Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Chomper, May 27th, 2004 @ 7:38am

   
   

   No Subject Given

   I mean, seriously should we be surprised? An industry that doesn't have good taste to begin with isn't going to have good sense to know this is just assinine.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 27th, 2004 @ 8:15am

   
   

   Child Porn

   If her computer was publishing child porn, would there be such an outcry when the FBI threw her in jail - even if it was her daughter's child porn?
   
   She seems to be able to afford a computer and a net connection...

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Mike (profile), May 27th, 2004 @ 8:21am

   
   

   Re: Child Porn

   Er. If she was responsible for the child porn, sure. However, if it was someone else using her computer and putting child porn on there, then YES, there would be such an outcry because she would be getting blamed for something she didn't do.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   msykes, May 27th, 2004 @ 9:00am

   
   

   Re: Child Porn

   Okay, anybody who tries to compare file sharing to child porn needs a serious wake up call. Get a grip.
   
   And, as Mike points out, there would be a big outcry. In fact it would be bigger, because getting blamed for using child porn when in fact you are innocent is a way bigger problem.
   
   msykes

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Wolfman, May 27th, 2004 @ 11:08am

   
   

   Re: Child Porn

   Seeing as how a net connection costs anywhere between $10-60/mo, and a computer could cost as little as $200, that doesn't say much about being able to afford it. The article doesn't state what kind of computer, how old the daughter is, or what kind of connection she is running. Your point is pretty much useless and without merit.
   
   I also don't see the connection between child porn, and illegally sharing Britney Spear's new album on the net.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Frank, May 27th, 2004 @ 12:01pm

   
   

   real amount of settlement

   Plus, does that 4,000 dollar settlement fee include attorneys fees, expenses, and costs? If not, it could easily run a couple thousand more in reality...

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   LittleW0lf, May 28th, 2004 @ 8:39am

   
   

   Re: Child Porn

   Seeing as how a net connection costs anywhere between $10-60/mo, and a computer could cost as little as $200, that doesn't say much about being able to afford it.
   
   Quite right Wolfman, and even more, in some places people actually donate old computers to needy families (as I have done several times with my old hardware.) They have to purchase Windows for my donated hardware if they want to run it as my hardware comes with Linux, but the hardware is free (but in my experience, those I've given computers to just continued using the Linux OS.)
   
   With computers becoming far more pervasive in the work force now, charity organizations are finding that there is a need for kids to be exposed to computers at an early age. And there are many "free" dial-up services still out there, offered by charity organizations, or open and legal wifi-access, and some cities actually provide internet access too.
   
   To think that just because someone has a computer means that they are rich enough to afford the RIAA's extortion fees is just silly (an pretty much a circular argument.) It would be like saying that someone who owns a car is rich enough to afford the gas companies frequently high price fixing, or someone who doesn't have a car is rich enough to afford public transportation (which is $1.50 per ride here in San Diego now.) Just because someone has an item that would normally cost money to procure doesn't mean that they have enough to pay for someone elses questionable "fees" for use of that item.
   
   Copyright infringement is wrong, and I'd be the first to fight against someone saying otherwise, but the punishment should be reasonable, and quite frankly this isn't. Any judge sitting in this case would take that into account when the judgement was decided. Unfortunately, in the current justice system we have, we allow the plantiff with a large amount of expendible cash to play the judge for settlements, especially against a person who is unable to afford to make sure that their rights and interests are protected. It is obviously a conflict of interest that is allowed to perpetuate...how can the plantiff be fair and impartial at determining the judgement when their goal is to make the other side pay for the crime they are accused of doing? And when a large and rich company beats up a single mother with a $20,000 a year paycheck over something she didn't do, I personally have a problem with this. The RIAA is slow to work against the real criminals (those who illegally profit on the sale of rip-off CDs and represent a couple million orders of magnitude larger damage to the recording industry, and have significant capital to fight them,) but quick to attack single mothers, grandparents, and children when they, or someone they know, share a few songs with others.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment