MPAA Sues Grandfather for $600,000

The Motion Picture Association of America sued a Wisconsin grandfather on Tuesday for allegedly downloading several movies to his home computer. However, there's one small problem with the case: the man doesn't like to watch movies, nor does he have any intention of downloading them.

Fred Lawrence, 67, of Racine says that his 12-year-old grandson apparently downloaded four movies from the P2P file service iMesh in December 2004. The family actually owns three of the four movies, and Lawrence says his grandson had no intention of breaking, nor knowledge of copyright laws.

In April, the MPAA attempted to force Lawrence into paying a $4,000 settlement to avoid copyright infringement charges, which he refused. The group subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking up to $600,000 in damages for the illegal downloads.

Advertisement

Lawrence says that his grandson made an innocent mistake, and he would not personally download movie files. "First of all, like I say, I guess I'd have to plead being naive about the whole thing," he told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

But the MPAA apparently does not care whether or not the public agrees with the organization's tactics in combating piracy, and is not asking for "anyone's sympathy," the paper reported.

If Lawrence is successful in fighting the lawsuit, the MPAA could legally turn around and sue the child. However, doing so opens up other potential issues, as it is much harder to sue a minor than an adult, especially for damages the MPAA is claiming.

Some interest groups suggest that the only way around such a case would be for Lawrence's grandson to declare bankruptcy, as in most cases children have no income.

197 Responses to MPAA Sues Grandfather for $600,000

  1. Jedite says:

    The word here is PATHETIC. the MPAA keeps digging a hole for themselves. This is absolutly ridiculous. First it was a 12year old Girl getting sued, now its a 67 year old man whos grandson dloaded 4 MOVIES, and only 1 of them which they didnt own, and its not for penuts its for 600k!

    I cant wait for this whole mess to turn around against the MPAA. They are a greedy bunch of savages.

    Also to even suggest for the kid filling bankrupcy is freaking insane. The kid is freaking 12 years old, he doesnt know the first thing about this whole mess. Putting an imense black mark on a 12 year olds credit record because of a harmless mistake is pathetic, and insane.

    • tiefel says:

      While I disagree with the MPAA on the amount of the damages, stealing is stealing.

      • M1M2Z1 says:

        But he wasn't stealing.

      • dtkelley2005 says:

        I don't care what anybody says, I just cannot believe that we live in a country where 12 year old kids and deceased grandparents (www.betanews.com/article/RIAA_Sues_Deceased_Grandmother/1107532260) get sued for insane amounts of money all because of what they did with a stupid freakin movie or song and the internet! It is sad that out of all the major issues in today's society, so much attention is put on things like this. And it is also sad that we punish these “pirates” more severely than we punish some murderers!

      • PC_Tool says:

        Name one pirate that did 30 years in prison and then you can claim we punish them more than pirates you sensationalistic, FUD-monkey.

      • cooldude7273 says:

        Yes, but $600,000 for a $20 movie? Explain that.

      • PC_Tool says:

        Wow.

        And do you honestly think either party realisticly expects that to be the number used by the courts or ina settlement?

        It's a prop used to bring the trial relevance and to get things moving. It has no bearing ont he final numbers arrived at by any parties involved.

        As a matter of fact, it will likely be settled out of court for the cost of the movies and court fees, just like most other cases like this.

      • rijp says:

        actually, you raise a good point. What if instead of someone having 1 copy of a movie, they did distribute hundreds of copies of the same movie. Blockbuster, Walmart, Circuit City, netflix all stand to lose thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions, because hundreds of copies of disributed movies, there is no telling how many people ACTUALLY received a copy of the movie? Therefore that is future lost revenue and potentially damaging to their sector, which why the lawyers are pursuing this from such a high dollar value.

        So we the little people, view this as an attrocious figure, but in reality, if you owned a video store, and that was your main source of lively hood, and some dim wit, distributes hundreds of copies of a new release blockbuster movie that you were banking on to sell like hotcakes, its now potentially damaging because realistically, that movie is now a dud, depending on the demographic that affects and how many competitors you have.

        The part that pisses me off, is the RIAA/MPAA who claims to support those inviduals, will only seek to gain damages for THEM, and they could care less who else was affected by income. That's the pathetic part.

      • PC_Tool says:

        In cases where the person was a distributor, such as the SW3 torrent, they have gone after the person for the amount equal to the total number of completed copies.

        It's hard to come to such figures for anything but torretns though, since other P2P mothods don't give decent or accurate counts.

        As far as the chains go, RIAA and the MPAA don't work for them. I'm sure if they saw an avenue to reasonably claim those damages, they would, but it would be a hard sell as those numbers are pretty ephermal.

      • acromel says:

        Some might be concerned that your judicial system has not only been reduced to economics but also relies upon theatre. Not quite ideal is it?

      • PC_Tool says:

        Some might, if it were remotely true.

        This is less about the judicial system and more about out-of-control companies and a total lack of personal responsibility all around.

      • wincement says:

        Here here!

        I REALLY wish more people could understand that very important point.

      • rijp says:

        Actually its not a $20 movie, its a multi-million dollar movie, and $20 is just what you pay for the right to watch a COPY of it in your own home, if you want to get technical.

        So $600,000 for a multi-million dollar movie, is justified when you look at that way.

        Of course its all slanted on who you are and how you look at it, but that's how big business understands it. They own the copyright and therefore to them they stand to potentially lose millions, because of theft. They want to stop the propagation of a crime, by making an example of the smaller people.

        Can you imagine what they would do to someone that had thousands of movies?

      • bleh427 says:

        Yeah, a 67 year old man is going to start a big business pirating movies and selling them to people... I hope this story gets momentum so we can watch a 67 year old grandfather who should be respected be attacked by a bunch of greedy corporate lawyers. Theyre not happy getting their 20 bucks back from the geezer, now they want 600,000 dollars. How is that even close to fair or justified?

      • cooldude7273 says:

        But is what he downloaded worth $600,000?

      • rijp says:

        Um... are you sybils brother? a couple of posts up, and you were haranguing another person for "name calling". What the hell was that? A pet name?

        You really need to quit drinking that moonshine boy.

      • PC_Tool says:

        Heh...have you another teerm for such claims? Seriously...

        Yes, chastise me for feeding the troll. You know I love it.

      • jojosupp says:

        Hypocrite!

      • PC_Tool says:

        Mmmm...

        Thanks.

      • agonia says:

        if i buy a car, i own it and i can give it to anyone for free
        if i buy a cd/dvd, i (DO NOT) own it and i can (NOT) give it to anyone for free

        Someone said before that RIAA/MPAA support the artists. For me not true, they give them some profits, artists are payed for they work, like an actor can be payed 10M for a movie and the rest of the money belongs to RIAA/MPAA. So this doesnt mean they support the artists, they just want more money.
        instead of suing grandfathers, etc. they should go after the source, the ones who have stolen the movie (groups dont steal from stores, there is someone who give them movies at the stores or they have supporters from companies like Sony (Sony eployees)). If they shut down groups who distribute movies for free, end users like us will have nothing to download.
        [email protected] RIAA/MPAA and U.S Government

      • rijp says:

        He downloaded copyrighted material. To MPAA/RIAA that IS stealing. Whether or not the intent was there, they have evidence that that computer at grandpas house (at least the IP address to that computer at the time) grabbed 4 apparent movies.

        They are bring the suing to court to DETERMINE if there WAS theft. That's why they are suing in the first place. He isn't guilty of anything. He is being charged with a crime... lets not forget, innocent until proven otherwise.

        The RIAA/MPAA can say whatever they want. Its not settled until a court of law decrees it.

      • jojosupp says:

        How does one man sharing four movies on the internet lead to a potential loss of $600,000 by the MPAA? God, Kill yourself now MPAA. The Nazis have returned. ALL HAIL THE FOURTH REICH! MPAA/RIAA FOREVER!

      • se7en11 says:

        I for one welcome our new RIAA overlords.

      • PC_Tool says:

        *sigh*

        $600,000 is merely the number thrown out to attract attention. The lawyers on both sides know that that is nowehere near, or indicative of in any way, the the actual amount that the settlement will reach.

        it's a tactic often used by lawyers and firms in *many* areas (Not just MPAA/RIAA sh1t) to scare the crap out of the person being sued.

        The very first thing a good lawyer will tell the defendant is to ignore that number. It's pure fantasy, but it works to drive home the importance of the suit.

        Who'd go out and get a lawyer to defend themselves for a suit of $13.94? The courts wouldn't even allow such a suit to waste their time.

      • jojosupp says:

        I'm aware, but thanks for the lesson in law. I know how the system works, and I was merely commenting on how ridiculous it is.

        Spare me your *sigh*, jerkoff.

      • PC_Tool says:

        Wow. Spare me your name-calling.

        Regardless. Your post lead me to believe you vehemently believed they were expecting the entire sum. Must have something to do with your delivery. (ya know, the hitlerisms, the caps, etc....)

      • rijp says:

        Oh gee, a lesson in logic by PC_tool. He was being sarcastic.

        Yeah, like your delivery is ALWAYS understood. Get real.

      • PC_Tool says:

        No, it's not, but at least I don't come off as spastic in my responses.

      • jojosupp says:

        Spastic? Perhaps proper usage will help you with your delivery, good sir.

      • PC_Tool says:

        "How does one man sharing four movies on the internet lead to a potential loss of $600,000 by the MPAA? God, Kill yourself now MPAA. The Nazis have returned. ALL HAIL THE FOURTH REICH! MPAA/RIAA FOREVER!"

        How do you define that? The above is not an argument, nor a debateable point, it's raving gibberish and rhetoric.

