Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

BearShare Settles with RIAA for $30m

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

May 5, 2006, 2:46 PM

Free Peers, the company that owned and operated the BearShare network, has agreed to pay $30 million to the Recording Industry Association of America to avoid a copyright infringement lawsuit, court documents indicated Thursday.

Free Peers has also agreed to disband and promised to not operate any unlicensed music download services.

The company was one of seven that received letters last year from the record industry demanding their immediate shutdown. i2Hub and WinMX have since complied, however Warez P2P, Limewire, eDonkey and Soulseek have not.

As part of the settlement, Free Peers would also sell its technology, domain name and user data to iMesh, a legal P2P service. iMesh last year agreed to a $4.1 settlement and relaunched as a licensed P2P operation. Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.

"iMesh is committed to transitioning the compelling experience of P2P to an authorized marketplace," iMesh Executive Chairman Robert Summer said in a statement. "Our strategy includes expansion through acquisition and the purchase of assets."

The payment is the second largest by a P2P firm after Grokster, which last year agreed to pay $50 million to Hollywood film studios in order to settle its copyright infringement case.

The RIAA applauded the decision, saying the Grokster case gave it the leverage needed to force a settlement with Free Peers. The group said the Supreme Court's ruling that P2P networks could be held liable for their users' actions was transforming the digital music marketplace.

Add a Comment (110 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 Uknow

edited Jul 6, 2006 - 5:46 PM

I agree with all of you. Pirating is not going hurt RIAA. Pirating only fuels the fire. Not buying from them will hurt because they will spend money on records with no sales. Therefore, they would lower the prices. I would love to starve the companies because we are reason they are in business. They look at us as if we did not have anything to do with their success. It is alright for companies to cheat us with over priced cds but it is against the law if we do the same. The government is for the big businesses because they get a large amount of taxes from them. The government is all about money. It has so many laws against the poor man. The rich man always gets his way. Money talks and bulls**t walks. I purchased a cd 2 weeks ago and I only like 3 songs. I spent 12 dollars for a 3 songs. That is a rip off. I got screwed. I can not sue the Riaa for their rip off cds. I work hard for my money to give it away. They are rich. They will never hurt for money. They live in million dollar homes while I live in a 30 thousand dollar home that is not paid off. We as people need to get the government to work for us , not against us. I know we as people break rules, but the government is not God. They are breaking rules now by over prices gas. I really think there is not a shortage in oil. Bush wants us to think that. He owns oil. This is helping him make money before he steps down from being President. Wait and see what happens to gas prices when he is not President. Sorry for going to far. I am very upset with the government. Its all about how much money they can make. Money is root of all evil. People get greedy by hurting others. Thats the way this world operates. We need to face this issue. Money makes the world go around.

Score: 0

By tubaman

edited May 8, 2006 - 5:53 PM

I also pose a question to anyone who wants to answer: When was the last time you bought a CD that you thought was worth the $12-18 it cost? When was the last time you left the theatre thinking, "Wow, that movie was definitely worth my two hours and $10."

For me it's been a long, long time for either of those, and I think that is one of the main reasons CD sales and Theatre sales are down. No good movies and no good music makes people not want either.

Score: 0

By joesnow

posted May 9, 2006 - 1:00 AM

amen brutha ;-p

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 8, 2006 - 6:28 PM

Last time went to the movies, I spent ~$30 on myself, my wife, and my kids to see Finding Nemo.

The kids absolutely loved it. My wife and I sn*****ed once or twice. (okay, we're not allowed to say sn*****ed? WTH?? Little overboard, don'tcha think? Allright, I scrackered. How's that? I sgooked? No? Perhaps I spic'd... Oh fine...We chuckled. *sigh* Not the same, but I suppose it will have to do.) If anyone was offended by that....up yours. ;) Try not to take everything so personally.

All in all, I think it was worth it. Of course, if some idiot had been yakking on a celly, making "other" noises, had the theater been disgusting...etc...

It's a crap-shoot I haven't been all to interested in playing lately.

As far as music is concerned....heh... AllofMP3 is my friend. I've spent about $80 there since I joined. (That's roughly $80 more than I'd have spent on music) Of course, a lot of that is due to Pandora. The damnable service has also forced (Yes, forced, I tell you..at gunpoint) to by several used CDs from Amazon. (about ~$40 worth)

I heven't spend this much on music since the 80s. And I'd really rather forget the 80's....

Score: 0

By dwaterman

edited May 8, 2006 - 6:59 PM

I agree with you completely. The last cd that I bought that I thought was well worth the money I paid was the Foo Fighters latest... double cd on sale for $10, great music. I can't remember the last movie though... the problem with posing that question in this type of conversation is that you will probably get assaulted by someone who thinks that you are condoning piracy. It is a good point for those who will read long enough to get your message.

Score: 0

By joesnow

edited May 8, 2006 - 4:07 PM

after reading all the comments I've come to the conclusion that rijp's comments are nothing but a load of exagerated, over-inflated, ill-equiped, uninformed pile of information that does nothing but make verbose attempts to insult those who disagree with him/her.

And then PC_Tool is one of the few who actually read the entire article before commenting ;-p

as for the riaa/mpaa/psycho/nuts, they've convinced everyone i hang around to not buy their music anymore. People I know who'd never download before, now download more music than their harddrives can handle.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 8, 2006 - 4:21 PM

Which is *not* something I condone or appreciate.

If they don't like RIAA, buy from labels not associated with them. Pirating music is *not* civil disobediance, it's stupid. It's not going to get the laws changed, it's simply going to make them stronger.

Don't feed the Beast, starve it.

Don't give them more ammunition. By pirating, your friends are playing right into their new business model. Not exactly a brilliant move on their part.

RIAA sucks, but pirates feed them. Get rid of the pirating, and what's left for them to wail on about?

Thanks for the compliment, but don't use it to endorse something I despise.

Thanks.

Score: 0

By joesnow

posted May 9, 2006 - 12:58 AM

nah not endorsing, just pointing out ;-p

Score: 0

By The-One

posted May 8, 2006 - 8:32 PM

Dude,
Stop calling peole that disagree with you idiots, it lessesn what you say, especially when those that disagree are smarter than you :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 8, 2006 - 10:51 PM

Please.

Explain who I called an idiot....that isn't.

