RIAA loses suit to make mother pay for 13 year old's file sharing..
 

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26460

THE RECORDING Industry Association of America (RIAA) has lost a key case where it attempted to sue a mother over her 13-year old child's file sharing abilities.

According to CD Freaks, the case was overturned in a federal court in Michigan with prejudice. That means the RIAA case is lost.

The RIAA was forced to withdraw its case because it held the mother couldn't be held to be liable for letting her daughter share music online.

The case was brought by Priority Records on behalf of Elektra Motowwn Records, Warner Bros, Sony Music, UMG Recordings and Arista.

The funny thing is that RIAA came in, assuming that the woman would settle like all the other folks so far, she told em no.. they tried to pressure her at the opening hearing, telling her that it would be much cheaper just to work with the "Settlement Center" (ie, extortion house)..

The Judge was not amused by their actions and told the lawyer (who figured just to extend it till the mother agreed to pay due to legal bills).. she now goes through YOU, nobody else. No Settlement Center.

And now this.

yessss!!! VICTORY OVER THE HEATHENS AT LONG LAST!!! I SHALL HAVE MY VENGENCE!!

Love this part (Sorry about the line #'s, got this from the .txt file above)

20 THE COURT: I'm in no hurry to see this case resolved.
21 So far, Mrs. Santangelo has raised enough issues, including the
22 use of a screen name or an account name -- not hers, but some
23 other person's -- that suggests that she might have some really
24 interesting defenses to this. And there are defenses that
25 maybe even ought to be litigated. The whole concept of a young
1 person using the parent's computer access is bad enough, but if
2 this name is not hers, she doesn't pay for this account.
3 MR. MASCHIO: They wouldn't have brought the action,
4 your Honor, if they hadn't verified that very carefully.
5 THE COURT: Well, we'll see, won't we? We'll see.
6 And if what she's telling me is wrong, I won't be very happy
7 with her.
8 So let's set another conference date for July 8th at,
9 say, 10 a.m. And hopefully you will have an attorney by then.
10 And if you get an attorney, you need to put the attorney in
11 touch with Mr. Maschio, and maybe you will get this thing
12 resolved.
13 MS. SANTANGELO: Mr. Maschio's --
14 THE COURT: He will give you his business card.
15 MS. SANTANGELO: There is more than one group here.
16 MR. MASCHIO: I'll give her my card, but our
17 instructions are for these people to deal with the conference
18 settlement center. They had discussions.
19 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Your instructions from me, the
20 Judge --
21 MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
22 THE COURT: -- are that, if she appears with a lawyer,
23 her lawyer will deal with you.
24 MR. MASCHIO: Oh, absolutely, your Honor.
25 THE COURT: Otherwise, you take your action and you
1 file it in front of an arbitrator.
2 MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is
3 that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more
4 direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate
5 things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
6 THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my
7 court.
8 MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
9 THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your
10 conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with
11 anything.
12 MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
13 THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an
14 officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering
15 up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court.
16 Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be
17 representing your client, not some conference center. And if
18 your people want things to be done through the conference
19 center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.

Just another example of why I have a decreasing amount of faith in the court system & why I'm becoming more & more certain that it needs a serious overhaul.

Yup, because some folks want to use it as an extortion tool, right Jon? (Sarcasm I know)

(yeah, I know, we're back to that divide on this issue, but HA! it's good to see a judge deliver a legal smackdown like this. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of assholes)

Sorry Fozzie, the only assholes I see in the story a miserable 13 y/o thief/accessory to theft, a mother who clearly hasn't taught her child right from wrong, and a judge who did his best to let them get away with it. If all 3 died tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

word!

And there we go, after about a year of pretty much agreeing on most issues, we're back to this, Just like the old days Jon.

This is a huge kick in the jimmies for the RIAA. Their big plan was to sue all the parents into trying to hover over the kids 24/7, just in case they downloaded a song. Thy threaten 150K a song (as if..), and extort as much as they can out of the family, and then move on to the next one.

