US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case

Mac Daddy · Jun 19, 2009, 11:24 AM

Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a single mother of four from the Minnesota town of Brainerd, was found liable of violating music copyrights for using the Kazaa peer-to-peer file-sharing network to download the songs.

The jury took just under five hours on Thursday to reach its verdict.

It ordered Thomas-Rasset to pay 1.92 million dollars -- or 80,000 dollars per song -- to six record companies: Capitol Records, Sony BMG Music, Arista Records, Interscope Records, Warner Bros. Records and UMG Recordings.
_______________
Source: Physorg

niceguyrichy · Jun 19, 2009, 11:32 AM

was just reading about this.
I thought she'd got hammered for uploading stuff, more than downloading

anyway, silly money, silly waste of money (the whole court proccess) , and ultimately achieves very little.

[hobo]eclipse · Jun 19, 2009, 11:39 AM

i don't know what to say......we are doomed at life. we just cant see, we are stars

EcPercy · Jun 19, 2009, 01:12 PM

I wish them luck trying to get the money from her....

Tyrsonswood · Jun 19, 2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EcPercy

I wish them luck trying to get the money from her....

She's already said she's not paying

YAYitsAndrew · Jun 19, 2009, 01:26 PM

That's not how it works. You can't just say nyah nyah I'm not paying. They can either start docking your pay or throw you in jail. If she's a good mother (which is questionable because of the example she's setting) she'll realize that jail isn't the best option for her single-parent children and start paying her fines.

edit: The math on this is interesting. Even if she paid them 500 dollars a week, she'd have to live to be over 100 to finish paying them off :P

EcPercy · Jun 19, 2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYitsAndrew

That's not how it works. You can't just say nyah nyah I'm not paying. They can either start docking your pay or throw you in jail. If she's a good mother (which is questionable because of the example she's setting) she'll realize that jail isn't the best option for her single-parent children and start paying her fines.

This is why I made the comment before. She can pay something per month, but with her status... (single mom w/four kids) unless she is making 6 figures I am betting they will never see the full amount.

She probably does not have the earning capacity to make that much money before she dies. Not to mention. Even if they did a wage garnishment they are only allowed by law to take 25% of her disposable income.

$80,000 per song is just insane. I hope the songs were pretty good... hell of an amount to pay for a crappy song. :P

niceguyrichy · Jun 19, 2009, 01:43 PM

other news sites reckon she'll end up settling up for around £1500 uk, which is a tad more sensible.

Tyrsonswood · Jun 19, 2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYitsAndrew

That's not how it works. You can't just say nyah nyah I'm not paying. They can either start docking your pay or throw you in jail. If she's a good mother (which is questionable because of the example she's setting) she'll realize that jail isn't the best option for her single-parent children and start paying her fines.

edit: The math on this is interesting. Even if she paid them 500 dollars a week, she'd have to live to be over 100 to finish paying them off :P

It's not like I was sticking up for her or know nothing about the law, man....

Vikingod · Jun 19, 2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYitsAndrew

That's not how it works. You can't just say nyah nyah I'm not paying. They can either start docking your pay or throw you in jail. If she's a good mother (which is questionable because of the example she's setting) she'll realize that jail isn't the best option for her single-parent children and start paying her fines.

edit: The math on this is interesting. Even if she paid them 500 dollars a week, she'd have to live to be over 100 to finish paying them off :P

I believe this is a civil suit, so she won't be going to prison. Most likely, her pay will be docked. Who knows how much (though it will probably be less than you would think), but the record company's won't be seeing anywhere near $1.9MM, you can't squeeze blood from a stone. That's not what their after though, it's all about setting an example.

Anything they can do not to have to create new business models to adapt to the new market place. It's great when the courts allow a private industry watchdog to run the show.

IvanV · Jun 19, 2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYitsAndrew

...
edit: The math on this is interesting. Even if she paid them 500 dollars a week, she'd have to live to be over 100 to finish paying them off :P

Exactly. At $80000 per song, is it justice or is it vengeance?

comp_ali · Jun 19, 2009, 02:10 PM

They probably made more money from the case than they would from selling the songs. Utterbullshit.

**MIG-31** · Jun 20, 2009, 09:08 PM

Thread Resurected... Please feel free to continue to discuss here.

Mac Daddy · Jun 21, 2009, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IvanV

Exactly. At $80000 per song, is it justice or is it vengeance?

I think the latter and as I have said many times being a musician and recording artist here. The musicians themselves make very little off royalties from album releases there money is made from promotion and concerts.

