Extent of Some Stupidity

[Sloth Girl]

[SIZE="1"]I don't like calling others stupid. I think it's a rude word. I wouldn't appreciate it if someone called me that. I know that some of the things I do aren't that bright but I try not to say anything if I can't make it count. But sometimes, it's hard to find another word to describe some people and comments. I've tried so hard, until I just give up and choose not to say anything. These are my examples of why I think so.

[B]Court Case:[/B] DULUTH, Minn. (Oct. 4) - The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Minnesota woman liable for damages for sharing copyrighted music online. She was sued for $220,00 in damages.


[B]Comments:[/B]
[QUOTE]REPUBLICANS GET AWAY WITH LEADING THIS COUNTRY TO WAR

OJ GETS AWAY WITH DOUBLE MURDER, AND ARMED ROBBERY

P.SPECTOR GETS AWAY WITH MURDER..

ROBERT BLAKE GETS AWAY WITH MURDER...

THE DUMB BLONDE TRIO- SPEARS LILO AND HILTON CONSTANTLY BREAK THE LAW AND GET AWAY WITH DWI AND CHILD CARE ISSUES, AND DRUG CHARGES

A WOMAN DOWNLOADS MUSIC AND GETS SLAMMED

THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY SUCKS TO HIGH HEAVENS[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]This is insane! I think we should all start downloading and sharing. What will the legal system do if we all stand up and refuse to pay?? I can't see them locking up millions of people. I think we all need to unite and bring the corrupt system to its knees. screw the riaa!! lets take our country back[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Looks like a fairly simple case of white trash trying to get away with theft. She lied about her Kazaa account, so she lied about everything else. She got what she deserved.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Is what the woman did OK? This is a complex moral-legal question and part of the complexity is that morals and the law do not always agree. True, it is moral to obey the law but there are limits to that. Here, the law is designed to protect enterpreneurship. Is it protecting enterpreneurship in this particular case or is it just permitting the rich and powerful recording industry to get richer and more powerful? But the law must be applied uniformly? Two objections to that. First what does it mean to apply it uniformly and, also, literally. What happened to the old tradition, even part of the Bible, of applying the law wisely?

The woman herself-a one time downloader or habitual? And, otherwise, of good moral character or habitually immoral? I don't know the answer to these questions but they are relevant even if not relevant under the 'law.'

These concerns would backlog the courts? The courts are backlogged because of people using the law for ends that are not in the spirit of the la[/QUOTE]

The last one being my favorite. Attempting to sound so smart but yet having no effect at all. I don't know the charcter limit for AOL comments, but I can see that he didn't even finish what he was trying to say. Maybe it would have made more sense when there was more. Hopefully.

What do you think of the case? You can look it up yourself on AOL news or any other American news source. Then, what do you think of comments that are so amazingly "ugh!" that it makes you want to shoot yourself in the head after seeing how simple some can be.[/SIZE]

[eleanor]

[font="trebuchet ms"] That court case was won because it was brought about by a recording industry that probably has clout and good lawyers. Same with rich people. They're rich.

(The Iraqi War really wasn't a court case, so that can't be compared to this at all.)

I'm not cheerleading for our justice system, but there are some criticisms of it that they can't take responsibility for. Who judged if OJ Simpson was guilty? A jury. What about Robert Blake? A jury. If there's something that's actually stupid here, it's people.[/font]

[The Spectacular Professor]

The RIAA has a rich history of hitting hard for misdemeanors.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg[/URL]

Okay, so Weird Al may be exaggerating with the electric chair, but the "grandma" and "7-year-old girl" jabs are based on real events. They may be protecting musician's rights, but most of us can agree that they're a little... gruff at times. Prison for one-time-use of Kazaa? I think not.

[Sloth Girl]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"] That court case was won because it was brought about by a recording industry that probably has clout and good lawyers. Same with rich people. They're rich.

I'm not cheerleading for our justice system, but there are some criticisms of it that they can't take responsibility for. Who judged if OJ Simpson was guilty? A jury. What about Robert Blake? A jury. If there's something that's actually stupid here, it's people.[/font][/QUOTE]
[SIZE="1"]Yes, I have no problem with the decision reached by the court. The reasoning is fine. The actual stupidity is the way because decided to describe it: the comments. Thomas had a horrible lawyer who merely said there was no proof that she was the one at the computer, sharing the files. Which was true but her having a Kazaa account ruined that bit of info. She made it which meant she had the intent of downloading anyway.[/SIZE]

[Red]

This smacks of judge & jury having all the technical knowledge of a grapefruit (since the RIAA were able to provide very little proof of actual sharing taking place), which is a pretty common occurrence in these cases.