But even though they still can sue the kid (and if they should or not, hey, that's their decision), don't know if they will.

A) They'd look even further like the mafia-like thugs they are with 2,000 lawsuits against minors

B) Guess what.. kids ain't got no money. Oh well, can't extort it from the big pocketbooks of the folks no more.

The judge had it right. Don't use our already overburdened court system as an extortion system. If you're going to sue.. deal with lawyers. Don't say. "Our lawyers will crush you.. but you can pay us now" and refer them to the "Settlement" Center instead of dealing with lawyers.

If by "word" means completely overreacting, and making an ass out of yourself, then word indeed.

A judge who refused to let his court be used for extortion and insists it only be used for legal purposes. Yes, that is pretty terrible.

Or perhaps "word" means Jon needs to be gang-raped by the Tech football team until he dies of internal bleeding.

When the judicial system doesn't agree with you, just wish them all dead.

Dude, NOT cool. Mock the views if you want. Don't go to that level.

Really not cool.

aaaah, i sense a SD-boxination coming for Sov.

When you see someone wish death on three people, it is hard to not have a strong reaction.

ah true true. i had overlooked that a bit. in that sense, sov's comments weren't so bad. Can I get a dual-boxination?

Well, I'm not saying Sov's comment was right....but I understand it.

Actually Fozzie, I'm completely serious.

I'm sick beyond words of watching thieves get away with it, and I harbor them nothing but ill will at this point. $150k isn't enough IMO, these acts of theft should come with jail time, including 3 strikes provisions that puts removes these theiving little pieces of vermin out of circulation permanently if neccessary. And if parents aren't willing to control their children's criminal behavior, then they don't belong on the streets either.

But hey, maybe you're right, maybe lawlessness IS the way to go. Maybe the RIAA finds some very talented & highly motivated "persuaders" to "encourage" people to quit stealing from them.

Technically he didn't wish death upon them. He just said the world would be a better place without them around.

Personally, I think the judge made a good call.

the issue i have with the RIAA in these cases is that the punishment FAR outweighs the crime, even financially. the 150k/song figure is RIDICULOUS. there is no logical way they could come up with that figure. so in that sense i would rather see zero penalty then one that is that ridiculous

The RIAA has a legal recourse, but they are afraid to use it in case a bad precedent is set. They much prefer to use their current crop of highly motivated "persuaders" to try to bully folks.

Im sure you'll agree though that the RIAA doesn't behave appropriately on theyre way to court. If I called you up tomorrow and said, "Jon, I saw on the message board you wished death on XYZ, and in my opinion it is you threatening them. BUT if you simply want to send me a check for 50k I'll forget about it." You'd agree the behaviour is reprehensible. Sure theft is bad but extortion is too. Right?

Real quick question for you....back when casette tapes were the rage....did you perhaps, record something from the radio, even for yourself.....what about copy said song for your friends? Make that slow mix from the radio you liked for your dates?

How about ever sneak a taste of candy from the bulk bins?

Just curious here....

i'm sure the answer you'll get is "nope. never." because JiMG is rightous, and perfect and has never done a single thing wrong in his life. Never even does a rolling-stop at a stop-sign on a deserted road.

*sarcasm off*

not that i'm biblical at all, but...LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE

What'd I give to have a private detective follow Jon around and see what lawlessness he's up to without even thinking about it. Speeding? Littering (with all the smoking you do, some of them must find their way to the sidewalk/street :) )?. I mean, you're the one who says the world is black and white. Lawlessness is lawlessness, right? ;)

"Poor people have no money. Might as well let them steal stuff".

SI

...or record a show on VHS? Or channel surf while your favorite show was on commercial?

Someone once said that an alcoholic is defined by most people as "anyone that drinks more than me". It appears that JIMG's definition of a criminal that should be executed is "anyone that steals more than me".