        Just call 'em as I see em. Anyone actually disagree with that assessment?

      • gawd21 says:

        Damn dude, are you in love with PC_Tool? Playing that childish little game of following people and acting like you are mad at them to get the attention?

      • rijp says:

        LOL. He is a piece of work, isn't he?

      • roj says:

        No it's not.

        What's theft in one country is legal elsewhere.

        There are no absolutes as to what constitutes theft.

        There are only greed, victimization and thuggery.

        Those have always been absolutes.

        And, as others have pointed out, he wasn't stealing.

      • ryusen says:

        except the charge is not stealing. the judges in the Grokster case have even warned the **AA attorneys that they needed to stop calling it theft.

    • ryusen says:

      don't forget, the actual charge, despite all the error in the news is the illegal distribution of the movies. the crime is not to download, but to give copies to other people without permission.

      • pafinator11 says:

        not true. Downloading counts just as much. He might not have even been sharing.

      • rijp says:

        WRONG! The kid wasn't distributing the movies, he DOWNLOADED them. They are going after him for having the copyrighted material. If I were the grandpa, I would make them get a search warrant and prove he still has it. If the movies are nowhere to be found, they can't prosecute based on circumstantial evidence.

        Even if they have his IP address, showing he download the material to that computer, that doesn't mean he has it, what if he had a router, and someone else stole his connection to download it? They can't prove it ACTUALLY ended up on the computer itself.

    • rijp says:

      Its only a black mark if he has a SSN. I agree its rediculous, but it won't come to that. Unfortunately the way lawyers look at it, its either pay to settle with RIAA or pay to have your OWN defense and end up paying 5 or 6 times that in legal fees defending yourself. THAT's the rediculous part. So the RIAA/MPAA will ask for the moon, get the mountain, and end up splitting into smaller chunks to the prosectution team, and end up with $1000 to their name.

      The $600,000 puts a stamp of seriousness on the whole thing. I guarantee the Grandpa would pay probably 2 or 3 hundred bucks to make this go away, but that's not good enough since the RIAA/MPAA has paid thousands to take this to court. They elevated the amount to prepare for the long court battle.

  2. crashoverride says:

    Lawyers make me sick, bunch of heartless creatures who will do anything for a quick buck. People say video games will be the downfall of western civilization. I say it'll be the lawyers.

  3. HeywoodChablowme says:

    Reminds one of the tactics employed by the Nazis to attempt to cow conquered populations. It didn't work then, either...

  4. gawd21 says:

    It will all come do to what people will do for greed and the filling of the "need". Remember Rome.

  5. M1M2Z1 says:

    As usual this report is incorrect.
    This man is not in trouble for downloading.
    He's in trouble for making movies available for others to download.

    Get it together man!

  6. bourgeoisdude says:

    deleted

  7. jojosupp says:

    This is why I hope John Roberts will follow through with his words. He claims to put the citizen above the corporation, not just because that is his sense of justice, but because the Constitution favors the protection of the individual.

    If this reaches the SC, I hope he shoots it down. However, based on the judgement made regarding Kelo v. New London, I don't trust the other justices to protect our interests. Maybe Scalia. He's spicy!

    • ryusen says:

      well, Roberts is replacing Renquist, which i think dissented against the Kelo rulling and who ever gets the other seat is replacing O'Connor, which wrote the dissent opinion, so if the Kelo case were heard again, it would likely end up beign the same verdict.

  8. ryusen says:

    Someone needs to tell him about the woman who's coutner suing on RICO charges and have him join in.

  9. Neoprimal says:

    While I agree that corps have to protect their investments and such, asking for 600,000 in damages is, in every essence of the word, EVIL.
    I don't care if they're trying to make an example, this is too much.

    • PC_Tool says:

      You are forgiven because most folks do not know how this works. Here's a tidbit:

      They ask for $600,000 because they know full-well the settlement offered will be 1/100th of that. If they only asked for $100, they'd get squat.

      They must make it scary, they must drive home the reality of the suit. This is one very easy way to do it.

      The lawyers on both sides know full well the number asked for is pure fantasy.

  10. wincement says:

    "But the MPAA apparently does not care whether or not the public agrees with the organization's tactics in combating piracy"

    Wow... in a bad mood today? You guys just love feeding this stuff to the masses.

    "First of all, like I say, I guess I'd have to plead being naive about the whole thing,"

    Umm... Anyone remember this saying?: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

    No. I don't agree with the $600,000 case, but to hope an excuse like that will fly... sheesh. I hope he has good lawyers that won't let him testify in his own defence lol.

    • nate says:

      The MPAA actually said that, it's not about feeding anything to the masses.

      I quote: "We're not asking for anyone's sympathy. We are asking for people to understand the consequences of Internet piracy," said Kori Bernards, vice president of corporate communications for MPAA.

      • PC_Tool says:

        "Internet Piracy"

        Only thing is she spelled "Breaking the Law" wrong.

        Internet piracy is confused with moral and ethical issues. Breaking the law is solid as a rock and indefensable. They need to work on their wording.

        One day, "Internet Piracy" may not be illegal. What consequences then?

        Though I must admit they seem to have trouble thinking ahead.

      • fewt says:

        Doesn't the definition of piracy involve the exchange of money for faked goods?

        It's a copyright violation yes, but I dunno if it can be considered piracy unless there is intent to sell.

        Could be wrong on that, copyright laws have been a moving target for years.

      • rijp says:

        Its COPY right, not SELL/DISTRIBUTION right. If you take a DVD/CD in your collection, and copy it, EVEN for your OWN personal use, its a VIOLATION of the LAW. Period.

        I love to start this argument, and the last time, no one has proved me wrong, but I can prove I am right. Open ANY CD, case, jewel case, DVD cover, read the disclaimer. ANY (that means, any and ALL) duplication (that means copy or cloning) of this CD/DVD (the medium which you own) in WHOLE (that means the entire movie) or in PART (that means 1 second or any part up to and including the WHOLE) is STRICTLY (that means vehemently, emphatically, categorically, without question, no EXCEPTIONS) prohibited. As in no, uh uh, not happening. It doesn't say if you have a note from your mom, it doesn't say to backup the media, it doesn't say in case your CD drive eats the disc, it means NO. That means never, that means its denied. No exception.

        I find it interesting people try to wriggle out of this by saying there is some federal law that protect individuals by allowing them a protection of their CD/DVD, yeah its called an insurance policy. Its called common sense. Its called a protection plan. Its called being smart enough to know that if you have something valuable you don't put in the hands of a minor that doesn't care, and it means you take proper care that it doesn't get scratched.

        When you BUY a CD/DVD you are buying 1, that means single, license to view it on the media on which it was distributed to YOU. YOU do NOT own a license to duplicate the copy you have. You AGREE that you will NOT copy it. That means if you do, they can prosecute your ass.

        Intent to sell has nothing to do with copyright. You can actually sell a CD. If its the ORIGINAL packaging it came in, and NOT duplicated in ANY way. You went into the store to buy 1 CD/DVd. You came out with 1 CD/DVD. You better only have 1 CD/DVD as a result from that store transaction. If a friend gives you his copy, it also better be the orginal copy he was provided. There is NO variance of the law.

        Unless you own the copyright, you can't do ANYTHING with the material AT ALL, period, no questions asked.

      • gawd21 says:

        You all should read this. It's about the copyright and what you use to be able to do and what you might be able to do.

        http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-5128652.html

      • PC_Tool says:

        Another good read regarding copyright and fair use:

        http://www-sul.stanford.edu/cpyright.html

        Keep in mind, fair use has not been tested in courts, but neither have those portions of the license agreements/EULAs the restrict such use.

      • fewt says:

        Actually you do absolutely do have the right to make a backup copy.

        I believe it was covered in the home recording act , I'm feeling too lazy to search for it though.

    • PC_Tool says:

      Ahh.... Always nice to see someone with a brain in these topics.

      Well said, wincement.

      People keep claiming they're not responsible.

      Lack of personal responsibility costs us dearly by forcing these companies to enforce stricter DRM and more restrictions on our rights to fair-use.

  11. Dirrty_Harry says:

    600,000
    for 4 movies...
    i have a friend that has about 500
    1 Terabyte of movies
    (this is in germany tho, but if he gets caught he is so screwed)
    does any1 know about the amount of money hed have to pay?

    • bourgeoisdude says:

      Thank you for pointing him out. I'm sure betanews will turn you in for questioning by the Feds now (joking)

      • Dirrty_Harry says:

        sure if they really wanna come all the way over to germany ^^

      • rijp says:

        They don't have to go anywhere, its called "Country coordination". If germany wants to do business with the USA, they will abide by the agreements. If they don't, well they are risking embargos..

        This is actually how WWI got started in the first place...

      • Kramy says:

        Well, do the math...If what the article says is true, for 1 illegally(owned other 3) he got a $4,000 fine which was upgraded to a $600,000 lawsuit. Your friend would have to pay a $2,000,000 fine, or face a $75,000,000 lawsuit.(assuming he ever tried to distribute one of his movies?)

        Goodluck to ya, but somehow I think he would have paid for DVD's if he was that wealthy. :P

    • rijp says:

      Its called "punitive" damage, and they are seeking to make an example. If you steal, you will pay to recoup the expense of the agencies required to track you down.

      There is no set amount. Its case by case. Did you know that even if you owned ALL those movies, making a copy of ANY of those is ALSO against the law.

  12. tipsyboy says:

    If they charged him for the retail price - okay.

    But this is insane.

    You gotta question the mental healthness of an institution, which in its business relations is given the rights of a human being, without caring for human worths at all.

