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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[Crapshoot]

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

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RendeR

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

".

[Crapshoot]

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

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

[sterlingice]

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

[illinifan999]

I agree people who speed should be sent to jail.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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

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).

[cody8200]

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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

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

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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

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.

[illinifan999]

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

[cody8200]

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.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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.

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

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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 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

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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

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

[cody8200]

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.

[vex]

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

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by cody8200

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 serious face. Surely there are better cases to prosecute. I KNOW their are wealtheir citizens.

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

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by vexroid

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

excellent idea,

Jon you ever sped before?

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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

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

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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

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.

[clintl]

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.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by cody8200

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

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.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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).

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.

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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.

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?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by clintl

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by cody8200

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

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.

[SirFozzie]

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?

[sterlingice]

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

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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.

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.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by cody8200

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.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by cody8200

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.

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?

[miked]

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.

[Huckleberry]

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.

[JeffNights]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

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



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!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cody8200

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

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

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

I worked straight from the quoted portion, specifically

... it held the mother couldn't be held to be liable for letting her daughter share music online.

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.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

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

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).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by indoorsoccersim

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.

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.

[JeffNights]

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Moreover, JIMGA has no problem with theft, as long as the entity is the government.

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.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JeffNights

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.

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by indoorsoccersim

By enflaming everyone

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.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.