But the real issue is that intellectual property is much different from real property. Someone takes a song off the internets, that doesn't preclude someone else from owning it or listening to it. In fact, there is a greater benefit to society the more people that are able to listen to it, which just isn't the case with real property.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaa! How you can mouth that stuff with a straight face, Jon, is beyond me.

That's what we need, sure it is alright. Maximum Security lockups for teenagers. Alcatraz for Adolescents! Sing Sing for Secondary Schoolers! Alles in ordnung!

Ladies and gentlemen, for Jon's next gig, he's going to advocate that we burn all libraries to the ground! After all, they loan out books again and again, without paying the author full price for the book each time they loan it to someone new..., or even asking permission of the most holy copyright owners. How completely horrid!

And while we're at it, ban the VCR, and the Tivo! You'll watch our shows when WE want you to, and no time else! If we let Joe Average use a VCR, he'll just tape television shows and *gasp* share it with his friends! They might even.. The HORROR.. FAST FORWARD THROUGH THE COMMERCIALS..

We must protect the god-given holy Copyright and Intellectual Property! God Save our Great Nation. And remember..

This is repulsive Jon, even by your standards. A punishment should fit the crime. Respect for property rights is one of the hallmarks of a capitalist society, but you've shown enough selective disregard for the means and acquisition of property (see the Lucent thread) that its more than a little hypocritical.

this is what you get when sov tries to take a page out of my book. :rolleyes:

Life in prison for downloading songs, man where do people come up with this stuff?

So I'm guessing you have no problem with someone spending their life in prison for going 4 miles over the speed limit right? It may be a petty crime, but fuck once we put those punks in jail I'll bet the streets are much more safe!

Nope, although the radio thing is sort of an unfair question -- I knew from an early age that it was illegal to make those tapes because I had an interest in the radio business at a pretty young age (had a on-air guy explain why they weren't supposed to do the whole "will you announce this before you play it so I can tape it" when I was probably 8 or 9 years old.

And no, I never stole candy from the store (again, not quite fair though since I honestly don't recall ever seeing bulk bins until I was an adult or at least late teens.).

i'll give Jon this:

he's very consistent. i hate his views, but i admire his willingness to share his unpopular (and all totally wrong) opinions with the public.

the "let the punishment fit the crime" statement is appropriate in this case - $150K for downloading a song is grossly insane. you don't even get punished that much for stealing an actual cd. a slap on the wrist and community service is more like it.

ever speed, maybe even just 1 mile over the speed limit?

I have always wondered why a pedophile has never attempted a similar defense? (Bear with me here, more of a curiosity thing than an evil plan)

"What do you mean you found naked images of 13 year old girls on my computer? They belong to my 11-year old son! He can't look at naked girls that are older than him?"

do you really expect an honest answer? jon knows as much as anone else that as soon as he admits to [insert petty, minor infraction here] everyone will jump down his throat with "a HA!!! so you *are* in fact a criminal too!".

How you can support thieves with a straight face escapes me too, so I guess we're even. And how you can do it & still look at yourself in a mirror really astonishes me.

I don't separate intellectual property particularly from physical property, as they are both derived from efforts & have rightful owners. And those are indeed things I hold in extremely high regard, I don't intend to apologize for that.

I don't shed a tear when a shopkeeper guns down some thieving p.o.s., if I get a convienient chance I'll even offer to buy him/her a box of ammo to reload with for next time. I really don't see any difference with the sort of thieves mentioned in this article & meant exactly what I said earlier, the world would be better off without them.

If that bothers you (or anybody else), I don't know what to tell you, that's just how it is. I won't lie to make you feel better nor will I sit back & let you post something celebrating these theiving pieces of garbage without making it clear that your attitude is at best offensive & at worst downright nauseating. Nobody around here seems to have a problem calling me out when they disagree with something I say, so I really don't feel much need to sit back & let something that disgusts me so thoroughly go without a reply either.

I thought Jon believed in personal responsibility... why charge the parent for something the kid did? RIAA is only doing it because it fears the PR backlash if it goes against kids directly.