Pirates? Give me a break. If they had any clue as to what they were *really* doing, they'd stop in a heart-beat.

Want to give the RIAA more statistics to hold up it's arguments and re-inforce their DRM schemes? Want to give the tech industry even more reason to lock everything down?

Go ahead. Just don't go proclaiming yourself a freedom-fighter. You're not. You're an idiot.

*gasp*

[britney]Oops, I did it again. [/britney]

There is *no* excuse, no ethical ambiguity, no moral dilemma. It's wrong, it could cost you a fortune, and it strengthens the very industry you're acting against.

Give me one...just one good reason why it's okay to pirate. Heh...

This oughta be good...

Score: 0

By The-One

edited May 9, 2006 - 6:52 PM

Isn't it funny how we have more laws for the MUSIC industry, then we do for gas regulation? Hmmm, coincidence?

My definition of a pirate is someone who profits from someone else's work (Bear Share falls in this caterogy, so do the numerous Chinese vendors who cost the RIAA far more then Bear Share did last year). Your definition may be different, and I respect that, I think its not correct. If I felt as you do, I would NEVER check out a book at a library...period.

Score: 0

By Habenaro

posted May 9, 2006 - 8:52 AM

While there is "no" excuse, and you are very correct that it is wrong to act in this way, you have to look at society as well as the companies that we deal with every day. Are these companies ethical? Please, look at Enron, Worldcom, Tyco ... Look at the Bush Administration .... and you want to preach how un-ethical it is to download songs without buying them?

Is Piracy ok? No.
Is stealing ok? No.

Am I a freedom fighter? Sigh ... there really is no freedom in the US anymore. The more we try to claim we are free, the more rules and regulations that are put on people in general. One of the biggest reasons the RIAA / MPAA are squealing so loudly is that they can actually measure how much money (fantasize if you will) they "would have" made if they could have dinged you for those 2 downloads you made.

This has been going on for decades, ever since Music has been recordable by the general public there has been music sharing going on. The Record companies just haven't been able to tangibly measure how much of this was really happening. With todays technology they can actually see and measure how much of it goes on (on the internet). So now they can really see how much more ... not how much they are losing ... but how much more money they can put in "Their" pockets. "OMG .. we're losing 300 billion to d/l's!!!" sigh, they do not however tell you that they are still making roughly the same amount that they've been making all along! They don't want you to know they make over a mil a year + bonuses on top of that ... they don't want you to know because then you wouldn't feel sorry for them now would you? No it doesn't make it any more right or wrong either. Most the artists do NOT see this (the money the record companies make) either, why do you think that most the artists really aren't in on this?? In fact there are Canadian artist that are actually against this ... interesting eh? There are more than just Canadian artists against this ...

Again, I'm not for Piracy or for stealing, just pointing out the reality of it all.

While I agree that programs made specifically for copying / sharing your music and illegal files should be banned, but that's no reason to punish those who use other sharing programs legitimately.

What the RIAA / MPAA people are going to do in all reality is to piss off their customers ... well now that's good marketing now isn't it? It's not like the record companies are going broke though. They live way better than you or I do I'm sure. What the RIAA / MPAA and several other US companies are striving for is to make the US a totalitarian country. You don't and won't be able to do anything unless they say it's ok. Oh boy, yeah, I'm all for that one ...

We the public have the power to either approve or deny the introduction of the "DRM" chip but the public doesn't get it usually ... what I hear from the General public is this "we can't do it" ... Bullcrap, but we need to organize. We are NOT at the mercy of these companies, WE ... WE ARE their paycheck and when you show them that this is the fact, it is YOU that control them .. not them that control you. Not that this will ever happen as my faith in the general public isn't very high as they are mainly just a bunch of sheep ... sigh, kinda sad isn't it??? That's why gas is now 3 bucks a gallon and we're takin it.

Another reason they say that "CD" sales are "Down" is that with this technology we have, people have determined that they can make their own "CD" with only the songs they want on it instead of buying a $12-20 CD that only has one song they want on it .. or maybe 2 .. rather they want to "compile" their own "Mix" of a CD and then buy that.

Anyway, enough of my rambling, I don't agree with priating or stealing, but you do need to look at the reality of it all. Music sharing is NOT going to stop, it's been shared for decades, how do you think artists get known?

Peace out ...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 9, 2006 - 9:42 AM

"you have to look at society as well as the companies that we deal with every day"

Nice.

A relativist.

No, we don't have to look at companies or society. WE know what is right and what is wrong. It doesn't change, no matter how accepting society becomes, or what some Corporation tries to tell you.

Just because a copr is unethical, or society in general is unethical does *not* give make it "OK" for anyone else. Morals and ethics don't change with the times.

"The more we try to claim we are free, the more rules and regulations that are put on people in general."

Did you mean break the rules and regulations? The more irresponsible we are with our freedoms, the more restricted those freedoms become. You abuse it, they take it away.

The record companies are in business to make money. Does this suprise *anyone*? Does that make it right to pirate their stuff? Does it alleviate *any* of the ethical quandries?

Yes, I disagree with bringing down P2P networks. I use one daily that, if brought down, would make my job quite a bit more frustrating.

We do have the power to change it all. The problem is, many people think that power lies in pirating. It doesn't. That feeds them. Not buying music from any label asssociated with RIAA, or only buying such music from a "used" cd store or service, might. (Don't feed the beast, starve it.)

"Music sharing is NOT going to stop, it's been shared for decades, how do you think artists get known? "

It needs to. RIAA will continue to lock it down until it does. How do artists get known?

How did the BNL's get known? Heh....their label paid the radio stations gads of money to play their music. They admitted it themselves. Before that can change, the industry needs to change.

Score: 0

By Habenaro

posted May 9, 2006 - 4:07 PM

Hey, leave my relatives out of this! =)

I never said that it made it "ok". I was just pointing out that even our supposed companies don't live up to ethical standards.

"Did you mean break the rules and regulations? The more irresponsible we are with our freedoms, the more restricted those freedoms become. You abuse it, they take it away. "

When you say "you abuse it, they take it away" I am going to assume that you mean the "they" as in the Government. Why does the government make rules? Because "we" (the YOU in this case) decided we needed a law to "enforce" a certain behavior. The point is, we tell the government what to do here in the US ... at least that is the way it's supposed to work, although the greater American public just lets the government tell them what to do. The more people we have in the US the more "restricted" they are going to become. though you get a funky round about loop-hole in the process ... Example: it's not ok to pray in school, but it's ok to burn the flag because he/she is just expressing themself. Ok, so it's ok for any other religion to do whatever in school, but not for a christian ... hmm, kinda messed up eh? But that's how our "restricted" system works, kinda messed up. I just picked that expample because it was a simple one.

