Warez

[Wile_E_Coyote]

I agree with Uncle Sick 100%, and I think its quite disturbing to see that some of you want to actually punish this little girl. It reminds me of earlier centuries where children were just regarded as "small people" and were expected to pull their weight around the farm just like everybody else...

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by n3wbie

how many fucking times, i never said they were the same thing.

well that might be ok in your oppinion, but imo why discriminate against people who are older but not might know just as much as a younger person? its like 12 yr old kids who throw bricks at people but get away with it, because apparently they dont know thats a bad thing to do.

Clearly in comparison with the 12yr old music pirate - you can't see why she shouldn't get punished as severe as a 16 or 20 yr old. etc. etc.

So it was comparing bricks with mp3's. *shrug*

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Deadmanwalking.
Hopefully the judges dealing with this case think nothing like you do.
If they do god help the legal system.

Actually most the time the RIAA settles out of court because most people can't afford to go to court.

Originally posted by Cdr

This is why you commit a crime at 12 you will not be punished.

Not normally in the same way as someone deemed legally responsible.

Sadly I do believe that parents are considered legally responsible for children until such a time as they become legally responsible for themselves.....a system that is often misused by companies/governments etc.

The RIAA as whole is a bunch of retarded self serving morons but then again neither do I accept the excuse that people don't realise it is illegal to download music they don't own, esp with all the recent coverage and even more now with a fresh round of cases appearing such as this one.

Sad for the 12 year old, sad for that bloke who had to give them his life savings while at uni for developing a program to share files between people in his Uni and sad for many others who fall into view of the RIAA.

 

[AniDante]

Originally posted by Embattle
__________________
What a crap year 2002 was, I got ill again and also got defrauded by a dweeb, member of these forums, at the same time.....just be careful you don't slip on the slimy track he leave's when posting in this forum.

*wonders who that is and why?*

 

[Deadmanwalking]

The thing you all have to remember here is that "fee",

a) what is it?
b) why was it there?
and c) it means the mother/kid were misled in some way

 

[Any]

In that article the RIAA says that they dont have the personal details on the people. She could just have been a number.

While i dont think the girl should be sued, her parents should be for allowing her to do it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

For all you too lazy to have a look at www.kazaa.com the subscription charge is for a slightly better version of kazza(extra search features etc). Nowhere does it say it is a license to download copyrighted music.

I dont totally agree with how the RIAA are handling the whole issue but i do think they are perfectly entitled to stop you stealing from them in whatever way they see fit.
Whatever way you look at it the music belongs to them(you all know what i mean) and if they say they want you to pay then you should respect that.

 

[Cdr]

Unfortunately the majority of people see the law as black and white - right or wrong, you break it you should be punished.

After spending 3 years studying contradicting cases and contradicting statutes, I can honestly say the law is far from black and white.

But, as with most things there are certain principles, certain guidelines, and in one of the many guidelines it states that at the age of 12 you lack the thought processes to fully understand the results of your actions. If you can not understand what your actions will result in, then you have no mens rea and thus can not be guilty of a crime. You lack the capacity.

 

[Dr_Weasel]

At the moment its only the RIAA sueing people for copyright infringement. I wonder how long it will be before Microsoft start on a similar quest?

When anyone uses windows update they know the serial number that the OS was installed with. They knew that loads of people installed the corporate version XP with the same key and therfore they blocked it with SP1. They could have easily requested the details of these people from their ISPs and sued them.

If this was the case, I wonder how many people on this board would still be saying "she comitted an illegal act, punish her" and how many would be going out tomorrow and buying their own copy of XP for each computer in the house??

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by Embattle
Actually most the time the RIAA settles out of court because most people can't afford to go to court.



Not normally in the same way as someone deemed legally responsible.

Sadly I do believe that parents are considered legally responsible for children until such a time as they become legally responsible for themselves.....a system that is often misused by companies/governments etc.

The RIAA as whole is a bunch of retarded self serving morons but then again neither do I accept the excuse that people don't realise it is illegal to download music they don't own, esp with all the recent coverage and even more now with a fresh round of cases appearing such as this one.

Sad for the 12 year old, sad for that bloke who had to give them his life savings while at uni for developing a program to share files between people in his Uni and sad for many others who fall into view of the RIAA.

True, true - parents should be responsible for what their kids are doing (that's why we got insurance ) but:

The family signed up for the Kazaa music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge.

Shall I consult our lawyer every time I sign up for an internet service? The people offering that dl-ing service should get busted - for fencing. But they'll have their asses covered, of course. Knowing that RIAA sets out to destroy the life of a 12 yr old girl.

Edit:

For all you too lazy to have a look at www.kazaa.com the subscription charge is for a slightly better version of kazza. Nowhere does it say it is a license to download copyrighted music.

A service/upgrade Kazaa is offering since quite a while. How come RIAA aren't taking steps to prohibit Kazaa from offering the advanced version of a thieving tool?

 

[tris-]

Originally posted by Uncle Sick(tm)
Clearly in comparison with the 12yr old music pirate - you can't see why she shouldn't get punished as severe as a 16 or 20 yr old. etc. etc.

So it was comparing bricks with mp3's. *shrug*

what i was trying to say is a 15 yr old is allowed to throw bricks at people then the next day they 16, they would get arrested for it. the same as if this girl was 15 do you think she should get sued still?
what i am saying is the law is fucked in that way and it should be lower than 16 to be classed as adult.

Originally posted by Deadmanwalking.
The thing you all have to remember here is that "fee",

a) what is it?
b) why was it there?
and c) it means the mother/kid were misled in some way

d) they made it up to protect them selves?