When my brother and I get a few tracks done for Desolation Machine I will post them up anywhere including DH. It comes down to marketing if you like the CD you will see the band and make them money not the recording company.

charm_quark · Jun 21, 2009, 02:07 PM

For the recording company it is just a business strategy.... but there is no way she can a pay that much cash unless she robs a bank or something.. so where was the point to begin with

BlueMak · Jun 21, 2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYitsAndrew

That's not how it works. You can't just say nyah nyah I'm not paying. They can either start docking your pay or throw you in jail. If she's a good mother (which is questionable because of the example she's setting) she'll realize that jail isn't the best option for her single-parent children and start paying her fines.

edit: The math on this is interesting. Even if she paid them 500 dollars a week, she'd have to live to be over 100 to finish paying them off :P

I thought I was the only one with shitty attitude here.
That is a terrible thing to say Andrew. Too bad not all can be a beacon of morality like yourself.

YAYitsAndrew · Jun 22, 2009, 01:50 PM

What's so terrible about it?

procupine14 · Jun 22, 2009, 03:19 PM

That's how I've always felt about the music piracy business. I'm thinking that even if I bought the album the band I'm 'supporting' sees maybe a buck if that from my purchase. Whereas if I download my music and like it, I will pay 30-100 bucks to go see the concert etc. Most of the time, the artist doesn't even care that you pirate their music. Its the record companies that really even bat an eye at that stuff.

PH3N0M · Jun 22, 2009, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueMak

I thought I was the only one with shitty attitude here.
That is a terrible thing to say Andrew. Too bad not all can be a beacon of morality like yourself.

Ignore Andrew like the rest of us do. Arguing about piracy is like betting on a one legged man in an ass kicking contest because piracy isn't going away, no matter how many beacons of morality there are in this world.

There's no justification for someone having to pay $80K per song. As others have said, this is about setting an example, regardless of how stupid it makes the RIAA look. A more realistic fine would've been something like $500 per song. With the woman being a single mom, I'd be surprised to see her wages garnished for more than $200/mo.

YAYitsAndrew · Jun 22, 2009, 05:58 PM

Actually, at an upper limit where the entire population of earth is a beacon of morality, piracy would go away.

I think when the RIAA sues you the best thing to do is settle. It's hard to deny the charges against you as they have the proof of you hosting copyrighted material on the internet. The whole argument, then, really needs to come down to how much money are you going to pay them for each song. If you think 80,000 per song is too much, you need to settle or have a court defense built around lowering the sum. The settlement sums have never been outrageous, so that would be my choice. For example, given the $200/mo you think she'll end up paying, it will take her 2 years to pay off $5000 which the article says most settlements land at. $5000 divided by her 24 songs puts her at a scratch over $200 per song.

This woman gambled by going to court and putting herself into an all or nothing position. It obviously was a bad bet to make. She may as well be trying to win big at Keno. I think she got what she deserves but I do have sympathy that she didn't put more thought into her decisions and therefore avoided her current situation.

As further proof that I'm not a bad guy I think $80,000 is pretty crazy in this particular case. It would be too low a sum for a popular torrenting site, but I doubt her song hosting actually created $80,000 of theft per song. The court has been known however to make examples out of people. Enacting the three strikes rule on someone in their early twenties, making McDonalds pay millions because they'd rather settle than lower their coffee temperature (please don't start), are all as unreasonable as $80,000 but it makes headlines and sends a message.

BlueMak · Jun 22, 2009, 07:14 PM

I like you less and less Andrew. And I am against piracy.

comp_ali · Jun 22, 2009, 08:01 PM

Ok , To make it justice , let's say If I downloaded about 100 Games , played 10 of them till finish 100% ,20 played till 20% story complete " that's why they put game progress in games to calculate how much money you wasted" the others never played nor planned so it's
10*50+(20*0.2)*50=700 And my seed ratio is unity, so the total "losses" =700+100*50=5700 $

YAYitsAndrew · Jun 22, 2009, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueMak

I like you less and less Andrew. And I am against piracy.

Easy solution: stop reading my posts. I'm starting to think I have a fan club.

**Mousey** · Jun 22, 2009, 11:19 PM

And i'm going to step in here before this gets heated. Don't let this become a thread for the close list people, please. As long as there will be the internet, there will be piracy so trying to stop it does seem like a rather pointless excercise.

I've got to admit i've seen some hilarious analogies though in this thread, keep em coming

Selling files on that you've acquired for free is wrong. There's no escaping that fact even in these desperate times, however you could compare it to a drug; Do whatever you want with it, it might only be harming you, but when you start selling it on you've got yourself some major issues.