  13. PC_Tool says:

    lmao..

    Okay, so lemme get this straight:

    The guy lets his kid do anything he wants on his PC and does not claim to be responsible? He's right. But his irresponsibility is gonna cost him. Maybe he should have been a tad more responsible beforehand.

    Everyone seems to be whining that this guy doesn't deserve this. I disagree. If the courts agree with him, MPAA will simply go after the kid. Someone has to be responsible. That's all this is.

    It comes down to a question of responsibility. Who's responsible for what goes on on the computer; The owner, or the user?

    Since this is a private computer in a non-publicly accessible and easily monitored location, it is the responsibility of the owner. That means that anything done on that computer, legally or illegally, is the responsibility of the owner of that computer.

    Being his responsibility does anyone disagree with the fact that he should be held responsible for any laws broke in it's use?

    I know a lot of you dislike these laws. That's not the question. I hate speed limits, it doesn't mean I can drive as fast as I want without having to take responsibility for the tickets I recieve in doing so. Laws are laws, whether we hate them or not.

    So, based on current law, he is in the wrong and responsible for damages the court deems fit to assign to him.

    We can argue ethics and moral implications of these laws all day, as many of you have, but it has little imlication in the facts of the case in question.

    • tipsyboy says:

      "lmao.."

      How much are you being paid for being so "cool"????
      And by whom????

      "We can argue ethics and moral implications of these laws all day, as many of you have, but it has little imlication in the facts of the case in question."

      Yeah - so speak those who show their laughing approval for tyranny, instead of standing up against all this - even against the odds.

      It's not the tyrant who is to blame but those who support him.

      Supposing you're a US American citizen:
      your ancestors who founded your country would turn in their graves if they could see offspring like you " ltao.." like you.

      • PC_Tool says:

        "How much are you being paid for being so "cool"????
        And by whom????"

        $36,400 a year. A Corrugated Manufacturing Company.

        "Yeah - so speak those who show their laughing approval for tyranny, instead of standing up against all this - even against the odds."

        Breaking the law is the stupidest form of civil disobediance known to man. How about writing your congressman? The MPAA? If you have a decent argument and can gain support for it, you can *gasp* change a law.

        I stand up against RIAA and MPAA by not going to the theater, not buying the DVD, and not buying the CD. How do you do it? By breaking the law? Good luck with that.

        Blame those who support the tyrant, and call fools those that rebel and get themselves killed in the process when the opportunity exists to depose him by safer means.

        Yes, I am an American. My ancestors created ways for laws to be created *and* struck down. Breaking them is not going to fix ones that need to be fixed.

        Get a clue.

      • rijp says:

        OMG! are you serious?

        "I stand up against RIAA and MPAA by not going to the theater, not buying the DVD, and not buying the CD. How do you do it? By breaking the law? Good luck with that."

        Yeah that will surely teach them..

        "Blame those who support the tyrant, and call fools those that rebel and get themselves killed in the process when the opportunity exists to depose him by safer means."

        Wow, you are a KKK member too aren't you? I bet you live with your parents in that double wide in MS. The RIAA/MPAA were established to protect those of us that DO legitimately pay for stuff and like our entertainment. They became blood thirsty and are turning this into zealousness. They are out of control, but back when movies and music first came out, there were no protections, and then technology came along and made things easier to steal. THAT's why they exist. They are a consortium of groups to protect their assets, which they have a right to do. I don't believe they have the right groups. Its too easy to go after the little guy, because they big guy has too much money and power. Well too bad.

        "Yes, I am an American. My ancestors created ways for laws to be created *and* struck down. Breaking them is not going to fix ones that need to be fixed. "

        Yeah, you left out the part where your ancestors were the indentured servants and the street cleaners. Breaking them isn't going to fix it, but absconding from using products supported by the groups designed to protect their investments, isn't the best idea either. So you never go to movies and don't own a DVD/CD then? So why they hell are you even arguing in this at all? Your comments have zero relevance.

      • PC_Tool says:

        "Wow, you are a KKK member too aren't you? I bet you live with your parents in that double wide in MS."

        Mature, intelligent, and rational response. It's what I've come to expect from you. I won't bother to try and explain it to you, you simply would not understand.

      • gawd21 says:

        No, he might understand it if he ever read anything.

      • PC_Tool says:

        What I've been able to dig out from underneath all the rhetoric and flaming in his posts:

        He's against pirating

        The RIAA and MPAA are organizations that protect artists, producers, and distributors.

        Hmmm...

        Am I missing something? Because there's nothing there I don't agree with.

        If he could *possibly* make these statements without making a complete ass of himself, we might actually be able to take him seriously instead of laughing.

    • Kramy says:

      I would say it should be the responsibility of the user, not the owner...but I don't know how the laws consider that in Canada.

      Your speeding analogy is fascinating. However, I've witnessed with my own eyes it being disproven. When I was returning from holidays, I noticed that after I left the freeway and entered the city that the speedlimit dropped from 110km/h to 80km/h. The speeds people were going though went up from 120km/h to 140km/h(in the city...)

      Continuing driving like that for about an hour or two, there were no signs of cops anywhere, nobody seems to have gotten tickets, and I must agree that going double the speed limit in a city is absolutely crazy.

    • Jedite says:

      Ok so basically a 67 year old man who probably has little to no knowledge of computers, and basically has the computer for email and surfing the web, and to let his grandchildren play games ect is supposed to be a virtuoso when it comes to all this junk? Who the hell are you kidding?

      Heres a nice little example for you. If you are at a toy store with your son, have a bunch of stuff you are purchasing, and your kid has a small toy in his hand from the store(say its worth 15 bucks), you pay for everything but forget to pay for that toy your kid has, cause you didnt see it, so you walk out and get stopped by security. By your standards you would be arrested for theft, and taken to court facing some jail time and a fine, because of a simple misunderstading. Kinda dumb dont you think?

      • PC_Tool says:

        No, that is *exactly* how it should work.

      • Jedite says:

        thats the sadest thing i have ever heard.. seriously.

      • PC_Tool says:

        What? To expect parents to watch their children and teach them right from wrong?

        Parents teach children responsibility by *being* responsible.

        This is a good thing. What's sad is that you seem to think stores need to invest in more security and harsher limitations. Big fan of DRM are you?

      • Jedite says:

        In refrence to what I wrote, that scenario is a simple freaking mistake a 6 year and any parent could make. It probably has happend to thousands of parents, and they simple return the merchandise. Are you this freaking heartless.

        I really hope that scenario doesnt happen to you, cause you will be screaming at the top of your lungs, WE ARE SORRY we didnt mean to take it, here have it back it was a dumb mistake. Nope sorry you are going straight to jail and you aint gona pass go.

      • PC_Tool says:

        Hey, if you bring it back, good deal. If you walk away with it, your kid just learned that stealing is okay.

        Has it happened to me? You bet. Will my kids ever steal again? Not while I'm alive.

        Am I heartless? lmao... Nope. I just take responsibility for my actions and the actions of those in my care.

        Simple mistakes are fine if corrected properly.

        You seem to be thinking the user is at fault in the case in question. So would you have a problem with MPAA going after the kid? You can bet your ass it wasn't a "simple mistake" on his part. he knew damn well what he was doing.

      • Kamika007z says:

        PC_Tool,

        I agree with you, someone does have to pay. I just think that it is somewhat of a sad case. But to play devils advocate in what I said, you need to know what you have. Especially in owning a computer. I guess that's why I teach computer lessons to older people who have had it sitting in their houses, collecting dust for three years :)

        Jedite,

        Relax man. Your toy store analogy just didn't cut it in this case.

      • rijp says:

        Its not a simple mistake, its carelessness.

        It takes a simple mistake to turn the wheel while you talk on your cell phone, and you wipe out a family of six on the sidewalk. What are you going to proclaim then? Ooops I made a simple mistake? I know people don't die from stealing.. in this case, but a simple mistake COULD cost much more.

      • gawd21 says:

        I am guessing that your name is Jesus.

      • DarkYang says:

        Goodnes... mistakes are in human nature, they happen all the time. Yes, mistakes do have a cost, some more than others. However, the cost that the MPAA is proposing is outrageous.

      • gawd21 says:

        "What? To expect parents to watch their children and teach them right from wrong?

        Parents teach children responsibility by *being* responsible."

        I hate to say it, but I have to agree with you, it is the parents' fault or whoever is the caregiver, to teach these children not to steal. I don't agree with the cost, but if the law allows it so be it. I would have to own up if my kids did something that I didn't teach them not to do. That would be my fault. Yes, I know this doesn't go with my other post.

      • PC_Tool says:

        See? Eventually we had to agree on something. It's the law of averages, ya know.

        :P

        And yes, the cost does not fit the crime, and I'm sure the courts will see it that way as well. They usually settle out of court for a *much* smaller amount.

      • rijp says:

        If you can't teach your kids to keep their hands to themself, perhaps you should be castrated or keep your damn kids at home.

      • gawd21 says:

        You must not be able to read very well. I said that it is my fault if my child does something wrong. I don't know what you thought you were trying to say, but you made a fool out of yourself, as you do 90% of the time you post.

      • PC_Tool says:

        He's having trouble reading today. Must have taken the wrong pill.

      • gawd21 says:

        I was thinking that too, but not pills. lol

      • PC_Tool says:

        Sounds like he's under the impression I am a KKK member and a pirate.

        [tweety] He don't know me wewy well, do he?[/tweety]

      • gawd21 says:

        Arrr. We have been discovered. Raise the flag and set sail.

