bwalker wrote:
> A 12 year old girl is least likely to be aware of the law. She's still a
> children (sic) for christ's sake, you don't prosecute her like she was
an
> adult.
>
When I was twelve, I was quite well aware of what stealing was and that
theives go to jail. 12 year olds aren't *that* innocent. The issue here,
as
I see it, is that you think it isn't wrong to steal music, and you're
hiding
behind the "poor, innocent little girl" as a means to your own end. From
what I've heard of the sort of fines that the RIAA is planning to levy
against file sharers, that little "children" got off extremely light. I'm
hearing there's gonna be penalties in the tens of thousands of dollars
*per
song* in some cases. If you've been ripping music files and sharing them
out
on the web, I'd be a lot less concerned about what they were doing to some
little girl and a lot more concerned that they might be coming after you
next. News I hear is that they're definitely going after more people, the
original 261 are just the first wave of indictments.
Whether you agree with their politics or not, You've got to respect that
they're frigging serious. We're talking about a fight for survival here
--
record industry earnings are down, down, down over the last three years,
as
high -- speed internet is spreading like wildfire and sharing larger files
gets easier and easier. These are large multinational cor****ations
employing
very smart people who want to keep their high-paying jobs. Are you ready
to
go the distance against these guys for the right to download Justin
Timberlake's music against his will (probably what the 12 year old was
sharing out)? Frankly, that's a battle I don't feel like I could commit
much
energy to even if I agreed with you. And as a n independant recording
artist, I really, really don't agree with you.
|