BlueMak · Jun 22, 2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYitsAndrew

Easy solution: stop reading my posts. I'm starting to think I have a fan club.

The problem is that with comments like

Quote:

If she's a good mother (which is questionable because of the example she's setting)....
The math on this is interesting. Even if she paid them 500 dollars a week, she'd have to live to be over 100 to finish paying them off :P

You actually make anti piracy "movement" look very very bad. You come out as a ruthless sob that says "fuck the world, give me money". People don't like that attitude. You are doing more bad than good and I guarantee (well...) that no one will read that comment of yours and say "hahaha, pay up bitch! Hmm, this guy is making a good point, I will stop pirating".

YAYitsAndrew · Jun 23, 2009, 12:47 AM

She's been convicted of this before and did it again. Her defense consisted of trying to blame others. She secretly swapped out her hard drive and tried to pass the new one off for evidence. Why am I so out of line in questioning the role model she's setting for her children?

An interesting thing I just learned about this case, the jury chose the dollar amount per song. A witness from Sony was asked to place a dollar amount on the songs and said that it was impossible to determine harm so they were asking the jury to award anywhere from $750 to $150,000 per song. What's makes this interesting is that people are quick to smear the RIAA for thinking each song is worth $80,000 dollars but it was the jury who decided that amount based on the court proceedings, not the RIAA.

Sorry if I come off harsh, but these are the facts of the situation and if you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore them, I have no chance of convincing you piracy is wrong in the first place.

Worth noting is that I haven't made any generic piracy statements in this thread. So if the topic here is really to become about questioning anyone's character, I ask people to recall who's been commenting on the original news post and who's been launching personal attacks that clearly stem from some other thread.

BlueMak · Jun 23, 2009, 08:22 AM

You are just not getting it. Facts are not so important in this war. Presentation is. Patronising hurts the anti piracy movement. Talks about how one must be a bad mother doesn't make friends and draw people to the anti piracy thinking. Don't see (or at least present) things like black or white/on/off etc.
You don't have to convince me, I am already sold, but your attitude on this matter is from rude to barbaric, no matter how right you are. Direct attack consolidates the other side. Direct attack against their parenting or in general choices about how they raise their kids, will ONLY harm your case. It's humans you are talking about/to. Not robots.
Not everyone is against you, but you talk like they are. Bad idea.

PH3N0M · Jun 23, 2009, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueMak

You are just not getting it. Facts are not so important in this war. Presentation is. Patronising hurts the anti piracy movement. Talks about how one must be a bad mother doesn't make friends and draw people to the anti piracy thinking. Don't see (or at least present) things like black or white/on/off etc.
You don't have to convince me, I am already sold, but your attitude on this matter is from rude to barbaric, no matter how right you are. Direct attack consolidates the other side. Direct attack against their parenting or in general choices about how they raise their kids, will ONLY harm your case. It's humans you are talking about/to. Not robots.
Not everyone is against you, but you talk like they are. Bad idea.

+1

YAYitsAndrew · Jun 23, 2009, 01:48 PM

You should take your own advice about direct attacks. Do you actually have any responses to my points or just worthless critique of my character? No matter what you think, questioning my character doesn't refute my points if they are valid.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I were to really put effort into changing the world I wouldn't be doing it by making posts in forum threads that tend to get less than 1000 views. There are much better ways to get big audiences on the internet. I'm interested in intellectual debate and believe that many people here actually are intelligent and are swayed by facts and logic. Which is apparently a much higher respect than you give them, since you believe that the way to convince them is to pull the wool over their eyes and trick them into believing what you want them to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueMak

Facts are not so important in this war. Presentation is.

BlueMak · Jun 23, 2009, 02:39 PM

Oh my. Ok, keep failing.

Jun 19, 2009, 11:24 AM	#1
Mac Daddy DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 7,950 Rep Power: 79 System Specs	US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a single mother of four from the Minnesota town of Brainerd, was found liable of violating music copyrights for using the Kazaa peer-to-peer file-sharing network to download the songs. The jury took just under five hours on Thursday to reach its verdict. It ordered Thomas-Rasset to pay 1.92 million dollars -- or 80,000 dollars per song -- to six record companies: Capitol Records, Sony BMG Music, Arista Records, Interscope Records, Warner Bros. Records and UMG Recordings. _______________ Source: Physorg __________________ "My mom said the only reason men are alive is for lawn care and vehicle maintenance." - Tim Allen

Jun 19, 2009, 11:39 AM	#3
[hobo]eclipse ...just bummin 'round Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,907 Rep Power: 112 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case i don't know what to say......we are doomed at life. we just cant see, we are stars Last edited by [hobo]eclipse; Jun 19, 2009 at 12:34 PM.

