Login:
Password:

MPAA Sues Grandfather for $600,000

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

November 2, 2005, 2:15 PM

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.

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.

Add a Comment (199 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By ericdanie

edited Dec 1, 2005 - 8:53 AM

I've read a few comments before giving up. There seems to be two basic points of view, one says the 12-year should be responsible for downloading 4 movies, which 3 he legally bought a copy and the 4th, he does not. Well, if he bought the movie legally AFTER downloading it, doesn't it mean he actually LIKED the movie and decided to BUY it, as if the downloaded movie was a "trial" version? We can say that there was some benefit on the P2P service for the author itself. But, come on, sueing for $4,000 and then $600,000 for a movie that can be bought for... like $10 (sorry, I am brazillian and I don't have a good notion of prices on the US), that's just money making. Like Ishnigarrab said, here in Brazil, a DVD that costs $10 would cost R$22,20 (that would be a fair price considering the 'globalization' that is present nowadays), but it costs like R$45,00; which is more than the double of what should be the real price. And it is cheaper than if you wanted to buy it off internet and pay the shipment costs for Brazil, which would be around $30, that's like 3 times the real price of the DVD. I know that is just the defensive view point of a brazillian that downloads movies. But anyway, this is just money-making over someone, just because he is inside their territory. Why not attack the source of the download instead? There is a tracker for example, if you use BitTorrent, you share files, but if the tracker is shutdown, you can't share anymore. But, if they attacked the tracker instead of each one that has downloaded illegaly, it would be less profitable for them. Charge one person $1 million for making illegal downloads avaiable or charge each one for $4000 or more of the thousands that download illegally daily?
My comment may be confusing, but my opinion is clear: attacking a "factory" seems much more logical and effective than attacking "each product that is made", which has more and more "products" made each day, but less profitable.

Score: 0

By Dale Robertson

edited Nov 20, 2005 - 6:25 PM

THE POWER OF CREATIVE DESTRUCTION

Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) suing a 67 year old for the downloads of his grandson is simply ridiculous. It is a perversion and an aberration of morals, logic, economics and law – not to mention common sense!

This is as ridiculous as someone I heard about whose great grand father was an actor and who complained bitterly that talking motion pictures would destroy the stage acting career of himself and thousands of actors in the US and worldwide. He apparently promoted the banishment of talking motions pictures as unfair to the existing time honored business of stage acting.

Likewise, I am reminded of the complaining mule drivers who drove the mules pulling the barges up the Erie Canal who were made obsolete by the invention and deployment of the steam engine doing the same job at far less cost.

There is a principle at issue here - it is the principle of "creative destruction" When any new inventions or process is made available and adopted there is always a destruction of the infrastructure which is being replaced by the new more productive, better and hopefully less costly new invention or process or formulae.

This is what is happening to the RIAA and MPAA alike. Their business model has been made obsolete by a new technology which is not in their control. And they don’t like it. Well, tough! They can join the complaining mule drivers with the same complaint as their business evaporates before their eyes giving way to a new technology which cannot be controlled. I say adapt or perish! Innovate or destruct – It’s their choice. All of history joins me in this conspiracy of reality surviving over monopoly and the status quo.

Like Kevin Kelly said in his book: IT'S OUT OF CONTROL! Mule drivers, stage actors, buggie whip manufacturers and now the MPAA need to all recognize the principle of "creative destruction. Adapt or Perish!! And therein is the wonder and greatness and the power of natural economics or free enterprise as some call it. Don't get in its way or the market will hand you your own head.

Their complaints are about as effective and reasonable as is the entire world telephone industry complaining about SKYPE stealing all their telephone revenue and business by providing a means where former paying telephone customers can now make free phone calls using the new innovative technology of SKYPE.

It is a little like the candle makers of America complaining that the sun is just too brilliant a competitor to compete with and so –they argue – that congress needs to pass a law outlawing so many windows to let in sunlight so that the playing field can be leveled in favor of the candle manufacturers. This argument is just ridiculous - but no more so than the MPAA's argument against P2P technology. It's out of control!

I say again, "Nonsense!".

Tyranny cannot cope with a free mind!

The inventive mind of man cannot be stopped and the fruit of that process will always be destructive to some person, business or income stream which is replaced by a bigger, better, faster, lighter, more profitable widget, gidget, machine, technology, process or formulae.

So be it. All of man's progress is utterly dependent on this innovative process we call creative destruction".

Hail to creative destruction of the old and the obsolete - and - hail to the corresponding innovative progress and productive and profitable invention of the new.

All freedom and all liberty of individuals of all races, creeds and nations are beneficiaries of the process of "creative destruction". Only despots, tyrants and monopolist are opposed to all progress which engenders "creative destruction".

So be it - - - Isn't freedom and liberty great or what?