There's no denying it's illegal but the fine is way out of proportion here.

[Nomurah!]

[SIZE="1"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][COLOR="HotPink"]Well, while my computer is way too slow for anything like that.. I just buy CDs, or get songs from friends..

I can understand why people would want to get music from the internet..Seriously, people do it all the time, and.. The jury might have been high while this case was in session...

But then again, I can understand why people are angry. But is the musician theirselves really that angry? No. They're still making money. Shove it. :D[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

[neko Misty]

[quote name='Red']There's no denying it's illegal but the fine is way out of proportion here.[/QUOTE]


how many songs did she download anyway? I don't think it was that many... the price of them, had she paid it, prolly wouldn't amount to more than what just about any of us have rattling around in our pockets and wallets at any given time. for her to have to pay thousands of dollars for that just sounds petty and spiteful. not to mention insane. :nope:

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='neko Misty']how many songs did she download anyway? I don't think it was that many... the price of them, had she paid it, prolly wouldn't amount to more than what just about any of us have rattling around in our pockets and wallets at any given time. for her to have to pay thousands of dollars for that just sounds petty and spiteful. not to mention insane. :nope:[/QUOTE]I won't argue that the fine was a bit over the top, but seriously, if you're stupid enough to download stuff that's illegal, do you really expect them to let you off the hook just because buying it is cheaper than the fine?

What's petty and spiteful is stealing in the first place. Don't let the fact that the fine was a bit too harsh sway you from the reality that she should have been smart enough to avoid downloading illegal stuff to begin with.

[neko Misty]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']I won't argue that the fine was a bit over the top, but seriously, if you're stupid enough to download stuff that's illegal, do you really expect them to let you off the hook just because buying it is cheaper than the fine?

What's petty and spiteful is stealing in the first place. Don't let the fact that the fine was a bit too harsh sway you from the reality that she should have been smart enough to avoid downloading illegal stuff to begin with.[/QUOTE]

well, of course stealing is wrong... didn't mention that b/c it's obvious. my point was only that the fine was ridiculously high. it would be like sentencing somebody to 20 years in prison for throwing a candy wrapper on the sidewalk... or something like that. the punishment should fit the crime, and in this case, it obviously doesn't. :animesigh

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]Of course the punishment didn't fit, I do agree with Rach though. Since I think he was saying that if she hadn't been stealing in the first place, she wouldn't have gotten caught. I do wish they'd try to be more reasonable about it though. I understand the need to put an end to that sort of thing, but overzealousness like that isn't going to help things. And laying down such a heavy fine only makes them look stupid in my opinion. Though downloading illegal stuff doesn't make one look very bright either.

Also, I looked at the article, if what it says is true about her receiving a warning first from the six record company's who sued her... then she got what was coming to her if she ignored that warning about being in copyright violation of the laws and simply continued to share the music illegally.

Also, sharing up to 1,700 different songs by uploading them for others to use? That's more than a simple case of downloading a few songs and then turning around to share them. Since you can be fined up to $9,250 per song, they only fined her for 24 of the songs she illegally uploaded and shared. In which case, she got of easy since they could have totally stuck it to her. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[neko Misty]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]Of course the punishment didn't fit, I do agree with Rach though. Since I think he was saying that if she hadn't been stealing in the first place, she wouldn't have gotten caught. I do wish they'd try to be more reasonable about it though. I understand the need to put an end to that sort of thing, but overzealousness like that isn't going to help things. And laying down such a heavy fine only makes them look stupid in my opinion. Though downloading illegal stuff doesn't make one look very bright either.

Also, I looked at the article, if what it says is true about her receiving a warning first from the six record company's who sued her... then she got what was coming to her if she ignored that warning about being in copyright violation of the laws and simply continued to share the music illegally.

Also, sharing up to 1,700 different songs by uploading them for others to use? That's more than a simple case of downloading a few songs and then turning around to share them. Since you can be fined up to $9,250 per song, they only fined her for 24 of the songs she illegally uploaded and shared. In which case, she got of easy since they could have totally stuck it to her. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

9,250 bucks per song?!?! :faint: wow... :o
I hadn't heard that they gave her a warning... see, you did your homework. I was just going on what I heard at the "watercooler". you're right, that wasn't very bright on her part... :nono:

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]Wow, glad I live over this side of the Atlantic where the courts really don't give a damn about people downloading music seeing as they're too full processing cases involving murderers and drug-dealers. That said, Rach does have a point, if you can't take the fine, don't do the crime.[/SIZE]

[Hero of Zero]

[COLOR="SlateGray"]She's just an example, a deterrent. Like when they used to string up pirates and criminals to scare people into being good. I feel bad for her because there are people with much larger collections of downloaded music getting off scott free; they basically picked her name out of a hat.