      • PC_Tool says:

        lol

      • rijp says:

        OK, you evidently have never owned a store or had anything stolen. Let's break it down.

        You go into a store, unknowingly little googlejr grabs a CD. You pay for everything you walk out. The security beeper goes off. They stop you, and you realize, oh I am sorry I didn't realize my son had it, here I will put it back. No harm done?

        What if you DID make it out the parking lot, and they didn't stop you. What if 100 families have a son just like yours that "accidentally" took A CD. What if that store has 50 stores in every major city. There are 250 major cities, 50 stores in each, 100 families "accidentally" getting away with merchandise, at 16 dollars a whack. Pull that calculator, dust it off, punch in those numbers, and see what you get, mr wizard.

        $20,000,000 (That's 20 million dollars) for ONE isolated oops. Who the hell do you think pays for that? I do you dumb ass. And every family that has kids that DON'T accidentally pick up stuff. YOU may not care because you are so selfish, its just "ONE" little ole CD, what's the harm? Look around you. You are not the only one that thinks that way.

        So yes, they NEED to be harsher for dumb ass people like you that CAN'T control their kids. Its people like you is why the CD's cost 16 dollars a piece to begin with, because the industry builds in theft in the price of EVERY item. It adds roughly 20-30% to the bottom line of every item in the store, because it also includes, cameras, security, alarms, paying for anti-theft devices, monitoring, etc..

        But no, you wouldn't think about stuff like that would you? Nah, you are too busy drinking a bud while you watch Speed and could care less what your children are doing.

      • gawd21 says:

        Did you even read what was typed? He said that he is responsible for his kids.

      • PC_Tool says:

        Handle, meet the guy who just jumped off you.

        Knee, meet jerk.

        Dude, you should *seriously* think about reading a comment before you reply to it or just give it a rest.

        It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

        I don't steal, my kids don't steal, I don't approve of anyone who does it, and I firmly approve of the right of the RIAA and the MPAA to go after anyone breaking the law.

        I *do not* approve of their current business model and their tactics used to hedge it. this alone is why I do not buy products "protected" under their umbrella.

        Flame me as you wish, But don't even for a *second* think you know me. Your judgement of my ethics and morals has no basis in reality whatsoever.

      • badpauly says:

        "$20,000,000 (That's 20 million dollars) for ONE isolated oops. Who the hell do you think pays for that? I do you dumb ass. And every family that has kids that DON'T accidentally pick up stuff. YOU may not care because you are so selfish, its just "ONE" little ole CD, what's the harm? Look around you. You are not the only one that thinks that way.
        "

        Actually, in that example, YOU only pay the $16. You, your store, one incident.

        The $20m number you throw up is a guesstimate of the cost IF that same incident takes place in all those stores.

        How about another incident. What if a distributor ships a CD to you accidentally. And you sell it. And don't pay the distributor.

        With your argument, that is $20m you just cost the industry because it will happen in every store in every major city. Instead of the one incident that occured.

      • Kamika007z says:

        People like that? Yeah, I can agree with that.

        If you're talking about what I think? I'm not here to argue, just here to present a point. :)

        Take care.

      • Kamika007z says:

        I'm kidding no one. I'm trying to be fair on both ends here and keep it balanced. One side was offered, so I tried providing the other side.

        To be honest, I doubt you would be arrested. Why? Lets look at the proof? You have bought other items, so why would you "steal" one other thing? I'm sure it would be considered a misunderstanding.

        Also, using a toy store isn't the same thing. Toy stores have been around for a long time. So has the concept of a "toy". Computers have not.

        Oh, and to state for the record, I know older people that have computers just because they see the rest of the world having them. Maybe it makes them think it will be of use to them in the future, maybe it makes them feel younger, who the heck knows. But there are people out there that just have them, just to have them. Sort of like a "useless luxury."

      • rijp says:

        Actually, in that instance, that is theft. Removal of property, intentional or not, without paying is a crime, period. There isn't a court in the USA that wouldn't find you guilty. That child is in possession of stolen property. So yes, you and the kid COULD be detained.. they probably wouldn't, because its up to the store managers discretion.

        BTW, you are assuming you are the innocent in that little scenario. People actually use their kids to commit crimes, so they can plead "innocent" and get away with it. I have actuall heard parents tell their kids, here take this.. if they ask, tell them you forgot you had it.. They won't do anything, you are a kid. Yeah, keep telling yourself that, when you get a hard ass company like Walmart, they will prosecute.

    • Kamika007z says:

      Your missing the point here. The guy is old and *maybe* doesn't know jack about computers. He probably has one because everyone else in the world has one and therefore bought one. Maybe for his kid to use it on occasion. Older folk throw money away here and there on things they don't even use. (or care to understand)

      So how is he going to control the kid?

      That's my opinion. Bash away :)

      • PC_Tool says:

        That makes the kid responsible. Would be agreeable to the MPAA suing him?

        Ignorance of the law is not an excuse and will not exempt the responsible party from the consequences.

      • rijp says:

        well that's true. However, I remember years ago when I would visit bulletin boards via 9600 baud modems, and they were in violation of copyrights also. I distinctly remember rusty and eddy's (which you can still google) and learn all about it. The interesting twist now is, since we all have an IP address, the MPAA/RIAA bastards are tracking the downloaders, not the servers, because its "P2P" file sharing. So since you can't go after every body with a computer, you go after whoever you can find, the people that now have downloaded content.

        What I find amazing is that possession is 9/10ths of the law. so if that computer is NO LONGER in possession of the downloaded content, they have no evidence. No evidence, no case. OK, so an IP address on the web downloaded a movie. The downloading isn't illegal, its just like cable box manufacturers, they can sell clone boxes as long as they are shipped out of state where they are made. So if you get caught with a box, from the cable company, you are in violation, and they can sue you and find you guilty of stolen property. However, the people that made the box, nothing happens to them, why? If the boxes are illegal to own or possess, then the people that manufacturer them should be shut down, not the people that buy them. Go after the source.

        The district attorney's go after the distributors, not the buyers. The buyers in exchange for a lighter sentence or special recommendations can get off with basically nothing if they tell who their supplier is for drugs. If I download a movie (even if before hand I knew it was illegal) its FREELY available ALL over the net. You are telling me, that if someone downloads a movie, and then posts it on some random forum that allows submitting of files, and someone downloads the movie, that person is held liable, and the site it was on, doesn't get anything? [email protected]#!!!!

        That's where the problem is right there. The MPAA/RIAA bastards should go after the file sharing people, not the end users. As long as there are files to be had, people wouldn't have them if they couldn't get them. They arrest street vendors with illegal copies of CD's. I have yet to hear even one case where they were REQUIRED to pursue the individuals that bought the CD's. What does that tell you? They are trying to make it ILLEGAL to BUY/DOWNLOAD copyrighted material, it an effort to keep people from downloading. What's next, they are going to arrest a john for trying to buy a hooker? They arrest the hooker for solicitation.. You take the solicitors off the street, the john's have nothing to buy, therefore, there is no illegal activity.

        ITs a crock. I also find it interesting, that you can't contact the MPAA or the RIAA, at least I can't find a reliable phone number or email address. Because believe me, I would be lighting up their god damn inbox with hate mail, I will guarantee it. I want them to come after me for downloading stuff, I dare them. I download stuff all the time, have yet to have them come after me, I guarantee you will see my ass on the news in their face making them answer to a bunch of stuff, this is total BS.

        I get what I need, then I delete it. I don't care what the server says I possess, prove it! What if the copy is crap, not even usable, what you are going to do arrest me for illegally possessing attempted stolen merchandise? The onus is to prove I have something that's illegal. you won't find it on my machine or any remnants of it. Child porn's, do you think they can actually find someone guilty if they can't find any pictures or evidence PROVING they had child porn? I don't think so.

        I can download something, then delete it. why is there a message warning you that "duplication in whole or in part of this CD is strictly prohibited". At that point, that's my out... opps, my bad, here let me delete. According to the MPAA/RIAA we don't have that option. Federal Law supercedes their dumb ass. This is ALL Bully Tactics. You turn the tables on them, they will back down, they are going after people that are trying to keep their name out of the paper. I want them to come after me, god damnit. I will make sure this gets world wide attention. I promise you, and they won't get a damn dime!

      • PC_Tool says:

        Wow.

        I don't even know where to begin.

        It was wrong back when we were getting jap games on our commodores with our 300baud modems, and it's wrong now.

        I don't care how you defend it.

      • Maxwolf says:

        You are thinking like the MPAA/RIAA. You are talking about "Ignorance of the law" and "consequences" like everything with the issue is printed black & white and if you had a couple more details you could predict the outcome of the case...

        Nothing here seems morally wrong to you? I mean there are people telling the kid to file bankrupcy so they can't touch him! A 12 year old kid having to file bankrupcy to avoid getting sued by the MPAA? Only in America.

      • PC_Tool says:

        Morally wrong? Hell yes!

        Does that have a damn thing to do with it? Hell No!.

        This is a case in a court of law. Was a law broken? Yes. The only thing that matters to the courts in this case now is where the responsibility lies.

        Yes, the law is fucked. Yes, ethics and morals should be high enough on everyone's lists to make laws like this moot. Too bad we don't live in a perfect world.

    • dufa says:

      The original reason for going digial in TV is to stop people from recording off the air. Right now, the movie and TV studios are devising systems that will protect against recording from a TV signal. They are calling for a closure of the 'analogue hole' where a vhs video tape recorder will not be able to record a clean signal. The studios want to control the manufacture of any system that will record video or audio. Do a net search for "analogue hole" and you should find many references to the studios plans for your future.