To coin a phrase, two wrongs don't make a right. Inadequate punishment for one doesn't negate the need for at least somewhat adequate punishement for the other.

Actually, I believe there's a pretty good history of parents being responsible for the conduct of their children in a legal sense.

And what does that have to do with the concept of "PERSONAL responsibility". Since you show such disdain for the law, refering back to it doesn't qualify as an adequate response.

Why do you people continue to attempt to make a real discussion with JiMG? He has proven time and time again that he will not waiver from his pathtically self rightious views on how EVERYONE should live their lives.

Lucky for us we live in America and not say...stalinist russia or some other big-brother society. Yes, we're going that way with this pathetic administration, but we're not dead yet.

Trying to have a logical sane, common SENSE discussion with JiMG is like trying to count the chinese all in a row, by the time you've finished, he's got an entirely new fucked up train of thought going. Its a waste of time.

This one time when I was a baby I accidently stole a candy necklace from a grocery store. My mom was grabbing something from a shelf and I must have picked it up and put it around my neck. I then fell asleep in the stroller and we left with the necklace. I cant believe my mom didn't get thrown into prison for 20 years, what is this world coming to!

because it's amusing maybe? It's like waving meat in front of a hungry bear.

well you're just going to HELL!! SINNER!!

Kinda like expecting anything of any value to ever come from your keyboard?

Surely as the sun rises & sets, Render will waste bandwidth & contribute nothing to any conversation.

Well, if you want to know the truth, I figure outright advocation of executing them for their abject failure to teach anything resembling an adequate set of ethics or morality to their children would probably be more than some of the bedwetters here could take, I figured I'd go with the lesser (albeit increasingly ineffective) route here just to be kind.

ba dump cha

George Herbert Walker Bush's son was a crackhead and alcohol abuser. Guess he should have been offed sometime during the 70s, eh?

So glad I can dissapoint you Jon, it brightens my days and brings orgasms to my bored little mind at night to think that I've elicited a response from one so totally above all the rest of us poor unethical backwards people as yourself.

I'm still curious why you're so easily willing to dismiss property rights in the Lucent case.

Its called hypocracy, I think there is a picture of JiMG next to the entry in a dictionary I read somewhere.

".

I dont think we'll find "hypocracy" in the dictionary- hypocrisy, perhaps. :D

That being said, I think Jon is a facist, but a consistent one for the most part, which is why this is surprising.

I'm with JiMGA here, tho not as far as the $150K fine and shooting. But that doesn't mean someone shouldn't be sent to jail or fined a more reasonable amount, similar to if you steal something like a CD. That said, I've found that the thieves on this board have far more energy than the people opposed to it and I don't feel like cutting and pasting the same tired story each time this comes along so have fun.

SI

I agree people who speed should be sent to jail.

Simple enough to answer: "greater good" pretty much covers it well enough for here I think.

Hmm ... that's probably oversimplified even for my taste right now.
Lemme see if I can do this in a straight run, 'cause there's (IMO) a kind of glaring contradiction between the "greater good" justification & my unabashed distaste for a lot of things about the state benefitting from that "greater good".

US = pretty fucked up in a number of ways ... but it still closer to the ideal than most any other existing framework (there are others with arguably better framework for the ideals but that would require even more manipulation to reach said ideals ... SO, it's in the best interest to maintain the security of the US in the long term, as it appears to be the most "tweakable" to desired form.

Did that read through well enough to get across what I'm thinking here? Phrased a little different, it's far from perfect but it still has (I hope) enough potential for me to place high value on safeguarding its status ... which is how national security in the Lucent case discussed the other day trumps the property rights (one of the few trump cards I can think of for those off-hand).

Jonny boy...you are full of shit. I just thought someone should say it. Everyone else was beating around the bush.

But the woman charged wasn't the thief. Unless we are charging parents for EVERYTHING their kids do wrong.

