[Stealth]

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.

[01010]

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.

[Stealth]

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

go play in the highway

[01010]

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

go play in the highway

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?

[Kamikaze]

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.

[Stealth]

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 [/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!"

[neo_hermes]

i'm pretty damn tired of all your ****ing *****ing just shut the **** up already.

[Solatar]

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...

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Solatar


It's funny when him and KT go at it...

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?

I await 010101's reply

[Blue Lion]

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"

[neo_hermes]

last thing i say in this thread....*cough*
RIAA should go to hell!
That's the end so tata.

[karajorma]

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.