What company (for profit) isn't in the business for the money? Do I blame them? No, it's a highly profitable business. As I stated throughout my last post, I'm not for pirating or stealing. Should it alleviate any ethical boundaries, nope.

I disagree with you that many people think that power lies in pirating. I think that many people just feel stranded or isolated and that is how they "retalliate" against the system. Statistically, there aren't as many people pirating as the RIAA would have you think. They make it out like everyone in the entire US is downloading double their share of everything ... yeah right. I don't think they were brought up correctly to think of "legal" ways to solve things. The government, heck, society and the television train us that it's futile to resist big companies and the government. This is not entirely true, but television, radio and movies would have you think that way.

Not buying anything from a particular label is definitely the way to go, I suggest that we do that, I know I do it now. I also do not buy from WalMart even though they are cheaper than most place around. The reason I don't is because they are deteriorating our own economy while laughing at us all the way to the bank. I'm suprised that the whole of the US goes along with this idea, but it is my assumption that they really don't know, or they don't realize that if you stop buying from them, they will change their ways or go out of business. In effect, the US general society is divided and does not think as one and that's why we can't get a handle on this stuff.

Score: 0

By midfingr

posted May 7, 2006 - 12:01 PM

Personally, I don't use P2P as it's a security risk, a waste of time, and I'd rather purchase a disc. However, there is a group of musicians in Canada that feel this approach (law suits) is not in their best interest, nor music fans for that matter. Their website http://www.musiccreators.ca/

Furthermore, a study quietly release by the CIAA, reveals contradictions as to what was believed to be the case with P2P users. There's a breakdown and commentary here: http://michaelgeist.ca/c.../id,1168/Itemid,85/nsub,/

Lastly, a study commissioned by the RIAA can be found here http://www.p2pnet.net/ze...leSharing_March2004.pdf
- here's a blurb: 'Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically
indistinguishable from zero'

Something to think about when trying to make sense of this mess.

Score: 0

By Habenaro

posted May 8, 2006 - 8:53 AM

Thanks for the information, I think that Rjip should read it before he starts bashing other people ... sigh ...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 8, 2006 - 10:43 AM

Well, then he wouldn't be rijp, and we'd all sorely miss him. ;P

Score: 0

By halenthal

edited May 6, 2006 - 12:02 AM

Wonder how much of that $30 million from Bearshare and the 4.1 million from Imesh and the $50 million from Grokster actually went to those poor starving artists that lost all that money due to the P2P networks?

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted May 10, 2006 - 8:18 AM

so has anyone here seen the episode of southpark where the kids make their own band and pirate music to see what they should sound like? its good pretty damn funny...

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted May 7, 2006 - 9:21 PM

If I understand it correct, the artist only get paid from concert and albums that got sold. And other mechandizes. For these fee, they should get none.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted May 7, 2006 - 8:20 AM

Go to the PUBLIC Library. You can rent FREE books, magazines, newspapers, CDs and DVDs. Admission is FREE too. Borrow and burn until Hell freezes over.

The big CORPORATE chain stores will buy your USED CDs and DVDs! They will be resold to customers, not willing to pay full price, for the product. Retailers order fewer replacements from those RIAA/MPAA member companies. Their sales go down. These morons go after the little people instead of multi-million dollar companies who steal a big chunk of their business.

We aren't taliking about the casual sales of copyrighted materials at a flea market or garage sales any more. A big difference...

Score: 0

By iced

edited May 6, 2006 - 11:49 AM

It's my belief that any cultural material should be allowed online for the public after the creators have built several golden houses and only if the leechers make below $22,000 annual income. It's been said over and over that the victims are poor. It's the poor people for the most part 'like me' who download music and movies because they would never get to listen or watch otherwise. It's just not fair at all. This illegal-file sharing is contemporary to making it illegal to go to a museum to look at all the paintings you didn't buy. If anything, file sharing programs should have advertisement banners for every music you download just like radio stations advertise the music they play

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 6, 2006 - 11:14 PM

Uh no. Looking at a painting in a museum is a shared experience, and you STILL have to pay admission. With FREE music (stolen) there is no paid revenues for the artists.

Consider, you download music. Studios pay the artists, they promote the music, they advertise. Let's say it cost 20 million to produce. If EVERYONE downloaded, and no one paid for it, where would the revenue come from.. Chew on that.

Next, when you have the lesser people NOT paying for music, then people with money wouldn't waste their funds, when they have a "friend" with access TO the music, there is still theft in there.

Why are you people justifying stolen property? If you create a music score, don't you want to get paid for it? Art, hanging on a wall, some of if it is donated.. because its not something everyone partakes in, yes its there, but when was the last time YOU went to a museum? Chew on that.

Now, you continue to download music, that's not paid for, you aren't generating revenue for the Artist. What you fail to understand, or maybe you can't comprehend, artist aren't getting paid for their music, each time you STEAL a copy.

Yes, they make money from concerts, everyone's favorite reply to this is "well, we listen to music, we like it, and we will go the concert". Bulls***! That is a complete cop out. When was the last time YOU went to a concert at 50-75 bucks a pop? Huh?

Yeah, so you tell me how you can pay artist with money that's not being recouped from CD's that the industry paid to advertise for, and then you can justify downloading music.

Its STEALING. Do you not understand STEALING? What the hell is your problem?

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted May 10, 2006 - 8:28 AM

hey well i dont want to pay admission for museums anymore, so can someone take a video of them walking through the louve and post it to bittorrent?

but really im suprised nobody has tried that already....(and no i really dont want anyone to do that, it was a joke.) and i could just go see the davinci code... (wait i dont want to pay for that either) i think ill just go to sleep

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 8, 2006 - 10:42 AM

"With FREE music (stolen) there is no paid revenues for the artists."

You completely ignore: Merch, Concerts, Television, Commercial, and Movie tie-ins, nad, of course, the fact that once downloaded, listened to and enjoyed, many folks will go out and buy it. (http://arstechnica.com/n...post/20060320-6418.html)

"Why are you people justifying stolen property?"