      I saw a reference in one of the posts about ignorence not being an excuse for the law. This has always amused me because every lawyer, judge, and even the police have extensive libraries and computer data bases in order to apply any use of the law against a citizen. Judges and lawyers will call for an extended recess during a trial so they can research their legal books and prior cases in order to plot the coarse of their attack. Meanwhile, the defendant is supposed to have full knowledge of every aspect of the law. This is said in a somewhat fascitious tone but when generalities and all encompasing statements are made by the authorities, they become ridiculous under the same scrutiny that the legal system places on a defendant.

      An simple, dumb example might be that you are driving late at night in a blinding blizzard hundreds of miles from any civilization. One of your car's headlights go out. The letter of the law says that you cannot drive the vehicle anymore. You must park the car and wait for daylight. On many highways, it is against the law to park alongside said highway. Now you are damned if you park, damned if you drive. In my state, you will get a ticket if you sit in a vehicle with the engine running..{carbon momoxide danger they say] So, if one follows the letter of the law, you should get as far off the highway as you can, turn off the engine and freeze to death. The authorities, no matter how loud you shout at them, will very seldom allow extenuating circumstances. If you keep driving, you stand a chance of getting more tickets for the broken headlight. The court will look at you and exclaim the you have multiple violations here, all the same type. You have no respect for the law, in fact, you flaunt the law,and therefore, we will throw the full weght of the law against your actions.

      The above sounds silly but I have been put in a similar situation. The point is that lawyers, the legal system has been doing stupid things since time began, and when the lawyers and the courts smell money, they get stupider yet..

  14. UTAKER says:

    1. you cant know if something is copyright or open free for use legal download unless you download and play to knwo, and YES THERE ARE FEE THINGIES OUT THERE TOO, lawyers of grandpa goodluck
    2. mpaa live on the money, they are like leeches who want money to live, so they will sue attack like that, why did the court even hear a downloading case
    3. were the sharing cases gone? wasnt it the legal movie senders/sharers who were liable 1st! "sharer/seeder is responsible"
    4. #@$$#@%R GDFGDFGDFG

    • PC_Tool says:

      "you cant know if something is copyright or open free for use legal download unless you download and play to knwo, and YES THERE ARE FEE THINGIES OUT THERE TOO, lawyers of grandpa goodluck"

      Revenge.Of.The.Sith.DVDRip.Xvid.lol.avi is a pretty good bet to be copyright protected.

      Folks don't generally download shit unless they *know* what it is.

      "2. mpaa live on the money, they are like leeches who want money to live, so they will sue attack like that, why did the court even hear a downloading case"

      MPAA is an organization that works with distributors and production-houses to protect their rights. They are first-and-foremost a business and will, as all businessess do, try and make money. In other words...Duh?

      "3. were the sharing cases gone? wasnt it the legal movie senders/sharers who were liable 1st! "sharer/seeder is responsible""

      What? I truely didn't understand a word of that, sorry.

  15. cypriss says:

    Screw the MPAA and RIAA you money leaching fucktards. nuff said. :)

  16. Chip1035 says:

    Anyone ever notice CD sales and movie tickets are dropping? Hollywood has reported ticket sales have been slumping and Recording Industry claiming CD sales slumping. Hmmm... I wounder why?
    $600k for 4 movies is too much. Lawsuits in general is out of hand, $1 mill here, 100 mill there.

    • PC_Tool says:

      Totally ignoring for the moment, the fact that most of these cases settle out of court for the cost of the movie(s) distributed and court fees...

  17. monocularjack says:

    Another case of both sides being overly dramatic to try and drive their point home. Sue for a huge amount to scare people while the other side says that a "grandfather" is being sued to appeal to people's sympathy. People don't usually like to think too hard and they like simple, black & white answers to their problems and even more so when it comes to other people's problems.

    The MPAA's scare tactics are sensationalistic and dramatic but they have a point that their content, which people worked hard to produce, is being distributed without compensation. Yet prices for movies both on DVD and in the theatres is amazingly high and the system definitely has people that get compensation far above the effort they put in. Then again a lot of people download things that they'd never pay for so it makes it harder to calculate loss of profits when it comes to these 12-year olds vs. say China's "unofficial" pirate DVD industry.

    The issue isn't simple by any means but people like to spout simple things, like "stealing is stealing" or "the MPAA are nazis". There are much bigger issues here and these little things are simply the side-effects of a paradigm fault line just getting ready to shift in a big way.

    • PC_Tool says:

      Dead-on.

      RIAA/MPAA seem to be battling tooth and nail to protect an outdated business model. I don't feel any sympathy for those who break the law and fall under their feet, but I do sincerely hope they see the faults in the current model and spend even half the energy they are spending now on developiong a new model that will actually work in the digital age.

      • Maxwolf says:

        Don't feel any sympathy? C'mon not even a little bit? Look at the big picture man...they are spending way much more money on researching, hunting, and rouding-up these "law breakers" then they even had lost in the first place.

        I wonder about that ratio sometimes, the one they never tell you about...how much money does it cost to sue a child? I figured they wanted to go after college kids and even kids in High School but why didn't this issue pass them by? Unless they honestly have a computer sending out subpoenas then they knew all the details before hand and some bastard in a $5000 leather exec. office chair told them to go for it!

        There is no way file sharing damaged these people that much, I refuse to believe this is anything more than greed and have yet to see anything that will change my mind.

      • PC_Tool says:

        It's not, to them, the damage done, it's what's necessary to keep it form continuing, to make others think twice.

        Sympathy? Sorry. I'm all out. Check back later.

  18. bourgeoisdude says:

    If it is truly as simple as this article suggests, someone in the MPAA will get a wakeup call when the SC or someone overturns one of their rulings or such. However, I believe that, given the fact that this article alone would convince any sane person to side with the grandfather, this article must be leaving something out...

    I bet the main thing left out of this is: US trade restrictions. On the Internet you can sell things to people illegally, to say, Libya. THAT is a serious crime not because RIAA or MPAA loses money, but selling any product or technology to restricted countries, or selling to an individual that will use it in another country that is a member of the 7 restricted countries (see http://www.census.gov/fo...de/faq/reg/reg0014.html) is very very serious! US government will jump on you very quickly and they don't have to give any reasons for it, as you could be aiding terrorists. However this is movies, so unless he actually sold actual DVD's to an export country, he should be OK (read the entire FBI warning on any copyrighted DVD).

  19. fpo703 says:

    The only way they can sue anyone is if they copy and re-distribute the movies for profit. Just because they download them doesn't mean they are breaking copyright laws. So, for them to say that this family is/was breaking copyright laws is absurd to say the least. The MPAA and the RIAA need to re-examine the laws that they think are being broken and learn how to interpret the laws the proper way.

    • bourgeoisdude says:

      Actually, downloading them without owning them is breaking the law...er, having them without paying for them that is...

      • fewt says:

        The popular claim is that it's illegal even if you own it too.

        LOL

      • iamtux says:

        Yeah, its the same with Emus and Roms. I have some on my computer, but everyone that I have on there, I own the system and the game. I was told that was legal. I was told it was illegal to have them if you didn't actually own the systems/games.

    • Banquo says:

      They got in trouble for uploading them.

  20. jj_lame says:

    I'm my opinion.. shouldnt it be illegal to record a song off the radio? isnt it still copyrighted?

    recording a movie off of pay per view... or cable.. isnt that illegal? what the heck TIVO???
    ILLEGAL! OMG lol

    hmm how you get them doesnt matter, every way is illegal,, copy rights are copy rights,,

    so why is the internet being used to sue?? oh! I know money,, what makes the world go round,, who cares about the others too hard to stop,, maybe if you focus on suing people for downloads, getting the movie,, is getting the movie... no matter how you do it... same with songs.. :P

    they just want to make more money by suing,, they arent loosing any money,, the stores are still buying them to sell arent they.. even if you can watch it on tv, or ppv.. hmm

    I think its wrong to pick one illegal activity ,, when both are doing the exact same thing. ony by different means..

    oh and we need to stop this sharing our dvd's and cd's with friends or strangers,, they didnt pay to listen or watch that.. cheap scates,, and please dont turn the radio up loud when driving,, some of us dont want to break the law, of you sharing that illegal song to me,, I have yet to purchase.

    I have much much more to say, but no time,,
    thank you

  21. improvelence says:

    The news needs to stop spreading mis-information. The reason people get in trouble is when they SHARE (DISTRIBUTE) copyrighted material. They throw that word "download" in way too much and scare the hell out of people. If they set up a server and then had you sued when you downloaded from it, that would be entrapment.

  22. crashoverride says:

    All I know is that I'm safe, all i ever share or download is opensource software. Nothing Illegal there. I never really understood the whole point behind downloading movies and music over P2P anyway. It's gonna be compressed therefore the quality is degraded.....Which means it sucks.

  23. BIL says:

    The reason CD sales are falling off is (in my opinion) much of the "music" is trash. I listen to the top radio station in my area every day and they play the same songs over and over because so much of the new stuff is junk. Another reason is they charge way too much. A good product at a fair price and sales would blossom.

  24. UnIrish says:

    This has to be said.

    Now, you're all very trigger happy, so try not to negate my entire point because I am in fact, only 19, and am openly admitting it.

    Now, onto my point. I've read all these comments, and I think what the problem is here, is that the majority of you "pirates", and "KKK" members, are under the impression we're trying to dismiss this court case.

    Personally, i do feel that under the status quo (there's a big boy term for yah), someone is responsible. Probably the kid. However, I do not feel anyone should object to my right, or anyone elses to discuss the system, and bring changes about.