I don't see the problem with downloading illegally. The record companies are greedy as hell, and the more money I keep from them the better I feel. The same goes for YouTube videos; copyright laws are ********. Freedom of information and all that.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]What's petty and spiteful is stealing in the first place. Don't let the fact that the fine was a bit too harsh sway you from the reality that she should have been smart enough to avoid downloading illegal stuff to begin with.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR="SlateGray"]
Yes, that's right, she should have spent her money supporting the corrupt and idea-killing music industry. Because that would solve everything.[/COLOR]

[Odin M Yggdrasi]

[quote name='Hero of Zero'][COLOR="SlateGray"]She's just an example, a deterrent. Like when they used to string up pirates and criminals to scare people into being good. I feel bad for her because there are people with much larger collections of downloaded music getting off scott free; they basically picked her name out of a hat.

I don't see the problem with downloading illegally. The record companies are greedy as hell, and the more money I keep from them the better I feel. The same goes for YouTube videos; copyright laws are ********. Freedom of information and all that.[/COLOR]

[/QUOTE]

Definitely freedom of information, in fact I am going to laugh my head off when something bad happens to Microsoft- Based on the way the nerds and computer techs are balking about windows Vista, and the number of open-source replacements for Microsoft stuff hitting the industry, I think Microsoft is in for it good this time. Sorry bill, but I think in the near future the Penguin is going to replace you. Serves you right for being so greedy about your licensing.

I personally love open-source, software that is completely free and in many cases quite superior to proprietary codes like windows, in fact if it wasn't for one of my favorite MMORPGs not working under Linux I would use that all the time instead of just when experimenting.

While I understand these musicians wanting to get every penny possible for their work- point of fact I would too, lately it seems the industry is just going too far. Fact is there are a lot of people that want to have the latest and greatest, they aren't going to wait for somebody else to rip the MP3 and add it to their P2P stuff. They'll be right there in Wal-Mart the day the album is released, buying it by the millions so that they have it.

Personally, I think they need to shorten the duration of copyright. It should only last maybe 2 years instead of the 50 or so it lasts now. Patents only last 10 years, that's plenty long enough for a product to hit the market and return big money for it's creator without hindering later developments because of royalties on the patent after the 10 years is up.

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Hero of Zero'][COLOR="SlateGray"]Yes, that's right, she should have spent her money supporting the corrupt and idea-killing music industry. Because that would solve everything.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]No deal. :p The argument that all of them are corrupt and kill ideas is far from accurate. And even if they are... That still doesn't give someone the right to be a dork and steal just because someone else is doing it. That mentality is stupid and nothing more than finding a means to justify stealing. Mere sophistry.

[Korey]

[quote name='Hero of Zero'][COLOR="SlateGray"]She's just an example, a deterrent. Like when they used to string up pirates and criminals to scare people into being good. I feel bad for her because there are people with much larger collections of downloaded music getting off scott free; they basically picked her name out of a hat.

I don't see the problem with downloading illegally. The record companies are greedy as hell, and the more money I keep from them the better I feel. The same goes for YouTube videos; copyright laws are ********. Freedom of information and all that.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Courier New"][COLOR="Gray"]Where is "freedom of information" ever mentioned as a human right? That's why stuff can be "classified" information. No one has the right to access everything in the world.

As much flak as record industries get, they are doing what they said they were gonna do when they signed artists, help them make money. This is a capitalist society we live in. You buy stuff with money that someone made and you want things, correct? Does this qualify as greed as well?

As far as this case goes, yes the woman was stupid for continuing to download music illegaly, but as far as picking her name out of a hat...that's pretty much the way it goes. The government here or anywhere else doesn't have the time or resources to detract themselves from catching serious criminals to get all the internet pirates out there. She was in the wrong place at the wrong tiem and she was warned. She got caught and she's paying the piper. Plain and simple.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[QUOTE=Hero of Zero][COLOR="SlateGray"]
Yes, that's right, she should have spent her money supporting the corrupt and idea-killing music industry. Because that would solve everything.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Courier New"][COLOR="gray"]Corrupt? How so? I've seen many an original artist come out of the record labels and the music industry seems to support new ideas all the time. This statement just bleeds of ignorance.[/COLOR][/FONT]