Dale Robertson
19 November 05 - Pinehurst, Texas
dalerobertson@habeascorpus.net

Score: 0

By JuLiaNc

edited Nov 6, 2005 - 3:04 AM

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 s***. 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.

Score: 0

By davetippman

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 8:54 PM

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?

Score: 0

By benyahuda

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 10:23 PM

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.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 10:26 PM

Um, okay.

Score: 0

By benyahuda

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 10:18 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Nov 4, 2005 - 9:21 AM

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.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 10:25 PM

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.

Score: 0

By mancub

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 5:17 PM

lets all club together and paye for their attorney

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 7:27 PM

Umm... I can think of more worthy causes.

Score: 0

By cooldude7273

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 4:49 PM

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

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 8:15 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC Rat

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 3:25 PM

"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

Score: 0

By Ishnigarrab

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 4:22 PM

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

Score: 0

By tmaioli

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 2:29 PM

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/arti...9/1618214.shtml?tid=133

Score: 0

By MWPatterson

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 1:33 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 2:22 PM

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.

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 9:43 AM

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 ****in 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 bulls***. 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!

Score: 0

By Ishnigarrab

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 8:29 AM

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???

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 8:55 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Ishnigarrab

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 10:41 AM

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...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 11:42 AM

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

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 2:24 PM

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

Score: 0

By iamtux

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 8:28 AM

...those bas****s.

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 4:01 AM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 9:04 AM

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.

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 12:15 PM

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.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 12:47 PM

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.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 2:14 AM

I thought everyone might appreciate this:

http://news.yahoo.com/co...W04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

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

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 9:44 AM

Stink juice, har har har!

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 3:54 AM

lol good one

Score: 0

By UnIrish

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 12:35 AM

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 s***. 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.

Score: 0

By athome

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 9:57 AM

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

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 10:03 AM

Nicely done.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 9:10 AM

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

Score: 0

By athome

posted Nov 7, 2005 - 7:50 AM

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

Score: 0

By cooldude7273

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 4:54 PM

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

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 7:41 PM

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.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 9:34 AM

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.

Score: 0

By cooldude7273

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 4:55 PM

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

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 7:35 PM

You've never been to Alabama have you?

...I'm dead serious...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 4, 2005 - 8:34 AM

Ouch.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 7:18 PM

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.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 12:52 AM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 9:21 AM

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*

Score: 0

By UnIrish

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 9:28 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 4, 2005 - 8:45 AM

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. ;)

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 10:14 PM

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.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 9:38 PM

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.

Score: 0

By UnIrish

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 9:55 PM

I feel like being an a****** 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

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Nov 4, 2005 - 12:37 AM

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.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 10:03 PM

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.

Score: 0

By UnIrish

posted Nov 4, 2005 - 12:03 AM

<- 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.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Nov 4, 2005 - 9:26 AM

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.

Score: 0

By UnIrish

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 9:59 PM

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.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 9:59 PM

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.

Score: 0

By UnIrish

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 10:01 PM

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 bulls***. 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.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 10:04 PM

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

Score: 0

By cooldude7273

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 4:56 PM

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.

Score: 0

By UnIrish

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 1:36 AM

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.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 2:00 AM

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

LOL. I like that quote.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 9:21 AM

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.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 9:04 PM

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.

Score: 0

By UnIrish

edited Nov 3, 2005 - 1:45 AM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 9:19 AM

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. :)

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 9:01 PM

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.

Score: 0

By BIL

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 12:16 AM

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.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Nov 2, 2005 - 11:05 PM

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.

Score: 0

By improvelence

posted Nov 2, 2005 - 10:53 PM

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.

Score: 0

By jj_lame

edited Nov 2, 2005 - 9:58 PM

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

Score: 0

By fpo703

posted Nov 2, 2005 - 8:19 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Nov 2, 2005 - 8:45 PM

They got in trouble for uploading them.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Nov 2, 2005 - 8:21 PM

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

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Nov 2, 2005 - 8:46 PM

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

LOL

Score: 0

By iamtux

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 8:37 AM

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.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Nov 2, 2005 - 8:16 PM

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).

Score: 0

By bleh427

posted Nov 2, 2005 - 11:00 PM

Yeah, the 67 year old man must have intentionally distributed the movie to Libya... ok..

Score: 0

By monocularjack

posted Nov 2, 2005 - 7:30 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 2, 2005 - 7:36 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 9:53 AM

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 bas**** 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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 3, 2005 - 10:41 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Chip1035

posted Nov 2, 2005 - 5:47 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 2, 2005 - 6:26 PM

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...

Score: 0

By cypriss

edited Nov 2, 2005 - 5:41 PM

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

Score: 0

By tmaioli

posted Nov 4, 2005 - 8:24 AM

Agreed!

Score: 0

By UTAKER

edited Nov 2, 2005 - 5:29 PM

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

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 2, 2005 - 5:34 PM

"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 s*** 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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

ed