Never. Just trying to get some folks to realize that while both Stealing and Infringing on Copyrigth are wrong, they are *not* the same, or even comparable.

"artist aren't getting paid for their music, each time you STEAL a copy."

You mean, "...each time you make a copy".

It's not STEALING. Do you understand STEALING?

*grin*

One deprives a person of property, one does not.

Can you tell which is which?

Yes, both are wrong. Can you tell which is *more* wrong? Bonus point if you actually *think* about it before posting. ;)

Score: 0

By iced

edited May 8, 2006 - 3:03 AM

I meant to post my rebuttal sooner but I upgraded to raid 0 raptors drives so I can extract movies I download faster by 230% :) Yea I guess it is stealing when I could have bought two dozen movies for the price of the drives, although I sold my old drives for half the price. Just like when I go to the library and steal a book... oh my.. just like a library is funded so are usenet’s. Yea it's understandable. Everyone who I know that 'buys' a music cd knows how to download it as well. But they buy it because it's a feeling of ownership with a classy cover to embellish it. They can also afford it as well. And even though my belief “it’s not stealing if I wasn’t going buy it”, the fact is I wasn’t going buy it! Music and Movies is not tangible enough to be considered contraband in my eyes, not when so many people will still go to the theaters and still buy cd’s. People who want to show off their DVD or Music collection are going buy the stuff so they have some sort of equity. If I found $20 on a floor of a store I’d take it. But yea it's illegal cos I didn't ask around if anyone lost it. I suppose file sharing is bad, not because it's stealing, but probably because a lot of people lose their jobs or businesses who sell these things. So rijp you are absolutly right in that perspective. I talked to one guy who said p2p drove him out of the music business when he was doing so well. But I swear to god I would never ever buy a music cd or movie dvd when I can't afford to and god bless p2p and usenet for giving me a purpose to live. I would also like to add that even though there is huge job loss in the music industry because of p2p there was probably just as many jobs created for ISP (I bet 50% of people get broadband solely for p2p), manufacturers for computers, burners, media, ipods!), and probably much more). The thieves are still a minority even if there was no laws or RIAA MPAA. And where the hell is the local library for music? I know my local libraries let you take out DVD’s free of charge, so chew on that!

Score: 0

By 9i08

posted May 7, 2006 - 11:05 AM

rijp, 'i' don't give a s*** if it stealing. now how does that make u feel?

Score: 0

By Jose

posted May 7, 2006 - 8:29 AM

look up stealing in a dictionary. it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. when you do those things, you are infringing on a copyright (which is illegal), but you are not stealing.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 6, 2006 - 3:19 PM

nice idea, online advertised radio stations on demand :-)

Score: 0

By Vampmon

posted May 6, 2006 - 8:02 AM

Just so you know, BearShare for a long time now have been offering a Spyware/Bundle free version of: www.bearshare.com/lite

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

edited May 6, 2006 - 5:01 AM

BearShare is still up and running tonight. It only proves once again, that FreePeers had little control over what users download. And some people will continue using their software.

Fewer people use BearShare these days because there hasn't been much fresh music there for some time. Why bother in that case.

P2P services and cigarette merchants are responsible, for the people who use their products. Gun manufacturers and the auto industries are not. Such hypocrisy and double standards are the work of lobbyists who write the their own laws and own those 535 prostitutes called the US Congress. And crooked brainless courts.

Score: 0

By The-One

posted May 6, 2006 - 11:20 AM

I agree with you completely! Money speaks, people don't!

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted May 6, 2006 - 2:08 AM

This may seem like a victory for the RIAA but in reality this does nothing but push the idea under ground. They really will never be able to put a lid on p2p as much as they sue customers. The software will still be out there, it will still be used. There just won't be a primary company backing it and profiting from it. Which I found kind of weird anyway. It will be much the same way dvd copying software like dvdxcopy was put to rest. 10 other programs came out for free and made dvd copying rampant. So point is, before it was swapping cd's with your buddy's now it's going online to do your p2p. Napster went down, then 12 other apps came out. 5 are out of business now there are who knows how many unknowns. Edonkey and kazza are huge, not to mention have open source clones of the primary program. So those networks will never go away. Like I said just the actual companies profiting from them are gone.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted May 6, 2006 - 12:34 AM

There's a few less zombie systems in the world.

Score: 0

By metekamil

posted May 5, 2006 - 9:47 PM

What about MSN Messenger Live! It shares folders P2P. Sue microsoft also and be fair.

Score: 0

By Habenaro

posted May 8, 2006 - 8:15 AM

MS is putting a DRM in that so that will curb your idea on that. You might say they've got that covered, they know every little thing you do on the net whether or not you think they do.

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

posted May 5, 2006 - 7:39 PM

Wow a lot of bas****s suing other bas****s lately.

Maybe they will all just sue each other into oblivion... well i can dream anyway.

Score: 0

By metekamil

posted May 5, 2006 - 9:48 PM

LOL!!!!!

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted May 5, 2006 - 6:05 PM

$4.10 settlement eh? Guess P2P isn't that profitable, unless Betanews meant in millions.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 5, 2006 - 6:38 PM

Only if you take it out of context.. Its in the context of the other "miillions"..

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted May 5, 2006 - 10:31 PM

Yes, but then they go back to saying millions again afterwards.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 7, 2006 - 12:30 AM

So the first sentence, did you manage to miss the part about the $30 million? Its IN context, you need to quit reading the swim suit issue and start reading more papers to improve your reading skills.

Score: 0

By eclipsingdivinity

posted May 5, 2006 - 3:50 PM

Haha, sadly enough I have no complaints about the shut down of Bear Share. Anything spyware bundled is worth going down the tube.

Score: 0

By AntiochMedia

posted May 5, 2006 - 3:37 PM

In theory, if piracy is theft of theoretical money -- taking into account that most movie downloads and mp3 album downloads are not predicated by the desire but inability to purchase the materials --

The RIAA is making a bomb on theoretical money! How is BearShare able to pay this money? Bundled spyware + the sale to iMesh?

Perhaps I'm a bit slow, but I do not see how iMesh, BearShare, and smaller networks are profiting. Am I nieve about the profitability of spyware and P2P advertising, or are there some insane economics that I'm failing to see?

