which is bull**** under laws of fair use anyway, but hey, enough with semantics)"
Oh **** yeah, look at that. COMPLETELY ****ing different.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Oh **** yeah, look at that. COMPLETELY ****ing different.
yeah, the point is that you're a dumass who thinks that a 12 year old shouldn't get sued for doing something illegal :rolleyes:
go play in the highway :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Stealth
yeah, the point is that you're a dumass who thinks that a 12 year old shouldn't get sued for doing something illegal :rolleyes:
go play in the highway :doubt:
Well, you finally got the point and I guess that's something to be grateful for.
Although, there really is no need to be so aggressive, seriously, you get upset enough (on an internet forum of all places) to tell me to go play in the highway and yet you call me the "dumass".
You also never aswered my question as to where my story altered. Or am I too stupid to not be able to see that?
-
Laws are made to, ideally, enforce sensibility. The RIAA is not sensible, their moaning bull**** isn't either. Neither is current copyright law.
Therefore, the laws should be changed, laws are made to be flexible after all.
Whether it is illegal NOW, under INSENSIBLE laws is not important.
-
Originally posted by 01010
You also never aswered my question as to where my story altered. Or am I too stupid to not be able to see that?
probably the second part.
ahum... anyway:
So you think it's ok for huge ****ing corporate conglomerates to sue kids?
It's not even like I'm saying don't punish them, I'm saying the responsibilty should be on the parent for the child and the record companies should sue the parents.
OK so maybe you're not changing your story, you're just changing your perspective. well regardless, my point 0wnz0rz yours...:
The 12 year old heiffer[/i] (yeah, have you seen her pictures? this 12 year old's over 200 lbs) was the one that downloaded MP3s illegally, and so therefore she was fined by the RIAA for her actions... not her parents, not her cousins, not her great grandmother's second cousin twice removed, but HER... since she was the one doing the downloading :rolleyes:[/i]
I mean if you don't get that then i'm at a loss, because that's like saying: "See, the 14 year old kid that stole a machine gun and razed the whole neighborhood's animals, she shouldn't be put on trial! her parents should... for... uhhh... giving birth to her!"
-
i'm pretty damn tired of all your ****ing *****ing just shut the **** up already.
-
Originally posted by neo_hermes
i'm pretty damn tired of all your ****ing *****ing just shut the **** up already.
It's funny when him and KT go at it...
:D
-
Originally posted by Solatar
It's funny when him and KT go at it...
:D
but you see me and KT aren't going at it ;)
me and 10100 are having a discussin ;)
neo_hermes: myself, karajorma, 010101, and multiple others are involved in various discussions/arguments. if you don't like reading them, then why not go away... ok? :yes::nod: :D
I await 010101's reply :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Didn't you read my comments? I said that while I didn't mind paying the price at the time it was because I didn't realise at the time that I was the victim of an illegal price fixing operation.
But now that you do know, you have no problem downloading songs?
Would you tell someone who bought an illegally cut and shut car that they had no right to get their money back? Even though they were scammed out of their money by an illegal con?
Tough luck buddy? You bought something illegally. It's your own fault you didn't check hard enough.
Price fixing is ILLEGAL. The record companies have all been involved in a scam for many years over this. If now they are losing money because people are doing something illegal to them I really couldn't give a damn. They conned the general public for years and now the general public is doing the same to them. Sounds like they are simply getting some of their own medicine.
Wait wait wait, if it's ok to steal from them because they're price fixing, it's ok to price fix cause they're stealing.
If they're price fixing, take it to court! Kinda like they are, and they're gonna win. A good excuse for the people is not "Oh yea, well they're price fixing!" The courts won't, or shouldn't say "Oh, well by all means continue your illegal activity so we don't have to deal with the price fixing here"
-
last thing i say in this thread....*cough*
RIAA should go to hell!
That's the end so tata.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
But now that you do know, you have no problem downloading songs?
Basically yep. They stole from me so I stole from them. Taking them to court is a long drawn out process. They have expensive lawyers and members of parliment that they have bought with campaign contributions. I have me. Where's the justice in that? The government is supposed to investigate things like this but so far apart from hitting Volvo with a fine once they've done bugger all to enforce the price fixing laws they brought in.
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Tough luck buddy? You bought something illegally. It's your own fault you didn't check hard enough.
You fail to see my point. If you buy a cut and shut you've bought it legitamately. It was the car dealer who was breaking the law. You shouldn't have to check that a car has been illegally tampered with when you buy it cause if it has tough luck! Why should you be out money because of their illegality? The same goes for this. I bought the majority of my CD collection before I reached 18. Why should I have to have been aware that the CD's were being illegally price fixed when I wasn't even a full adult?
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Wait wait wait, if it's ok to steal from them because they're price fixing, it's ok to price fix cause they're stealing.
If they're price fixing, take it to court! Kinda like they are, and they're gonna win. A good excuse for the people is not "Oh yea, well they're price fixing!" The courts won't, or shouldn't say "Oh, well by all means continue your illegal activity so we don't have to deal with the price fixing here"
The problem is that as far as I know a case for price fixing would probably have to be brought by the Office of Fair Trading. I doubt that any citizen could bring a private proscecution. Besides didn't you accuse me of being a vigilante for saying that I would try to make sure that if anyone in the UK was prosecuted for breaking the copywrite laws that the record companies would pay for their law breaking too.
Currently I have no problem with the set up. Some people download, some people buy CDs. Music sales haven't gone down the huge amount the RIAA claim. In fact in the UK CD sales are actually up. The record companies continue to price fix and steal from the general public who can't be bothered to simply boycott them until they stop. If the RIAA want to keep that situation that's fine.
What I have a problem with is the RIAA's attitude of anyone breaking copywrite law must be punished while they feel that they have a god given right to carry on with their own illegal activities.
It's the sheer greed from the RIAA that disgusts me.