    Inherently, my problem is, this stupid lawyer they have is going to make alot of money for nothing. Personally, i think the kid should make lemonade, and set up a booth, pay off the movie costs, and learn from it. But this stupid leach of a lawyer, and the MPAA are actually making money off of a little 12 year old and his "growing up".

    I'm all for becoming responsible, and pctools, i give you mad props man, ebcause my father NEVER stressed the values you have, and today I am a pirate of software, and i steal from big business on many other levels.

    This kid needs to learn, but this old man shouldn't die from a heart atatck or blood clot cause his 12 year old is living in a world where kids can't make msitakes anymore. I really think all of yah need to stop trying to dismiss, or support this court case, the reality is our forum topcis aren't gonna change any of this, but seriously, go vote, change this shit. Cause I'm only 19, and I've only seen so much stuff, but this is very disheartening. I'm afraid to even conceive of having my own kids down the road at the rate our society and government are degrading.

    • crashoverride says:

      Well i'm not much older than you (21) so I know what ya mean about your opinion being cut down by people on here. I've had it happen many times.

      At one time I downloaded music and software but these days I buy cds and have found quite a few opensource software alternatives which I can download from their respective sites or thru P2P channels. So I get software for free and can give software and it's totally legal.

      I think the point here is that someone has to be help responsible, although I do not agree with the MPAA/RIAA methods. There should be fines and penalties but for most people $4,000 is extreme so just forget about $600,000.

      I noticed you also mentioned the grandfather. This is the part where I really don't agree with MPAA method, the man is 67 yrs old and probly has health problems.

      The way I see it if the old man does die of a heart attack the lawyer should get the chair or leathal injection......an eye for an eye.

      • UnIrish says:

        My thoughts exactly man.

        Personally, i really don't DL music much anymore, I got XM radio for my car, and and use the millions of free internet radio sites at home.

        As far as software, I'm working with 3d graphics, and a bajillion other things. I promise you Adobe, Maya, and Axialis, that I will mail you a check for these programs, can you can hold me to that. Right now, I have no other alternative. However it could just be that i wasn't raised with an ethics base that pctools seems to offer.

        Right now, I see alot of things wrong. Politics, everything. I'm just going to do what i have to, if soemone slaps a court case on me, I'll probably settle, and not argue. But who knows? I don't share files, and if i didn't know better, i'd say that little limewire application in my aluminum box has gathered dust over the past 9 months. (please, no flames, i know there's not actually an apllication in my cpu, nor would it gather dust, seeing as hardrives are in sealed canisters)

        The reality is, like the netflix case recently, these mistakes these kids are making are writing paychecks for laywers that excede thousands of dollars, and in some cases, millions. Where as i understand our economy needs lawyers, it's kind of sad that they are so short of work they are sucking away at minors, making minor infringements.

        Now, if this kid was literally burning DVD's, and selling em at his JR high, I might take a different stance. Hell, he probably forgot to close his torrent program, or P2P filesharing app, and unknowingly seeded, or shared the files.

        30-50 year old lawyers are making their paychecks off 12 year olds who are more technologically inclined, and curious than the majority of our adults. We're sapping our youth, and paying our greedy middle aged men. Not to mention giving our senior citizens heart attacks.

        God, if this 67 year old man goes to jail, I'm buying a .45 and going lawyer hunting.

      • UnIrish says:

        Heck, if they owned 3 of the 4, I wouldn't be surprised if the poor kid just didn't walk into the computer and type the names he saw on the dvds in the wrong search box.

        "Hey, that's cool, we have that in our living room"

        *click*

        Pctools, I understand your standpoint, and I'm not refuting it. However, for any of you to say that this 12 year old unquestionably knew what he was doing was wrong, is utter stupidity.

        At 8 I went searching for cartoons online, found some international hentai site. Never said I had to be 18 anywhere.

        Justice will be served, and the angered will argue, and fight, and maybe something will get changed. But don't for one moment assume you know what the poor kid was thinking. Just as you do not know what I am thinking, nor will I ever presume to understand you.

      • PC_Tool says:

        I suppose there are 12 yr-olds, and there are 12 yr olds. And you have to admit, when you were 8, things were a bit different, eh?

        :P

        Just try not to call me stupid for thinking the average intelligence of 12 yr-olds today is grossly underestimated. :)

      • crashoverride says:

        Just try not to call me stupid for thinking the average intelligence of 12 yr-olds today is grossly underestimated. :)

        Ain't that the truth. Even in just the time between when I was 12 and now. these days kids are totally underestimated.

      • wincement says:

        "God, if this 67 year old man goes to jail, I'm buying a .45 and going lawyer hunting."

        LOL. I like that quote.

      • PC_Tool says:

        Won't someone *please* think of the lawyers.

        Meh... They make the money, but the MPAA and the RIAA give them the reason, the justification, and the funds, so who's at fault?

        I know they should practice law ethically and morally, but with the kind of money being thrown at them I can hardly blame them for taking it instead of passing it to another lawyer.

      • crashoverride says:

        You have a point. If these shmucks didn't take the money some other shmucks would. I guess in a way if you look at it that way the MPAA and the RIAA are the animals here.

      • PC_Tool says:

        lol

        67 is an old man? Wow..my dad's gonna have a anuerism when he sees that.

        I don't know about the failing health of 67 yr-olds. I know a few and they can easily keep up with many of the 30yr-olds I know, if not kick their assess completely.

        :P

        I suppose a lot of it depends on the region you live in. 67 in Florida, for instance, might be "older" than 67 in Minnesota. (not even trying to guess where you live)

        And why you be hatin' the lawyers? Yeah, some make absurd amounts of money, but who's fault is that? Theirs, or the people giving it to them?

        *grin*

      • cooldude7273 says:

        Sterotypes are killer. I seem to have a theme going on here in my posts, so I will continue:

        Yes, because we know ALL 67 year olds have the same health.

      • UnIrish says:

        I didn't know where to start here man, So i just replied to the largest reply you had.

        Here goes again:

        I really sincerely doubt this 12 year old understands the negative consequences of downloading movies. Whereas he may have been told "that's bad" it takes a much farther udnerstanding tot ruly udnerstand the evils of piracy, and how end game, it does hurt the artists and creators at the root.

        Now, maybe I'm just naive, but that's jsut how I see it.

        Also, I do not blame my father, by any emans. He did alot for me,r aised me on a level above par to most kids my age, for which I am forever grateful. However, if you use the whole "i raised ym kdis to dispise stealing, and never do it" statement, then, it would only be appropriate to say that my current mindset is the creation of my father's clean disregard for intellectual property, and copyrights.

        Mind you, I would never use it as an excuse, I'd probably just open a lemonade stand (then probably get restraining orders put on me by ignorant_mother01 thinking I was some sick pedophile sexual predator, but whatever)to pay off my bills.

        The whole point of what I was saying really hasn't been defeated though. We can't influence this judge's/jury's decision, as i see the chances of these people reading the betanews forum very slim. However, I do feel it's ridiculous how we are going to ruin this kids life possibly, or make a terrorist out of him, so some work starved middle aged man can make a paycheck. We're making alot of people hate our politics more and more these days, and some kid like me, minus a little control, is probably gonna declare it lawyer season, and go on a rampage. (Ok, if this happens, it is truly a coincidence, betanews has my IP i'm sure, and it WASN'T me. I'm just psychic?)

        I just get worn down by everything that's going on these days, eveeryone is trying to get ahead of everyone else. No one finds peace, or confidence in actually working hard, and earning a well being, so they justify their existence by those who live in poverty, or by pushing people below them.

        I really don't care to ever have the money the RIAA or MPAA have. I was raised in an afluent family, and I've seen probably 80 some odd percent of the world in my traveling. Still, I'm content to just live in a lil pink house (for you and me!)

        PS: if you didn't get that... Go read a book, but heavens no, don't buy a cd. They have viruses these days!

        Wow, i can't wait til the day Sony prints books.

        *prick*
        *boys finger bleeds from a small needle found hidden in the cover of his book*
        *boy reads in fine print at top of book cover*
        "By opening this book you accept the terms of service by which Sony International press claims all rights to your bodily functions. You may not read said book without consent of Sony Intl. Press, and you may not speak of reading said book without prior consent. You may also not urinate, just because we said so."

        BTW, it's a song, for all of you who still have no clue.

      • gawd21 says:

        Here is a compilation of two posts for you and anyone stupid enough to think that way.

        Post 1 Something I was thinking about; In several parts of the world and here in the USA (one or two states), it is legal for 13 year olds to marry and start their own lives. So if you are saying that a 12 year old can't be held responsible, would that be saying that all of those others shouldn't be able to do any of the other things? Think about this; For 100's of years a 16 year old was on the verge of being too old to marry. Yes, today we live longer, but are you saying that we get stupider with the longer we are able to live? This isn't directed at you PC_Tool, it's just one of those thoughts that I kind of feels supports you, yet it asks a very pertinent question.

        Post 2
        I was just pointing out that they are capable and understanding enough to know what they are doing when it comes to breaking the law in this fashion. It's much like when my son was 3 he would blame everything on his 1 year old sister. I would watch him do it and he would say, "Kayla did it." He knew that he was in the wrong at 3, so I was trying to point out that a 12 year old KNOWS what he/she has done wrong.

        EDIT: You can't tell me that is you teach you children that taking something that isn't theirs is wrong, that they wouldn't know that by downloading something that they didn't pay for, would be wrong? Yes, I know that they had 3 of the 4 movies, but I bet they bought them later, or the kid wouldn't have wasted the time to d/l them. I don't know any child willing to wait to get something that they already have.

      • UnIrish says:

        Dude.