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 5, 2006 - 6:29 PM

How you view piracy as theft of theoretical money? Not only are you slow, but you must be deaf, dumb and stupid.

maybe you don't understand a dictionary definition of piracy:

*: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright*

Therefore, piracy of copyrighted material, whether its theoretical or not, is STEALING! Do you understand that stealing is robbing and its theft by taking? Or do you like when people take your stuff? Maybe I should come over to your house and I will "pirate" your ideas that I can make millions from. You don't see a problem with it, because you don't have anything worthwile to take.

Stealing is a crime. Piracy is stealing. You are taking material that you didn't pay for, and you are making a copy of it. It doesn't matter if you are using it for personal use, it doesn't belong to you. A copy is stealing of property. That property has a value, even if you are too dense to understand the theft of intellectual property. You can't steal, its wrong. Just because you view it as as desire to have something you can't afford, does not allow you to take something that you can't buy properly.

The RIAA are crooks, but using P2P software to share goods that noone has spent money on, isn't right either, you are a crook just as bad as they are. You are stealing property. Get your head out of your ass, and realize what you are doing is just plain wrong! What kind of a half witted moron are you?

Didn't your adopted parents teach you better than that?

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted May 8, 2006 - 12:14 AM

Unauthorized use equals theft huh? The definition you sited doesn't say that, care to put it together for us without insulting someone? Why don't you back up your drivel with some sort of factual information. I'm guessing you won't, but it would be interesting to hear you reply with something other than your usual crap.

Score: 0

By Jose

posted May 7, 2006 - 8:33 AM

*: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright*

Therefore, piracy of copyrighted material, whether its theoretical or not, is STEALING!

your argument is invalid.

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted May 6, 2006 - 2:12 AM

You really are a jerk rijp, why can't you stay on topic and not personally attack people. What does being a Moron have to do with swapping music online? In fact, buying a cd with 1 song on it you enjoy is being a Moron if you ask me. So you paid 12 dollars for one song. I know that is what the RIAA loves to hear.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 6, 2006 - 11:35 PM

Good, you go buy whatever you want. Its my money, I will spend it however I want, Moron.

This is on topic, obviously of they are asking about how P2P software can get revenue, its clear they use it.

I hope the next round of people being sued for this, includes you. It would serve you right.

There is something called "discretion". If you hear a song, and you like it, its at your discretion if you want to by the cd. If you don't like the CD, too bad, you bought it, you can resell it if you want to.. its not 12 dollars for one song. Its to pay for the advertising, the promotion, and the legal paper work to go after dumb a** people like you, for legal lawsuits.

You want to know why a CD costs 12 dollars? Theft. Piracy, stealing.. Retail stores, you know why we pay a dollar for a candy bar, why things inflate every year? Theft, piracy, stealing. You steal, company has to eat it, initially, but it comes back around to EVERYONE, because you won't pay your fair share.

If you don't like it, fine don't buy it. If you don't want to follow the rules and adhere to copyright law, don't buy it. Its real simple. Watch your free TV, and quit buying or wasting your money for 1 song.

If paying for something means being lawful, then yeah, I am a moron, but I would rather be a legal moron than a clueless moron like you, and PC_Tool. I now know what group I am dealing with, a bunch of thugs and stealers. No wonder you like Google.. You all fit each other perfectly.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 5, 2006 - 10:34 PM

"Therefore, piracy of copyrighted material, whether its theoretical or not, is STEALING! "

Get a CLUE!

Piracy is not THEFT.

Piracy is not STEALING.

Stop falling for their SENSATIONALIST PROPAGANDA.

Piracy is Copyright Infringement. It deprives no-one of property or posession, and therefore cannot be classified as stealing.

Read the laws. Read the lawsuits. It is *never* referred to as theft or stealing. You really need to stop falling for their "Piracy is Stealing" ad campaign. It's BS. You of all people should know that.

I do not condone piracy, nor do I condone stealing, but I am *well* aware that the latter is *far* worse than the former.

It also helps if you actually read the post you are replying to. He never once said he downloaded anything. Gotta stop jumping down people's throats for things you pretend they did, man.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 6, 2006 - 11:28 PM

WTF dude? OK, you aren't justifying that take property, and then using it, you dont' call that theft? Read the laws? WTF. You read the damn law. Piracy is punishable by 10,000 fine and Prison, sometimes 5 years, are you telling me that the studios are suing because they just want to take you to court for no reason? Piracy *IS* stealing, this is amazing, I thought you were a smart guy.

You are just like the rest of the heathens. I can't believe, you think that its "OK" to take something and use it, and the artist don't get paid for it.

*Stop falling for their SENSATIONALIST PROPAGANDA.*

GET the **** Outta here! You develop a song. You want to promote? How are you going to do that? You think its free? You want the song played over the radio, maybe you don't have a future in music, but that doesnt' mean other artists have to suffer because your stupidity. I cannot believe you think that Piracy is mere hype.

Piracy is the act of STEALING, taking property, its threft.

How do you figure it deprives no one of property? What's a cd.. that's isn't property, dumb ass? Possession, copyright is a possession of RIAA, its their possession, and they artist is under contract. read the damn label, you AGREE to contract.. oh wait, you are stealing so you can't see that legal disclaimer. I hope you don't develop shareware, because you won't get a damn dime.

Copyright is a legal term to stipulate that is under the protection of that party. They can do WHATEVER they want with it. They FORBID you to copy it. So, therefore since its forbidden to copy, sell or distribute stolen property, you are breaking the law!

You jusitify stealing like these other bafoons in here? It *IS* referred to as STEALING you idiot, there are laws, the CD, the DVD, clearly states "Illegal duplication in whole or in part of this material is STRICTLY prohibited". Since its copyrighted material, you dont' have a legal standing, that's why they sue people like you to download it. Get a clue dude.

Piracy is theft of intellectual property. IT is stealing, and you are promoting theft. Each time you download something you are party to a crime. Just because they don't come to your house, and arrest you or found you to fine you for it . . . . yet . . . . doesn't make it legal.

Its not propaganda. Its stealing of property and possession.

They didnt' have to specifically state they downloaded to realize its clear they condone this.

Call up a lawyer. Ask them what the legal standing is on Piracy, because evidently you are reading Piracy for dummies, and you think you have it figured out.