A cop-out- I've rebucked people for this before, but suggesting that people deserve to be shot for it is more than ridiculous - especially when applied to 13 year olds. Moreover, JIMGA has no problem with theft, as long as the entity is the government.

I get the feeling Jon isn't going to answer if he has sped or not.

BTW, I'm very happy to see the RIAA got what it deserved and was put into its place. I'm tired of huge corporations using strong arm tactics to get their way. If they dont file a class action suit against the 150 million americans who download music then they shouldnt file any at all.

or as long as it's the RIAA. Somehow "two wrongs don't make a right" yet he feels people should be killed and fined $150k+ for downloading a song they may or may not have on a purchased cd

I don't know the case intimately so I'm just basing this on the assumption that this was one of those states where parents can be held responsible for kid's actions. There are quite a few laws like this- this may not be one of them. I also agree that using the courts to extort people is wrong. However, I think some people haven't drawn the line between extortion and paying for your crime. You can't tell me there aren't quite a few people in this thread advocating that it's ok to not even prosecute these people and those are more who those comments are directed towards.

SI

I think you guys going after Jon are the ones using the copout. Yeah, Jon's opinions aren't even shared by 99.99% of the people out there and you're using him as the strawman in this argument.

SI

the problem is the RIAA doesn't want a conviction they want a payoff

Should the RIAA prosecute a 13 year old for doing what 150 million other americans are doing? I just can't say yes with a straight face. Surely there are better cases to prosecute. I KNOW their are wealthier citizens.

hey illinifan999, has Jon ever sped? You should ask him ;)

This is a bad argument. The whole point of a deterrent is to go prosecute those you can to scare away others.

excellent idea,

Jon you ever sped before?

So you pick a 13 year old? I thought the whole point of prosecution was to rehabilitate the evil-doers? :)

Arguments are made on both sides of the downloading issue. It is a tough argument mostly knowing just how far to take things. Jon's points are much easier to argue since they are so totally over the line. He makes himself an easy target and distracts people from the real issues.

1. The $150K is not a fine, it represents compensatory damages. The RIAA can only file a civil case. It is a private organization, and unless a prosecutor takes up the case on a criminal charge, jail time is not in the picture.

2. $150K comes from the maximum civil award per occurrence for copyright infringement. Downloading a song, the RIAA is contending, is one occurrence, so they are basically suing for the maximum amount the law allows. Now, if one of these things went to trial, a jury would decide the actual damages, and it would certainly be amusing if a jury decided the damages were equal to the retail price of a song, which is $1. And a jury might well do that. I'm guessing that the last thing the RIAA wants is a trial, which is why their attorney kept bringing up the Settlement Center.

As an asside, I wonder if this person will be scared straight after the whole fiasco.

Back on point, I'm guessing that the RIAA didn't know the anonymous username they were going after was 13 years old. Once they figured it out, I'm guessing they went after the parents since they actually had pockets.

Hmm. I get the point, but it seems to me that arbitrary faith in elected politicians means far less than faith in a judiciary set up to check them. I think national security, especially after 9-11, has become an excuse for unchecked abuse of powers, and the fact that property rights, one of the tenents of the system, also fall to the wayside- that's more than depressing. Also, the "greater good" logic (which is where you end up at, after the extended arguement) is far more prone to abuse - you've set up a standard. As I recall, you weren't completely opposed to Kelo vs London either, which leads me to believe that your faith in government is unusually strong (or relatively better, probably more accurate) for someone so far to the right.

I agree but I think going after the parents of a minor is a mistake. Can parents be held liable for their children doing things on the computer? If a minor committed credit card fraud from the computer the parent wouldnt be liable would he?

There is no way the RIAA wants a trial, and that is exactly why they lead off with the maximum penalty. Start with a scary number, and settle for something they think is fair. If things ever go to trial, they run the risk of getting a very liberal jury who awards almost no damages and they no longer have the ability to scare people. Plus the costs of the trial will quickly eat up any awards they might get.