        Go smoke a cigarette. even if you don't smoke.

        I'm gonna be like you, and commit the straw man fallacy. Because you're hot headed, and rude, I'm gonna disregard anything you ever post.

        The reality is, I flamed on no one. I'm probably a whole host of years younger than you, and still maintained a respecatable tone.

        Maybe YOUR parents, back in the 19th century, forgot to teach YOU how to respect other people's opinions.

        Personally, I don't ever wanna meet your kdis, they probably try to commit suicide on a regular basis. Anyways, strange enough, I have to getr eady for the KKK rally tomorrow (no joke). Coincidence that came up earlier, I'm doing a report on their protest.

        You mr gawd21 might try working on your communication skills, because, frankly, you suck.

        EDIT: Hell, now that i actually re-read your post, you might have posted it under the wrong comment? I was the one saying the kid SHOULD pay off the bills. Lemonade and such non sense. I still find it funny that you stand back and insult my intelligence, when you're obviously older than me, and are drastically intimidated by my views. Stupid isn't a very diplomatic term, you'll find people ignore you alot for using it. Ettiquette 101.

      • gawd21 says:

        LMAO You show your age every time you post your silly comments that have no kind of understanding. Yes, the word stupid could have been replaced with something else, however, most of the people on here can't seem to understand anything a little higher.

      • UnIrish says:

        I show my age? Funny, some of your argumenets would even hold up in a 10th grade history class group discussion.

        I'm going to stop humoring you and reading your bullshit. The reality is, nothing you said holds any factual standing at all.

        You remind me of my ex's dad, actually, glad I dumped her.

      • gawd21 says:

        I bet she dumped you BC you are full of shit and her dad told her to leave you that you would mess her life up.

      • UnIrish says:

        I feel like being an asshole right now.

        You're arguement about a 3 year understanding right from wrong. ACTUALLY, it's widely accepted that children prior to 5 base right fromw rong from the wxpressions on their questioners face. You could make a kid feel bad for donating his weeks allowance if you looked at him wrong.

        Also, you're talking about something old men, teenagers, and adults openly debate, ona regualr basis, how can you expect a 12 year old to have made a solid judgement on it's ethics.

        Personally, I'm willing to bet this poor kdis dad/mom is alot like you. You make blanket statements, you give kudo's to the people who have obviously said something great, but have nothing relevant to contribute. You're arguing, that beyond the shadow of a doubt, that this kid knew what he was doing was wrong, when however old all these other people are, we've got no unanymous decision on it's ethical standing.

        Personally, I think you need to take a break from life, and check your kids drawers for heroine. Maybe a machete or something. You sicken me, god I'm glad my father riased me better than you're going to be raising your kids.

        Ignorant filth.

        /rant off

      • gawd21 says:

        You had bad parents that were scared to teach you how to act doesn't mean that the rest of the world is that way. Children are a lot smarter that people like you want to act like they are. I bet you are the type of person that will pull the racist card if you don't get a job that someone else was clearly more qualified for, got it.

      • UnIrish says:

        <- white. But actually. I might try that. Thanks. Oh, last thing before i put this post behind me, and never read it again. Parents that assume their kids understand things are the PRIMARY source of misguided youth. So as not to deviate too far from the topic, I really do think this kids parents were alot like YOU. Cept his might have had the sense to give him up to his grandparents. People like you shouldn't be allowed to procreate. *smiles* poor kid.

      • gawd21 says:

        Sad. I am sorry that your parents never encouraged you to do anything and I bet that they let you use the words "I can't" and "I don't know". Don't blame me for your parents holding you back. Maybe it wasn't your parents, it might have just been you, unable to grasp the basic rules of life.

      • crashoverride says:

        I'm gonna have to disagree with you about the 12 yr olds basically not understanding what they are doing. These days 12yr olds are a lot more intelligent than we want to give em credit for. They understand more than you think they do, believe me, I know a few and sheesh.

      • gawd21 says:

        Lets put it this way; Most parents nowdays in teh US don't spend enough time with their children to teach them right from wrong. You want proof look at the crime rate. People aren't teaching their children right from wrong anymore. They are to "busy" to love their kids. It takes more that to just telling your child you love them. You have to show and teach them. When a child goes crazy as some do, put them over your knee, don't beat them, but show them what is right and wrong.

      • PC_Tool says:

        lol

        Good one. (The song reference)

        Okay. I see your point. But where do we draw the line? Arguing that ruining this kids life (which is a stretch) for this is wrong, what are the reasonable alternatives to simply letting piracy run rampant?

        There has to be a line, it has to be clear. Crossing that line must involve consequences that deter.

        A slap on the wrist in this case isn't going to make the next kid step back and think twice. The only other feasable way I can see to deter without steep punishment is to enforce extremely restrictive DRM on *all* digital media.

        And no, I'm not claiming to have all the answers. In fact, I hope I don't, as my view tends to be somewhat cynical. ;)

    • PC_Tool says:

      Question is, did the kid make a mistake? I mean, I don't know about you, but my 8 yr-old knows what a torrent is, what iMesh is, and knows that 90% of the stuff available on those services is illegal.

      It doesn't take much.

      Then you wonder who should take the blame? Are 12 yr-old still allowed to be stupid, and how stupid? Is grandpa, by owning a computer, expected to learn all about P2P just to keep his grandkid off of it?

      From the threads below, you can tell...there are a *hell* of a lot of opinions out there, and a lot of folks feel very strongly, probably because it hits pretty damn close to home for many of them.

      Oh, and don't take this the wrong way, man, but @ 19, blaming your dad is a cop-out...just sayin'. :P

      • gawd21 says:

        Something I was thinking about; In several parts of the world and here in the USA (one or two states), it is legal for 13 year olds to marry and start their own lives. So if you are saying that a 12 year old can't be held responsible, would that be saying that all of those others shouldn't be able to do any of the other things? Think about this; For 100's of years a 16 year old was on the verge of being too old to marry. Yes, today we live longer, but are you saying that we get stupider with the longer we are able to live? This isn't directed at you PC_Tool, it's just one of those thoughts that I kind of feels supports you, yet it asks a very pertinent question.

      • cooldude7273 says:

        Ok, but how many 13 year olds do you see getting maried?

      • gawd21 says:

        I was just pointing out that they are capable and understanding enough to know what they are doing when it comes to breaking the law in this fashion. It's much like when my son was 3 he would blame everything on his 1 year old sister. I would watch him do it and he would say, "Kayla did it." He knew that he was in the wrong at 3, so I was trying to point out that a 12 year old KNOWS what he/she has done wrong.

        EDIT: You can't tell me that is you teach you children that taking something that isn't theirs is wrong, that they wouldn't know that by downloading something that they didn't pay for, would be wrong? Yes, I know that they had 3 of the 4 movies, but I bet they bought them later, or the kid wouldn't have wasted the time to d/l them. I don't know any child willing to wait to get something that they already have.

      • wincement says:

        You've never been to Alabama have you?

        ...I'm dead serious...

      • PC_Tool says:

        Ouch.

      • cooldude7273 says:

        Yes, because we all know that EVERY kid has the same amount of knowledge. And the older kids ALWAYS know more than younger kids.

      • wincement says:

        You could apply that to anything:

        ...since we all know that EVERY 16 year old can be a responsible driver.

        ...since we all know that EVERY 18 year old is capable of living on his/her own.

        ...since we all know that EVERY 21 year old can drink responsibly.

        The point is: lines have to be drawn SOMEWHERE.

      • athome says:

        A mistake is once, but there were several movies on the computer. Hardly a mistake.

    • athome says:

      I agree with your opinion on many levels, but everyone has them. Most come only from our limited point of view - not fully understanding all issues and sides to the story.

      What we are hearing in this story is the one-sided view of the media. Obviously, they are for the grandfather and grandson. Look at the title of the story('Grandfather'). They could have said "man." However, they chose a word that would appeal to the human side of people in calling him a grandfather.

      There is much more to this story that most will even pick up on. First, 12 year old boys do know right from wrong; and in today's day-to-day life, he knew P2P was illegal. But, this 12 year old most likely has not had to deal with consequenses as these actions dictate. Not to say that there should not be any, but should be given some. Everyone has different ideas of what that should be.

      For years, every movie I have ever seen displays the legal notice of copyright protection. Though we see it and do not read it, it is all to understood that making, buying, sharing, or selling a copy without permission is illegal and subject to fines, jail, or both.

      We see many young people today use the excuse that their age protects them from prosecution, and I for one think it is a scam. We wouldn't excuse a murderer from charges based soley on that he is 12 or 16. There needs to be other circumstances present that exclude this 'boy' or 'grandfather' from prosecution. What everyone seems to be missing is that we are all effected by what this one individual is doing.

      Everyone that is downloading from a P2P program is rolling the dice on getting caught or not. When they do, the excuse of 'I didn't know', 'I am young or old', 'That consequence is too much or expensive', or 'I don't like movies' says alot about the individual to say the least. Remember: Ignorance of the law, is no excuse! Whether you are 12 or in bad health.(which everyone assumes that a 67 year old is)

      I am not an innocent, moralistic, biased person either. I've done some things in my life that are not perfect - even mp3 file-sharing. But, I do know that it is wrong, and if I am caught, I have only one person to blame - me.

