US file-sharer gets $700,000 fine. - Page 3

JasonTakeshi · (#21 (**permalink**))

Based upon the first post, why did RIAA sued only 2 people over millions who share/download daily content?

I guess thats somewhat more a warning than a money-leeching. Its like "You see, thats what happens if you DOWNLOAD!"

They are trying to intimidate, nothing more. Thats why its only 2 cases.

iPhantom · (#22 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonTakeshi

Based upon the first post, why did RIAA sued only 2 people over millions who share/download daily content?

I guess thats somewhat more than a warning then a money-leeching. Its like "You see, thats what happens if you DOWNLOAD!"

They are trying to intimidate, nothing more. Thats why its only 2 cases.

That's because not all can be caught, they used this to catch him MediaSentry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most pirates, encrypt what they transmit, and use PeerGuardian. That way, not even your ISP can see what you are sending.

Read a more dtailed story that surfaced today US student ordered to pay $675K fine to the RIAA

Aether · (#23 (**permalink**))

I have to say I believe the charges filed against these people are totally unreasonable. It would be like a friend lending me a CD and me being charged ridiculous sums of money in turn ruining the rest of my life. Seriously, is that what we call justice? I do not understand how the jury or the judge can stand behind the charges in these cases.

Nathan · (#24 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aether

It would be like a friend lending me a CD and me being charged ridiculous sums of money in turn ruining the rest of my life.

Actually, in this case it would be more like your 'friend' lending you 60-70 CD's, and you burning copies and handing them out on the street.

MMM · (#25 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonTakeshi

Based upon the first post, why did RIAA sued only 2 people over millions who share/download daily content?

I guess thats somewhat more than a warning then a money-leeching. Its like "You see, thats what happens if you DOWNLOAD!"

They are trying to intimidate, nothing more. Thats why its only 2 cases.

I don't understand your logic. If they were leeches, why would they only go after two people?

It seems like focusing on two people and winning large judgments that get media attention, but will likely later be reduced is more of a warning than leeching to me.

Tenchu · (#26 (**permalink**))

You sure know a lot of the technical terms for downloading, MMM, considering you're such a critic of it.

komitsuki · (#27 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenchu

You sure know a lot of the technical terms for downloading, MMM, considering you're such a critic of it.

Oh, snap! (finally, first time I use this phrase in a reasonable context)

I don't do downloading because I'm pop-culturally deprived, but I understand this differently via open source licenses.

Nathan · (#28 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenchu

You sure know a lot of the technical terms for downloading, MMM, considering you're such a critic of it.

In the day and age of Google, Wikipedia et al, its not hard to find out much of anything if you put your mind to it sir.

MMM · (#29 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenchu

You sure know a lot of the technical terms for downloading, MMM, considering you're such a critic of it.

Because I know what a torrent is? Would I be a good "critic" if I didn't know what a torrent was?

Next please.

Quailboy · (#30 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM

Because I know what a torrent is? Would I be a good "critic" if I didn't know what a torrent was?

Next please.

Your not a good critic though.
Your terrible, a disgrace to the great critics of our time.

Just messin with you MMM, I love ya buudy ^_^