Slashdot Mirror
Mothers Taking the Fight to the RIAA
An anonymous reader writes "p2pnet is reporting that two more single mothers are refusing to be victimized by the RIAA. Patricia Santagelo was one of the first to stand up and fight the lawsuits, which some say resemble protection racket schemes. Now Dawnell Leadbetter of Seattle and Tanya Andersen of Oregon have decided to follow suit and stand up against the recording industry behemoth. From the article: 'Don't let your fear of these massive companies allow you to deny your belief in your own innocence. Paying these settlements is an admission of guilt. If you're not guilty of violating the law, don't pay.'"
If you steal music, via internet or at the store, you're still stealing.
Repeat after me, COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT IS NOT STEALING. It is in a legally separate category. Copy right infringment is sometimes against the law, but it is never stealing.
IT IS NOT STEALING. When will you people get this through your thick skulls and stop believing the propaganda? Copyright infringement is a crime, but it is NOT theft. If it was theft, they wouldn't have to invent a whole new category to call it. To steal something, you have to gain what another person loses - you steal a car, someone loses a car and you gain a car. Copyright infringement is NOT stealing. You can tell, because due to the lobbying of these assholes the penalties for copyright infringement are WORSE than the penalties for genuine stealing.
Excuse me? I can't tell you to RTFA, because you are quoting the article, but this is just totally out of context.
Full paragraph:
I have always been against music downloading. In fact, I have been a member of BMG's music club for quite some time and I purchase my music either from there or from Target. When I first got my computer set up almost three years ago, I had a friend set it up for me since I did not know how to do it. She had put Kaaza Lite on there and told me what it was. I never used it and had no interest in doing so. I deleted it since I had no use for it. Even though I deleted it correctly, as is recommended by Microsoft, Mr. Eilers has told me it can hide out in my system and play without me knowing about it. I have done a total check of my computer and it is no where on there.
I don't know if you're trying to make a point or not, but you completely ignored everything Tanya Andersen said in that paragraph.
If you're reading this, stop it.
Nice job of selective quoting.,,
She tried to delete it and her computer says it's deleted. It can't be her fault if it's still used to share music.
"...She had put Kaaza Lite on there and told me what it was. I never used it and had no interest in doing so. I deleted it since I had no use for it. Even though I deleted it correctly, as is recommended by Microsoft, Mr. Eilers has told me it can hide out in my system and play without me knowing about it. I have done a total check of my computer and it is no where on there."
Which is why you can get a $20-million settlement for spilling your hot coffee in your lap while driving
It's nice to see that we have people looking into the facts of things before flinging accusations around!
Firstly, to clear up the facts, she was not driving, she was a passenger. The car was stopped at the time. Secondly, she did not receive $20 million, she received $640,000. $160,000 for medical expenses / pain and suffering / etc. (reduced from $200,000 due to her being partially at fault), and $480,000 in punitive damages (reduced from $2.7 million). She originally asked for $20,000, the cost of her treatment, and only resorted to a lawsuit when McDonalds refused that.
Now, McDonalds sold their coffee far hotter than is generally accepted. How hot? 180-190 degrees F. This, IIRC, is about 30 degrees hotter than it is usually served at, and is hot enough to cause THIRD-DEGREE burns in as little as two seconds. If you don't know, third-degree burns result in PERMANENT disfigurement, and require A LOT of medial treatment. Her doctor said that it was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen. Consumers were unaware that this drink could pose such a serious threat. A study was performed, and no restaurant in area was higher than 20 degrees less than McDonalds served it at.
There's more - in 10 years, McDonalds had reports of over 700 people getting injured similarly, but did nothing. To make things worse, McDonalds even ADMITTED that its coffee was too hot to be fit for consumption when sold because of the burns it could cause.
This case is constantly thrown around as being an example of frivolity since nobody actually bothers to look into the details. People who actually do the research typically view it as a very fair ruling.