It is illegal. Piracy, stealing software, music, lyrics legally also is stealing, because an artist wrote the music, and if they didn't give you right to plagarize, you can't type the lyrics, copy the lyrics, or re-distribute the lyrics.

That coffee you drink, is it laced with some pcp or something, because you are definately hype on some drug, its make you stupid. Piracy is a crime. Stealing is a crime. You can't get something for nothing, it cost money, and its LEGALLY owned by another party, for which you have ZERO rights to.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 8, 2006 - 10:21 AM

So now you judge a crime by the punishment applied?

Is copying a track worse than stealing the CD?

You don't get the difference, do you?

When one steals a CD, they are taking an actual peice of property, and depriving someone else of that very same property.

When a track is copied, the owner loses nothing. There is no theft of property, there is only an act of Copyright Infringement.

I find it highly amusing that the lesser of the two evils carries a far greater punishment.

I could lift the entire contents of a Music store, depriving the owner of income, costing him (or his insurance comapny) thousands, possibly even ruining his business completely. And got o prison for a year....if even that.

I could copy all of his music and be fined $10000 for each song, and end up spending the rest of my life in prison. At what loss to him? How does the punishment fit the crime?

How are they even comparable???

Yes, they are both illegal.. Duh?

No, I am *not* promoting either. Lord only knows where you get that idea.

I suppose I could go on, but I'm guessing it's pointless. You've fallen for the "Piracy is stealing" bit hook, line, and sinker.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

edited May 7, 2006 - 12:25 PM

You are right rip, stealing is a crime and so is piracy, but piracy is not stealing. It is very clear that you want it to be, but by definition it is not. The fact that you lash out and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of piracy, drug use among other things is a testament to your ignorance.

Piracy in this case is the act of copying... property is copied, but not removed. In order for it for it to be considered theft the owner must be deprived of its use and that doesn't happen when something is copied. I know, I know... now that I have tried to clarify this I must be a piracy advocate.

The accusation that by not considering piracy theft one doesn't support the artist is not a strong one. The artist makes a bulk of their money by touring and selling merchandise. Logically speaking piracy potentially hurts the record company more than it hurts the artist because the artist makes only 10-15 percent from record sales verses 85-90 percent from ticket sales while touring. Any circulation of the music promotes the touring musician translating into tickets sales... the big moneymaker for the artist.

----------------------------------------
"Piracy is the act of STEALING, taking property, its threft."
----------------------------------------

A cd is property and when you take it from the store without paying for it you have deprived the owner of revenue (theft). When you copy it the original is still there to be sold. How can you determine who would have potentially bought a cd? I'll answer... you can't. Every illegal copy can't automatically be considered lost income. Yes, it is wrong to posses it but it is an infringement not a theft.

----------------------------------------
"Copyright is a legal term to stipulate that is under the protection of that party. They can do WHATEVER they want with it. They FORBID you to copy it. So, therefore since its forbidden to copy, sell or distribute stolen property, you are breaking the law!"
----------------------------------------

You are correct.

----------------------------------------
"Piracy is theft of intellectual property."
----------------------------------------

Wrong, piracy is the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright. How does one steal intellect? You can't remove it, you can only copy it... infringe upon it.

Score: 0

By Jose

posted May 7, 2006 - 8:35 AM

if the RIAA told you piracy was murder, would you believe that too?

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted May 8, 2006 - 12:16 AM

He cannot comprehend that the two crimes are different...

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 7, 2006 - 12:03 AM

rijp

your ignorance is outstanding

i think it's apperent, quite a few of your fellow americans don't agree with you.
maybe it's time to pull your head out of your a$$ for a moment and understand others point of view.
all laws are not just.
you may not believe that, but it's true.
some politicians are actually corrupt, and have investments in or accept money from companies, and pass laws they propose.
large coprorations also use large amounts of money in the courts to pass judgements in their favor
you seem so hellbent on fighting a battle for the rich recording companies, makes me wonder if you work for the riaa, or maybe you're a lawyer
anyway, point being, you don't need to leave a three page post criticizing a persicuting other readers
WE KNOW YOUR OPINION ALREADY!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 8, 2006 - 10:53 PM

Youdo.

The site gets new users every day.

Are you saying he's not allowed to give his opinion just because he feels strongly and it does not align with yours?

You got no right to tell anyone what they can and cannot do here unless you work for BetaNews, Inc.

...didn't think so.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 5, 2006 - 3:51 PM

i agree,
i don't see why these p2p should pay money to the riaa, after all, they are conceeding.
what's the money for?
just to pay the a$$hole$ that keep sueing their fellow americans.
seems like stabbing yourself in the foot

Score: 0

By rijp

edited May 5, 2006 - 6:34 PM

I know why you don't see why they should have to pay, because you don't own a single song, do you?

you only view this as buying a Cd, and a friend lets you borrow theirs to make a copy of. You need to buy your own copy, because you are stealing property that doesn't belong to you. Sure, you aren't profiting from it, and somehow that makes it "OK" to use without paying for it.

You sneak into a movie theater without paying too don't you? You just slip in the back door to a club so you don't have to pay cover?

Its ok, they are small time, they won't "notice" a few bucks. So everyone else that paid, what were they not on the cool list? Its not cool to steal, you jack ass.

Do you think if your parents had to rely on income from a movie theater, and every person just "sneaked" a peek, where would you be? Homeless, that's where.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

edited May 6, 2006 - 1:26 PM

When you copy a cd you are not stealing property, you are making a copy of it. Yes rijp, it is wrong, but by definition IT IS NOT STEALING. To steal you have to remove real property, copying it does not make it unavailible therefore it has not be stolen. The record companies will produce the amount of cds they expect to sell. Even when copied the orignal is left untouched (duh) and nothing has been made unavailble for sale. That is not theft and it is silly for the record companies to think that they could determine the number of times a cd has been copied and how many of those copies prevented sales. I agree that filing lawsuits against your customers is a good practice and will certainly help you in the long run.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 6, 2006 - 11:42 PM

So, where does the statement "copyright" come into play? I suppose you think its ok for a copyright to apply so that they can't use it. You don't understand copyright.

It *IS* stealing. Call a lawyer, because its clear you aren't one. They will tell you, Piracy is a type of theft, it falls under stealing. You want to justify stealing of things you want for fREE, of course you aren't going to agree.

