Re: SCROOGE the RIAA GRINCH!! BOYCOTT MUSIC CHRISTMAS OF 2003!!!

After reading several items on line about this issue produced the following
facts. The RIAA didn't "target a twelve year old girl," they had the
address of
a Kazaa user who was offering trades of over 1,000 songs. the reason they
quickly settled for the low amount of $ *was* because of the age of
Brianna's
age. She was *not* sued for downloading, she was sued for content she was
providing.

Your original post does suggest that you think the RIAA are bullies for
targeting the poor little girl, but once again, she got off very light in
comparison to what the other 260 folks are going to go through. It's all
emotional propaganda being used by the pirates to confuse the issue and
try to
get themselves a break.

My question to you is -- considering that this little girl got off with
paying
a fine of less than $2 a song (only double what she would have paid to
download
them from a legitimate provider), and that you now say you're *not* pro
file
sharing, what exactly are you saying?

bwalker wrote:

> Read the original post: she was sued for DOWNLOADING. It's not said
she's
> the one who put those files in the first place and there is no mention
> anywhere that the files were made available for other users. But since
you
> still think I'm pro file-sharing despite what I posted, maybe you just
have
> a problem with reading...
>