[CP5670]

I did say that remark would piss people off. But it's good someone else sees the light with that age thing.

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.

[Stealth]

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
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...

[WMCoolmon]

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.

[Stealth]

CP i agree 100%

[CP5670]

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. 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%

great

[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

[Ace]

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

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.

[Stunaep]

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.

[Stunaep]

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.  

Tell that to my nephew.

[Woolie Wool]

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?

[kasperl]

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.

[CP5670]

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.

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.

[Stunaep]

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.

[Stunaep]

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.

For some reason, I question your knowledge about children. I wonder why is that?

[CP5670]

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. 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.

[Stunaep]

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

[Woolie Wool]

Especially since CP never leaves his house; how can he say stuff like that about people even though he hardly knows any?

[Stunaep]

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.

[Woolie Wool]

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?

[CP5670]

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. And what is a "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?

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.

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. 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. There are definitely finer points to this whole thing that the article does not address.