[Taristin]

It's kinda hard to be poor and live in Manhatten (That's where she was, right?)... Unless you're homeless...

[WMCoolmon]

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?

[Solatar]

I think that the RIAA should be consistant. Instead of gourging as much money from each individual as possible.

[Stealth]

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

[01010]

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  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?

[Stealth]

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

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

[Grey Wolf]

Actually, random people online payed for it. Her and her parents didn't have to pay a dime.

[Solatar]

Bet she's still grounded though...I would have been as my parents don't think ignorance is an excuse.

[01010]

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

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.

[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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Woolie Wool]

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.

[Blue Lion]

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.

[Blue Lion]

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?

[01010]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Stealth]

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

[01010]

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.

[Stealth]

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?

[01010]

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.