Real Property? It is real property, its copyrighted. Its owned by a company, they have legal right to do with as they please, you don't want to adhere to their legal right, fine, quit buying CD's, quit using DVD's, quit watching HBO recorded on DVR.

Just because they make the devices to steal music and movies, doesn't mean its legal to do so. If you also read those, which if you don't bother to read the CD legal stuff, you won't read these other, it clearly states, not to be used in the contribution, sale, or redistribution of illegal software or music. ITs in the back of EVERY manual on DVR, CD players, DVD players.. its meant to copy NON-copyrighted material.

Copying doesn't make it unavailable so by your arguement, if I copy money, why isn't that legal? Its not unavailable.. it would undermine the TRUST in legal tender and makes money useless, which is exactly what will happen, if they don't stop piracy and theft of music and software. You have to pay for a license, why do you think they go to all the trouble to get you agree to the statement whenever you install software? That's what its there for.. you agree that by using this product, you agree its not stolen, hence copied, that you will not redistribute or copy it.. READ!

Don't just click through and say "OK" without reading what you are doing.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted May 10, 2006 - 11:21 AM

so if i go into the louve and paint an exact duplicate of the mona lisa, then put it in my house to look at, thats stealing? cause thats about what it is like. and you are correct piracy is stealing, but ip infringement isnt really piracy, the riaa and mpaa and all other propaganda machines have just adapted that word because it sounds better. pirates originally boarded other peoples ships and stole all their stuff, but when you *infringe* on someones ip then they still have their songs and movies, just i would have a duplicate. now thats not to say that i think ip infringement is ok, its not but it isnt piracy and it isnt stealing.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

edited May 7, 2006 - 1:41 PM

I have a very good understanding of what copyright means, you clearly do not.

---------------------------------
"Real Property? It is real property, its copyrighted. Its owned by a company, they have legal right to do with as they please, you don't want to adhere to their legal right, fine, quit buying CD's, quit using DVD's, quit watching HBO recorded on DVR."
---------------------------------

It is intellectual property and yes it is owned by a company or artist. I have no problem adhering to the terms of the license that I purchased... I am just trying to qualify your statements because they are wrong and that should be made clear for the impressionable here and elsewhere. Fortunately your ad hominem attacks discredit you enough that most people won't hear a word you say anyhow.

Counterfeiting money is illegal, but it not theft... nice try. Oh, by the way I never said copyright infringement was legal... comment on what you read, not based on your cynical arrogance.

Score: 0

By Jose

posted May 7, 2006 - 8:37 AM

no lawyer would ever tell you any such thing, because piracy falls under "copyright infringement", not "theft".

Score: 0

By TC17

posted May 6, 2006 - 2:24 AM

rijp,

Have you ever driven 1mph over the speed limit? If so, you are a criminal and have broken the law.

Please spare the honest abe nonsense.

What about all the companies that steal from us in overpriced software, that we can't return for any reason??? And who stop giving support once you give them your hard earned cash.

Thats far worse because they are taking actual money. Anything else is just imaginary bits that the companies lose NOTHING over. They can't lose money when they never had the money in the first place.

I don't download movies, but its not the big deal the MPAA makes out of it. Most people would buy the movie if they truely liked it, as you get the nice case, and cd liner to go with it.

The RIAA/MPAA are totally ruining file sharing in every form. MANY things are legal on file sharing networks. And they are just ruining it, along with all the lives they are ruining by running around sueing every grandma for everything she has.

The modern day version of the Mafia. Literally. Extorting money from the weak and the poor.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 6, 2006 - 11:56 PM

Oh here we go, the old "breaking the law". Did I say I was an innocent? Hell no. But I don't go around encouring people to speed either. I don't promote people into driving over the speed limit..

And breaking the law implies you are not following the rules. The rules also state, that you can't copy or make copies of software either.

1 mile over the speed limit, I knowingly went over, bad me... I do it all the time. So what the hell does that prove? I didn't steal anything, a CD is property, there is no loss, except that when someone else sees me speed, they think they can speed and now we have a collective and that's why people go over the speed limit, and why cops put out radar guns and they catch us speeding.. so what. They are enforcing the law.

RIAA is enforcing the law, by suing people. When you get bustied for downloading illegal music, I *DARE* you to use this same logic with the judge, ok? Let me know when your court date is, I want to laugh my a** off, when the judge puts you in your place.

companies do not steal from you, loser. ITs overprice, well boo hoo, don't buy it! How about that! Its not a need you absolutely have to have their software, don't use it. I can't charge a million dollars for dos. You want to buy it? That's real smart logic there, mr. wizard. Dont' pay for something you aren't willing to accept the price for.

Find an alternative.

So because in your limited intellect you believe that companies (conspiracty theory on your part) is stealing from you (pausing for laughter), you justify that stealing from OTHER companies is ok, becuase you are spurned? That's great, 2 wrongs doesn't make it right.

You download movies. I download movies. And? I don't call up my friends and neighbors and say "hey, download movies, they are free! And its not stealing, becaause TC17, PC_Tool and cranberry says so!

Bring your flash card, I will be happy to further promote stealing on their behalf!

Yeah, that's good. NOT!

What I do is wrong. I however, don't get on an open discussion and dispute piracy as being some twisted end around theft.

It is stealing. Its property that has been copyrighted, and it belongs to a company or person. Just because you copy it, because technology allows its ease of propagation, doesn't mean that its legal to do so. That's why Sony tried to install a root kit on people's machine, something I think they did intentionally.. to prove a point. Piracy its a real problem in this country and others, because you people don't see a problem with personal use of copyrighted material, how the hell do you figure its not real?

What is real? You can touch it, pick it up? You can USE it? So why isn't it real?

Many things are legal on file sharing networks? OK, and why is that important? They aren't the mafia, the mafia, ironically, also has rules .. you can't steal from them either. The mafia, doesnt' have to be legal about their punishment.. that's why once you cross the mafia, you will *NEVER* do it again.... and why they are so sucessful.

If you don't agree with big company politics, you know what, you can just cease to use their product. If you can't follow the rules, just stop using it.

Score: 0

By Jose

posted May 7, 2006 - 8:39 AM

the police are the only ones legally permitted to enforce the law. the RIAA are NOT enforcing the law, they're protecting their own interests.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 6, 2006 - 10:59 AM

They did not *force* you to buy the software!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are not entitled to ANYTHING!