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by n3wbie

what i am saying is the law is fucked in that way and it should be lower than 16 to be classed as adult.

Originally posted by Cdr

in one of the many guidelines it states that at the age of 12 you lack the thought processes to fully understand the results of your actions. If you can not understand what your actions will result in, then you have no mens rea and thus can not be guilty of a crime. You lack the capacity.

That's why it shouldn't be lowered.

 

[Any]

Originally posted by Dr_Weasel
At the moment its only the RIAA sueing people for copyright infringement. I wonder how long it will be before Microsoft start on a similar quest?

Ermm what? Ever heard of the BSA?
Software companies dont care about piracy in the home. You will only have a couple of copies of Windows, Office, Photoshop etc. If you steal as many copies of Office as you do songs then Microsoft will come after you.

Originally posted by Uncle Sick(tm)
A service/upgrade Kazaa is offering since quite a while. How come RIAA aren't taking steps to prohibit Kazaa from offering the advanced version of a thieving tool?

Kazaa is not a thieving tool. Its file sharing tool. How can they be responsible for what the software is used for? Would Microsoft be to blame if i wrote a threatening letter in Word?

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by n3wbie
what i was trying to say is a 15 yr old is allowed to throw bricks at people then the next day they 16, they would get arrested for it. the same as if this girl was 15 do you think she should get sued still?
what i am saying is the law is fucked in that way and it should be lower than 16 to be classed as adult.


d) they made it up to protect them selves?

You can't just say "at a certain age kids should be classed as adults". It has to be a case by case decision.

So if a 12 year old should be charged as an adult - why can't she vote? Or get her drivers license?

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Ah i see, that's it they must be liying as your rather weak points have been blown out of the water?

Nice

 

[CptDoom]

Maybe that $29.99 goes straight to the RIAA ?

 

[tris-]

Originally posted by Deadmanwalking.
Ah i see, that's it they must be liying as your rather weak points have been blown out of the water?

Nice

well you can believe everything in the news, does it mean i have to? doesnt matter now as someone has said the expence is for a better version.

 

[mank!]

The RIAA will fuck people over with the EULA of Kazaa, in which is states:

2.6 [you must not] Transmit, access or communicate any data that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party

You could say it's upto the parent/legal guardian if the child is under 16 to check the EULA for what's right or wrong.

 

[tris-]

on the net its under 13 you have to be supervised etc.

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by n3wbie
on the net its under 13 you have to be supervised etc.

The internet doesn't come with terms and conditions and end user license agreements, as far as I'm aware.

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by n3wbie
on the net its under 13 you have to be supervised etc.

Rrrrrright...

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Uncle Sick(tm)

A service/upgrade Kazaa is offering since quite a while. How come RIAA aren't taking steps to prohibit Kazaa from offering the advanced version of a thieving tool?

They have tried to stop Kazaa and others a few times and they win the odd case and lose others, the most recent one regarding Grokster showed that as far as the Judge was concern the program was not illegal since its people who share illegal content and download it....or something to that effect.

 

[tris-]

well goto sign up for a hotmail account, on another forum etc, it has 2 buttons "i am 13 or above", "i am under 13" under thirteen you are supposed to get permission from legal guardian

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by Embattle
They have tried to stop Kazaa and others a few times and they win the odd case and lose others, the most recent one regarding Grokster showed that as far as the Judge was concern the program was not illegal since its people who share illegal content and download it....or something to that effect.

Yeah, which is what set the RIAA about suing everyone under the sun.

 

[Cdr]

2.6 [you must not] Transmit, access or communicate any data that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party

If we are to assume that the EULA is a binding contract, then you have to be over a certain age in order to enter into that contract (for basically the same reasons as stated above - capacity), so we could then argue that because the 12 year old can't enter the contract, the contract is void and thus not legally binding.

If the EULA is not a contract, then in theory how can you be sued for breach of it?

 

[Deadmanwalking]

"on the net"

Are you implying that this also has a law that says noone under 13 can access the internet without adult supervision?

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by n3wbie
well goto sign up for a hotmail account, on another forum etc, it has 2 buttons "i am 13 or above", "i am under 13" under thirteen you are supposed to get permission from legal guardian

Like in... a virtual permission? Or do they have to send in a copy of their ID to M$ to get a Spam-mail account.

Tell me. Honest.

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by n3wbie
well goto sign up for a hotmail account, on another forum etc, it has 2 buttons "i am 13 or above", "i am under 13" under thirteen you are supposed to get permission from legal guardian

That's hotmail, not the internet. It's entirely upto the company providing the relevant service.

 

[AniDante]

I believe that 13 year old thing on forums, is so that parents can't sue the forum owner for the content on it shocking their child.

Something I bet Game.Net is more concerned with lately, therefore making things tighter around here.

 

[Cdr]

Originally posted by AniDante
I believe that 13 year old thing on forums, is so that parents can't sue the forum owner for the content on it shocking their child.

Something I bet Game.Net is more concerned with lately, therefore making things tighter around here.

I'd have to agree, I think the +13 age thing is merely protection for the forum owner and a disclaimer to the potential readers.

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by AniDante
I believe that 13 year old thing on forums, is so that parents can't sue the forum owner for the content on it shocking their child.

Something I bet Game.Net is more concerned with lately, therefore making things tighter around here.

They'll have to ban Wij and TDC soon then.. all the splish-ing and zzzzzzip-ing is disturbing me. And me is 27. *cries*

Ban! Ban!