Jon, the greater good in the file sharing case is to allow the free exchanage of music! By your own logic you should be in favor of file sharing. File sharing allows more people to listen to more music, and there has been no evidence that it ultimately cuts into the profits of musicians. Musicians benefit from file sharing through increased exposure, consumers get more music, and the greater good is served.

I'm not arguing that going after a minor is a bad decision. They probably have much better tragets to go after. I'm guessing that after all the work they went through to track down the minor, the RIAA figured going after the parent was better than nothing. Most everybody had gotten scared and paid the settlement, so it seemed like a fair plan.

My major point of contention was the argument that we shouldn't go after the girl because 150 million other Americans were doing the same thing. If an action is wrong, you have to address the action one person at a time.

yeah, I would love it if the RIAA got a USFL award (a "Yes, you're right, but so what, $1 is all you get")... type deal.

The reason why the Labels fought Itunes for so long is because it sets a baseline for them. The jury can just say.. "Well, 99 cents a song is all they can reasonably charge, maybe doubled or tripled because of the nature of the case". No more wink wink nod nod "Sir, the defendant downloaded a song for his own personal use, and then changed his mind and sent it to 15 friends. We want 15x150K or 2.25 Million Dollars"

Look up Schadenfrude sometime. Ah never mind, let me commit some Copyright Infringement from Dictionary.com ;)

schadenfreude \SHAHD-n-froy-duh\, noun:
A malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others.

I've never said that downloading songs is morally right and fluffy bunnies and rainbows happen when you do it. Never. I've always said it's wrong. It's copyright infringement. It's NOT theft. As much as you, the RIAA, and various other folks want to point the finger and scream "THIEF! THIEF THIEF!" it's just not true. The Supreme Court has specifically said when RIAA tried to drag up the "Thief" strawman that downloading Copyrighted materials is NOT theft. It's copyright infringement.

Isn't it amazing the tighter they grip this thing, the more it slips through their hands?

I'm not saying we haven't had this argument before, but...

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ead.php?t=8548
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=29329
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=20179
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=13715
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=36719
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=39584

SI

That's true...but obviously there will be trials if they start taking a bunch of people to court and at that point it seems like the RIAA may start losing their battle.

I'm really surprised no lawyers have decided to take one of these cases pro bono just to take on the RIAA and make a name for themselves. I'm sure the process would be expensive, but that lawyer would become a household name. Eventually it is going to happen and I'll be curious to see what the landscape looks like afterward.

They've already lost (or more accurately) on their way to losing the battle. The popularity of LEGAL services like the upcoming Mashboxx, ITunes, etcetera shows that they can/will be dragged into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if need be.

They've lost the heart and minds battle among Joe and Jane Average a long time ago. They still have Congress.. but how long will it be before the sons of Joe/Jane average become Congressmen?

I rebroadcasted an account of a baseball game once without the express written consent of Major League Baseball. They've tried to take my dog to court for 13 million dollars since technically he was the one that told me to do it. I don't answer my door for fear of summary judgement by a guy with a gun.

JIMG started this thread with an amazing lack of reading comprehension and went from there.

The mother's position is that another child (not her own) used the computer to download the songs. In court and to the judge's face she contended that her issue was not with the RIAA but was with the makers of Kazaa for allowing people to download music illegally. She described making such a thing simple to do as "mind-boggling" to her. So, in effect, she agreed that downloading the songs was wrong and it may indeed have not even been her child that did it.

And for this, JIMG thinks she should be executed.

Which is why the only logical punishment for JIMG's abject stupidity is his own execution.

I support your motion sir!

And you are ... who exactly? Mr 400 posts in 5 years & oh so knowledgable at, what is it, 23 years old?

Tell ya what, when I need an opinion from you, I'll give it to you. Until then, how about going & doing your homework or something, as long as you STFU it really doesn't matter much to me.

I worked straight from the quoted portion, specifically

That's the basis for my "comprehension" of the information, I used what was stated in plain black letters. The ruling, as described there, does not indicate anything about a claim of another user being involved was a part of the decision.