Jun 19, 2009, 01:12 PM	#4
EcPercy HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Iraq Posts: 1,535 Rep Power: 0	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case I wish them luck trying to get the money from her....

Jun 19, 2009, 01:26 PM	#6
YAYitsAndrew Anti-Piracy Poster Boy Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NJ Posts: 2,605 Rep Power: 79 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case That's not how it works. You can't just say nyah nyah I'm not paying. They can either start docking your pay or throw you in jail. If she's a good mother (which is questionable because of the example she's setting) she'll realize that jail isn't the best option for her single-parent children and start paying her fines. edit: The math on this is interesting. Even if she paid them 500 dollars a week, she'd have to live to be over 100 to finish paying them off :P __________________ "It is because the resistance to paying for copyrighted material, although often characterized as arising from a supposed technical burden or principled concern for the public interest, arises rather from exactly the same segment of the brain that is dominant in shoplifters." - Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism In other words, it's never okay to steal even if you think you have a good reason! www.yayitsandrew.com

Jun 19, 2009, 02:10 PM	#12
comp_ali Sniper Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Egypt Posts: 10,469 Rep Power: 339 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case They probably made more money from the case than they would from selling the songs. Utterbullshit. __________________

Jun 20, 2009, 09:08 PM	#13
MIG-31 HardwareHeaven News Mod Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Nottingham,UK Posts: 56,848 Rep Power: 471 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case Thread Resurected... Please feel free to continue to discuss here. __________________ Please Post Your News Submissions Here

Jun 21, 2009, 02:07 PM	#15
charm_quark incognito Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: BoTsWaNa Posts: 2,437 Rep Power: 140	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case For the recording company it is just a business strategy.... but there is no way she can a pay that much cash unless she robs a bank or something.. so where was the point to begin with __________________ Three quarks for Muster Mark! Sure he has not got much of a bark And sure any he has it's all beside the mark. —James Joyce, Finnegans Wake

Jun 22, 2009, 01:50 PM	#17
YAYitsAndrew Anti-Piracy Poster Boy Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NJ Posts: 2,605 Rep Power: 79 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case What's so terrible about it? __________________ "It is because the resistance to paying for copyrighted material, although often characterized as arising from a supposed technical burden or principled concern for the public interest, arises rather from exactly the same segment of the brain that is dominant in shoplifters." - Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism In other words, it's never okay to steal even if you think you have a good reason! www.yayitsandrew.com

Jun 22, 2009, 03:19 PM	#18
procupine14 Why is it Beeping!?!?! Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 1,400 Rep Power: 58 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case That's how I've always felt about the music piracy business. I'm thinking that even if I bought the album the band I'm 'supporting' sees maybe a buck if that from my purchase. Whereas if I download my music and like it, I will pay 30-100 bucks to go see the concert etc. Most of the time, the artist doesn't even care that you pirate their music. Its the record companies that really even bat an eye at that stuff. __________________ HTPC/file server: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit - AMD Phenom x4 9850 - 4GB OCZ DDR2 800 (2x2GB) - 1TB WD Black - 4 x 1TB Hitachi DeskStar in RAID 5 - ATi TV Wonder Digital Cable Tuner - HIS Raedon 4850 512MB - ASRock N68C-S UCC mobo - OCZ ModExtreme Pro 500W PSU GF's Gaming PC: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit - AMD Phenom 9850 - 4GB OCZ DDR2 1066 - 500GB Western Digital GP - HIS Raedon 5770 1GB - ASUS M3A78-EM - Zalman 650W PSU Media Streamer: Win 7 Pro 64-bit - AMD Athlon x2 3200+ - 4GB SuperTalent DDR2 800 - 250GB SeaGate Barracuda - MSI K9N6PGM2-V2 - ASUS Raedon 5450 SILENT - FSP group 250W PSU