I'm glad you don't pirate, but don't defend those who do. They are breaking the law. In this day and age, where the consequences are *RIGHT THERE*, they deserve whatever they get.

Yes, copyright law needs reform. Yes, RIAA has *way* too much power. Breaking laws only gives them more ammunition. Simply stop buying thestuff and choose not to pirate it.

Score: 0

By The-One

edited May 5, 2006 - 7:28 PM

Wow, by your argument we should send every illegal alien in the US back, since they are breaking the law.

"When laws are absolute there can be no justice" Words you know nothing about. What about Kennedy drunk driving but being sent home instaed and tested? Anyone breaking the law here?

Look man, go on with this crap if you like. But laws are broken by the very ones making them all the time.

I don't share music, because I believe in supporting the artist, but I don't consider those that trade music, with not profit to themselves, as criminals. If you make a CD and charge someone for it, then yes, you are stealing.

The RIAA is abunch of bas****s with enough money to pay off people to get their way.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 7, 2006 - 12:04 AM

Yes, that's why the term Illegal alien is the term. They aren't breaking any laws, they are just here illegally.. because they don't pay taxes, which if we had the fair tax, where everything had a 25% levy on it, then that would solve the problem.

They don't have a taxable income, they are paid in cash. Drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, politicians.. many have under the cover money.. un taxed.

If everytime you went to the store, and you got paid in net for every second you worked, rather than paying 22 or 30 or whatever %% you pay on taxes, taken out of your check, 25% or 35% or whatever, could be assessed on EVERY purchase. Drug dealers, pimps, illegal aliens, would be paying their fair share. If you can't tax their income, tax what they buy.

They are illegal because they don't have a visa, its expired, and they don't have a status... but they can get a drivers license and get medical care.. so since they aren't being taxed, and legally they don't have a status, if they don't pay their bills and they continue to get free care, who pays for that?

REAL, LEGAL TAX PAYERS. That's who. The money has to come from somewhere.

Each time you don't buy a song, yet keep the song, use the song, and play the song, or copy the song, that money isn't going back to the companies. You scream bloody murder, because you believe they are overzealous, greedy bas****s.. which is in part true, but its all perception. You can't make more than $7.00, so you think you can complain that the rich people have everything you don't.. but I will bet you smoke, you drink, you manage to blow have your income on stupid stuff, and if you saved.. you could have more money instead you blame large corporation for being greedy..

Well they aren't greedy, just SMART with their money, something you can't grasp.

the RIAA gets money because of revenue from the SALE of CD's. How are they supposed to get money from a SALE if NO ONE is buying them?

Score: 0

By Applejacksoph24

edited Oct 11, 2006 - 7:30 PM

I just stumbled upon this post, and I was thinking that in some ways you are all right, but nothing is going to change it..people like free stuff. How many times has any of you gone into a store and purchased something you wouldn't normally, because it was buy one get one free. BTW rijp, you are evil. You know that lousy 7 bucks that people live off of. It goes for rent and bills and trying to survive, I download music and I love it, because it's free. The rich get richer because the poor are buying all the stuff. Those lousy no good 7 dollar an hour nobodies that you condemn. Get real, because it's obvious you aren't awake yet. How dare you.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 6, 2006 - 11:05 AM

"we should send every illegal alien in the US back, since they are breaking the law. "

We should.

"What about Kennedy drunk driving but being sent home instaed and tested? Anyone breaking the law here? "

Yes.

"But laws are broken by the very ones making them all the time. "

And that makes it allright in your little world?

"but I don't consider those that trade music, with not profit to themselves, as criminals."

A law exists that says otherwise. Calling them anything *but* criminals would be stupid.

"If you make a CD and charge someone for it, then yes, you are stealing."

No. You are not. You are infringing on copyright. Learn the difference.

"he RIAA is abunch of bas****s with enough money to pay off people to get their way."

Is there a point to all this, are are you simply showing off your ignorance?

Score: 0

By The Man

edited May 6, 2006 - 4:25 PM

"Tool"

i think you should learn to keep YOUR ignorant comments to yourself. nobody wants to read your mimicking, ignorant questions, and name calling.

get a life, maybe do something instead of figuring out how someone might be depriving you of something.

i download music and i buy it too, sharing isn't hurting anyone, they still get my money for what i enjoy, i work for a living, pay what i owe, probably more than i owe sometimes.

but you keep living in your money hungry materialistic society, maybe one day you'll get your chance to be sued, just for doing something nice for a neighbor.

then again, maybe you'll always be an a$$hole

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 8, 2006 - 9:59 AM

lmao...

Riiiiight. Always nice to hear from the clueless.

Let me know when you actually have something usefull to add, mmmkay?

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 8, 2006 - 11:21 AM

was having a bad day

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 8, 2006 - 12:02 PM

We all do. :) Feeling better today?

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 8, 2006 - 12:22 PM

sure am
thx :-)

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 7, 2006 - 12:11 AM

Tool, it's Mr. PC_Tool to you pal.

Ignorant comments.. no, I think you calling him out, when he is applying his opinion, makes YOU ignorant.

I do all the mimicking and name calling, you pandering imbecile, not him!

He actually keeps a civil tone, while I enjoy mocking people, and challenging every chance I get.

I know I do it, so what? You people make it so damn easy!

PC_tool may (even I call him a few undeserved names) be accertive and opionated, but he DOES warrant some value on here.

He has friends on here, where as I probably don't. But ask me if I give a s***.

And as far as the money hungry materialistic society goes.. this is the USA. Home of the FREE.

Feel FREE to move your lazy, ignorant, punk a** to Iraq or Canada if you so desire, but this country isn't forcing you to live here.

Feel FREE to find a BETTER place to live, you ungratefull jackass.

Maybe he will be an a******, but you are a total moron, but he can change his attitude, but you, I am afraid there is no hope. The difference between genius and stupidity.. Genius has its limits. Guess which category you fall in?

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 7, 2006 - 12:33 AM

lol

yah, maybe the post shoulda been for you

SORRY TOOL

:-)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 8, 2006 - 10:00 AM

No skin off my nose, I tend to ignore those who've proven themselves incapable of thinking for themselves.

Score: 0