Frankly, if she's done this piss-poor a job of parenting, I'm not exactly inclined toward believing her claims of shocked innocence in the first place.

Hell Yeah!

Now here is where you remind me of my PWT 52 year old step father. He is older so he knows more and is better than me.

Well, honestly, here is where I say fuck you, and fuck the mentality you possess.

Give a guy a little time here, it's tough to catch every single post + watch the rally in Baton Rouge + have to sort through so much crap from so many posters already on ignore just to catch even a portion of the steaming bullshit shoveled in my direction. I answered your first one, I didn't notice the speeding thing until later. Feel free to file suit if you desire.

Yep, I've got a whopping one whole speeding ticket in 38 years.
Wasn't in a stolen car though.

From your question, I'm guessing you're trying to apply some sort of "any crime" generality standard & if that's your belief, by all means go for it. But that's not what I've said here, I believe I've been pretty specific about the theft aspect being the part I'm talking about in this thread. It's certainly not the only crime I lean toward harsh, or even capital, punishment for ... but that's also not the same as me advocating extreme prejudice as punishment for all crimes either (which, just guessing here, is where you were trying to go with this).

ISS, the relevant question isn't whether he's older than you ... it's whether he does know more and/or is better than you.

In the words of Richard Pryor "You learn something when you listen to old people. They ain't fools, see. You don't get to be old by being no fool, see.
A lot of young wise men are deader than a motherfucker ain't they?

So, honestly, here is where I say fuck you too & fuck the lack of useful contribution you appear able to make to this oh-so-thrilling conversation.

Jon is a fucking Dweeb. He spews his bullshit to simply get attention. Let him have his "internet messageboard" higher ground crap if he wants.

Jon can write all the crap he wants, he is to me as he was before...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Tsk tsk, crapper, here I was giving you credit for being at least a little smarter than this.

At no point that I recall have you seen me put right of property above all other concerns. Damn, I even took the time to try to give you an honest explanation of how I reconcile the two situations.

Ah well, my own fault, I shoulda known better than to even bother with you I guess. My bad, I'll try to do better in the future.

And you have contributed how? By enflaming everyone and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt you are full of shit.

Honestly, when someone older than me speaks, I tend to listen, unless that someone is full of it, then I will call them on it, as I am doing here.

You are so far out there, I do not think you even have a normal chance of coming home from it. If you honestly believe your dribble about 3 strikes, for people who download a freaking file, then you are wacked out....

Life? How do you propose paying for it? You know how many people would be locked up for that a lone, because honestly, it wouldn't deter anyone.

Actually Jeffie, tonight it's because I was a)relatively bored & moreso
b)ticked off by the celebratory nature of such a disgusting ruling by the court.

As for the "higher ground", eh, I just sort of let that sort of stuff fall wherever it falls. If somebody is a fucking thief, I don't feel right about letting that go unchallenged. If that's a grab for "high ground" so be it, it's just the truth.

If it bothers you, well damn what can I say? Tough shit boy-o, deal with it in whatever way works for you. I suggest "ignore" as a fairly easy to understand option, it isn't foolproof unfortunately, as there's no shortage of things that you'll try to miss but somebody will put in quotes, but it at least cuts down the signal-to-noise ratio a little bit.

So it's somehow my fault that there's a lot of people here who think it's a-ok
to take things without paying for them, regardless of whether you have any right to them?

Well damn, if you're at that point, where me being critical of indefensible behavior is what's wrong in this thread ... just damn, I'm sorry to say that I don't really see much hope for you either.

re: the 3 strikes bit -- As I alluded to earlier, I was really soft-selling my position a little bit. I'd really honestly prefer they just be shot twice in the back of the head as a deterrent for future thefts.

And yeah, I'm totally serious. I'm not real big on thieves in case you hadn't figured that out yet. But I'm pretty fond of reducing their ability to repeat their crime.

lol, you're amusing. you're actually pretty funny once one stops taking you seriously. well done.