Jun 22, 2009, 05:58 PM	#20
YAYitsAndrew Anti-Piracy Poster Boy Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NJ Posts: 2,605 Rep Power: 79 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case Actually, at an upper limit where the entire population of earth is a beacon of morality, piracy would go away. I think when the RIAA sues you the best thing to do is settle. It's hard to deny the charges against you as they have the proof of you hosting copyrighted material on the internet. The whole argument, then, really needs to come down to how much money are you going to pay them for each song. If you think 80,000 per song is too much, you need to settle or have a court defense built around lowering the sum. The settlement sums have never been outrageous, so that would be my choice. For example, given the $200/mo you think she'll end up paying, it will take her 2 years to pay off $5000 which the article says most settlements land at. $5000 divided by her 24 songs puts her at a scratch over $200 per song. This woman gambled by going to court and putting herself into an all or nothing position. It obviously was a bad bet to make. She may as well be trying to win big at Keno. I think she got what she deserves but I do have sympathy that she didn't put more thought into her decisions and therefore avoided her current situation. As further proof that I'm not a bad guy I think $80,000 is pretty crazy in this particular case. It would be too low a sum for a popular torrenting site, but I doubt her song hosting actually created $80,000 of theft per song. The court has been known however to make examples out of people. Enacting the three strikes rule on someone in their early twenties, making McDonalds pay millions because they'd rather settle than lower their coffee temperature (please don't start), are all as unreasonable as $80,000 but it makes headlines and sends a message. __________________ "It is because the resistance to paying for copyrighted material, although often characterized as arising from a supposed technical burden or principled concern for the public interest, arises rather from exactly the same segment of the brain that is dominant in shoplifters." - Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism In other words, it's never okay to steal even if you think you have a good reason! www.yayitsandrew.com Last edited by YAYitsAndrew; Jun 22, 2009 at 06:06 PM.

Jun 22, 2009, 07:14 PM	#21
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 13,471 Rep Power: 349 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case I like you less and less Andrew. And I am against piracy. __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*

Jun 22, 2009, 08:01 PM	#22
comp_ali Sniper Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Egypt Posts: 10,469 Rep Power: 339 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case Ok , To make it justice , let's say If I downloaded about 100 Games , played 10 of them till finish 100% ,20 played till 20% story complete " that's why they put game progress in games to calculate how much money you wasted" the others never played nor planned so it's 1050+(200.2)50=700 And my seed ratio is unity, so the total "losses" =700+10050=5700 $ __________________

Jun 22, 2009, 11:19 PM	#24
Mousey Synth's Long Lost Bro Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Web Design Hell Posts: 7,189 Rep Power: 245 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case And i'm going to step in here before this gets heated. Don't let this become a thread for the close list people, please. As long as there will be the internet, there will be piracy so trying to stop it does seem like a rather pointless excercise. I've got to admit i've seen some hilarious analogies though in this thread, keep em coming Selling files on that you've acquired for free is wrong. There's no escaping that fact even in these desperate times, however you could compare it to a drug; Do whatever you want with it, it might only be harming you, but when you start selling it on you've got yourself some major issues. __________________

Jun 23, 2009, 12:47 AM	#26
YAYitsAndrew Anti-Piracy Poster Boy Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NJ Posts: 2,605 Rep Power: 79 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case She's been convicted of this before and did it again. Her defense consisted of trying to blame others. She secretly swapped out her hard drive and tried to pass the new one off for evidence. Why am I so out of line in questioning the role model she's setting for her children? An interesting thing I just learned about this case, the jury chose the dollar amount per song. A witness from Sony was asked to place a dollar amount on the songs and said that it was impossible to determine harm so they were asking the jury to award anywhere from $750 to $150,000 per song. What's makes this interesting is that people are quick to smear the RIAA for thinking each song is worth $80,000 dollars but it was the jury who decided that amount based on the court proceedings, not the RIAA. Sorry if I come off harsh, but these are the facts of the situation and if you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore them, I have no chance of convincing you piracy is wrong in the first place. Worth noting is that I haven't made any generic piracy statements in this thread. So if the topic here is really to become about questioning anyone's character, I ask people to recall who's been commenting on the original news post and who's been launching personal attacks that clearly stem from some other thread. __________________ "It is because the resistance to paying for copyrighted material, although often characterized as arising from a supposed technical burden or principled concern for the public interest, arises rather from exactly the same segment of the brain that is dominant in shoplifters." - Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism In other words, it's never okay to steal even if you think you have a good reason! www.yayitsandrew.com

Jun 23, 2009, 08:22 AM	#27
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 13,471 Rep Power: 349 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case You are just not getting it. Facts are not so important in this war. Presentation is. Patronising hurts the anti piracy movement. Talks about how one must be a bad mother doesn't make friends and draw people to the anti piracy thinking. Don't see (or at least present) things like black or white/on/off etc. You don't have to convince me, I am already sold, but your attitude on this matter is from rude to barbaric, no matter how right you are. Direct attack consolidates the other side. Direct attack against their parenting or in general choices about how they raise their kids, will ONLY harm your case. It's humans you are talking about/to. Not robots. Not everyone is against you, but you talk like they are. Bad idea. __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*

Jun 23, 2009, 02:39 PM	#30
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 13,471 Rep Power: 349 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case Oh my. Ok, keep failing. __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*