      I want to know where the kids parents are. I want to know why there are several movies on the computer, and what 'several' means. I want to know about supervision for the 12 year old as well as what other things were found on the computer(ie mp3). I think we would find that this innocent 12 year old might not seem so innocent. Instead of placing the blame and accountability/responsibility onto those guilty, we attack the Motion Picture and Recording Industries. Not to say that their attacks are extreme, but think about this; they are extreme so they would deter people from doing it. Because of this, no one is detered and therefore they are now out to put an end to it. Nothing short of what you or I would do if it were our business. And please don't use the argument that they are ripping off the artist either. There are more lawyers involved in the signing of music and actor contracts than will be in this case. The lawyers for the 'grandfather' and 'boy' are after the sympathy bit.

      Now, before this gets a bit much, let's consider taht the MPAA did want to settle this out of court with only a $4000 fine. Wow, IMO, that guy should have taken the slap on the hand. Hell, I would have even respected him more if he tried to work with an alternative punishment for the grandson, rather than to say that he is innocent and the boy is too young to know better. Not really good family values to be teaching that 12 year old - is it?

      IMO

  25. wincement says:

    I thought everyone might appreciate this:

    http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20051031/cx_ft_uc/ft20051031;_ylt=AtmJ8eDwGiwes_y.flkRU6ze7isC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

    If you don't get it on the first read-through, take a closer look at the labels on their hats.

    =p

  26. joeshmoe7 says:

    ok so he got in this trouble for downloading????? ummm ... shouldnt the ones hosting be the ones who are getting sued? Providing the download? Or is this another one of those brain dead articles about how CLICKY IS DANGER DANGER DANGER and doesn't bother to mention that they were sharing the files and thats why they were caught.

    • PC_Tool says:

      it's iMesh, dude...you download, you share. One and the same. Well, generally. Depends on how long this stupid kid left the program running.

      • joeshmoe7 says:

        from what i've seen from many others, he probably left it on 24-7, which basically amounts to being a server for the content. It just irks me it is being worded in a lot of places that downloading is illegal when clearly it is the redistrobution.

      • nate says:

        Downloading IS illegal too by their standards. It may be harder to prosecute than distribution (due to claims of damages and digital copies), but downloading in the RIAA/MPAA's eyes is the same as stealing. You are receiving something you did not pay for - plain and simple.

  27. iamtux says:

    ...those bastards.

  28. Ishnigarrab says:

    Hey, think this: why the RIAA/MPAA don't spend they money to prevent the piracy industry here, in Brazil, for example, it will grant much more money than take a child to the court... Will be much more good if they help our Federal Police to find the factories of milions of ilegal DVD copies, and make pressure over Paraguay government for more anti piracy meassures... here, is much more sheap for the citizens of our soutern states, cross the border an buy illegal DVD's, illegal Computer parts, and many other illegal stuff, then come back with all this thinks hide, hopening to not be stoped by our Federal Policy... If our FP don't hunt these pirates, the US impose barriers to our products, but they don't try to impose more meassures againt Paraguay... Just thik, how many dollar they have lost with this boy? and how many they lost every year with Paraguay pirates???

    • PC_Tool says:

      Comes down ot ease of resolution. RIAA and MPAA have *zero* influence in Paraguay. They do not, much as they'd probably like to, dictate international policy, and no-one in Congress is going to try and push Paraguay to deal with this because it is such an explosive issue.

      • Ishnigarrab says:

        Noooo, the US govern is making preassure against the Brazilian gov. to prevente the 9bi in lost income only in last year, if we don't reduce the piracy, they will overtax our products. We, here in third world, buy dvd and cd too, but, because of the conversion of US Dolar to BR Real, these products are much espensive for the masses, a Pirated DVD cost only US$: 0.99, and the legal couterpart US$ 10.00, this is much for brazilian standards, but, if the DVDs/CDs come with less futile junk, and they make someting to stop the China-->Paraguay route, and make the Paraguay police take care of the piraters, the thinks will be much better than today...

      • PC_Tool says:

        Heh...wasn't aware the US government was getting involved.

      • Banquo says:

        They stick their nose in everything else, I'm not suprised. World Police indeed.

  29. maniakmx3 says:

    I think that Music and Movie Companies are handling this the wrong way, Suing for $600,000 over 4 movies? 3 in wich the family has rights too!? so pretty much that 4th movie is gonna cost $600,000! That better be a pretty fuckin good movie! I think that the music industry and the movie industry should charge them the cost of the movie or music download. Lets say for 100 Songs, the avg. Price of songs is $0.99. So charge them $100 for those 100 Songs they downloaded. This way the music industry and or movie industry doesn't look like a bunch of asses when they sue a 10 Year old little girl, or a 67 Year old man! in most cases, 67 year old men don't even know how to turn a computer on! much less download illegal music, I know this because I am a public PC tech, and I work with them every day! This whole class action suite against people committing piracy is nothing but a way for the companies to hurt people and make an extra buck. Another thing! if music and movie companies don't want people downloading illegal files, then why do they make it so EASY! it's bullshit. If P2P is illegal, then why has Limewire been around for years? Bearshare? iMesh? KaZzA? eDonkey? soooooo many!!!!!!!! to be honest, the only reason why I download music in the first place is the convienence of not having to drive all the way to a music store, buy 1 CD for $15 with only 2 good songs!

  30. MWPatterson says:

    I have one thing to say. Stop going to any movies and buying any records and see what happens. Lets boycott them for a while and see what they say then.

    • Banquo says:

      Too bad that will never happen. Can you imagine trying to convince a mall full of giggling teenage girls to stop buying stupid pop CDs? They probably don't even know what the RIAA is and I'm sure they couldn't care less. Try to get everyone to stop going to every stupid movie that Hollywood puts out? It's impossible. The RIAA and MPAA know that, the only way to stop them is for the government to step in and put a stop to their acting like vigilantes. That won't happen either though, because they own the government. Depressing isn't it.

  31. tmaioli says:

    We need to stop this monster at all costs...PLEASE do not buy any music / movies, let all sue them for bad and harmful products.

    This is next:

    "The solution, of course, is a helmet with built-in Digital Rights Management system that would automatically "fog up" any time you lay your eyes on something that you haven't bought license for."

    http://slashdot.org/articles/02/06/09/1618214.shtml?tid=133

  32. PC Rat says:

    .

    "RIAA and MPAA have *zero* influence in Paraguay"
    .

    If we can invade Afghanistan and Iraq, we'd have no problem invading Paraguay.

    Let's land the Marines in Paraguay, take over their government, and then allow the RIAA and MPAA to sue every last person in that country for $600,000.

    ~That~ would teach 'em a lesson !

    If the U.S. don't take a stand now, we'll have all our grandfathers immigrating to Paraguay to get out of paying $600,000 for movies.
    .

    The Computer Rodent

    .

    • Ishnigarrab says:

      Nice... hehehehe... It's true here in Brazil, the pirates uses "tour" buses to take the pirated stuff in Paraguay and take this cross the border... I thought, will be better if Brazil declare war and take Paraguay for us... But our president is a weak man.. :P He must attack Colombia's FARCs, and Venezuela too... But... Ow sh** i wll become a nazi!!! ;) rsrsrs... if is to dream, let's dream.. :D

  33. cooldude7273 says:

    Must be nice to make $600,000 in one lawsuit. Imagine those poor people working for $5.15 an hour. Must be nice - rich ass bastards.

    • wincement says:

      This is just a guess: Those poor people working for $5.15/hour probably didn't go through 8 years of law school (or whatever it is. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly how long...).

      And:

      1. No one person will get the full reward from the lawsuit.

      2. There's no way in heck they're getting the full $600,000 anyway. That's the maximum they will get out of it.

  34. mancub says:

    lets all club together and paye for their attorney

  35. benyahuda says:

    All this crap is ridiculous.

    Remember a while back a college kid in Ohio bought M$ Office, Got it home and it wouldn't run on his PC. He brought it back but the opened shrink-wrap meant the store didn't have to take it back. M$ claimed the EULA excused them from any responsibility as to its usefulness, or even whether or not M$ Office will run or even possibly ruin his PC.

    He didn't see that until he tried to install it. So he did what I would do. He sold it. He was caught because he sold his one boxed CD (including holoCD and certificate of authenticity) on E-bay for his purchase price ($129.00)

    M$ from Redmond Washington sicked a team of lawyers from San Francisco to an Ohio courtroom to recover their millions in damages (also filing against the guys dad). Luckily an Ohio Judge had the common sense to dismiss the suit on the grounds that if that was their BIG problem, and they really wanted to pursue it, He could help them find some REAL problems.

    I like M$. But I agree with, and support, that Judge.

    • gawd21 says:

      Could you give us a link about this? I did a search and found nothing. It just sounds to fishy and I am from Ohio.

    • Banquo says:

      That has the sounds of an urban legend. There is no way that is true anyway, you can legally sell used software as long as you include everything that came with it. Just check the listings on eBay for used Microsoft software. Microsoft is not the RIAA, they aren't stupid.

  36. benyahuda says:

    And about thirteen year olds getting married. It's 12 in Kansas and a prosecutor is going after one couple cause the guys like 30.

  37. davetippman says:

    First of all the MPAA is sueing the wrong people. It is the p2p service that should be shut down and sued. I dont want that to happen but innocent people like 60 and 12 year olds shouldnt be victims. Can u get caught for downloading off of limewire?

  38. JuLiaNc says:

    Thats Bull*hit! :) MPAA are trying to stop all these illegal file sharing, and have no expierence like me for example. lol. I been on 5 yrs now. and I know what goes on. on the net. they don't. they just care for the money. and thats mor ebull shit. and to sue a 67yr old (not a millionere) for 600,000$ is much more bull!, and to sue a 12yr old is much more bull! then the bulls in spain!

    MPAA - Meta Politicly Algebra Animals.

© 1998-2020 BetaNews, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy - Cookie Policy.