RIAA robs student of life-savings

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-06-09 05:38pm

Bullshit Kast you stupid motherfucker.

Kazaa is illegal?
Get to fuck it simply allows efficent transfer of data....what is it the internet at its heart does?
Oh yes! Allow transfer of data....
This kid wasnt even runnning the network you fucking moron, he simply created a search engine!

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-06-09 05:42pm

KAZAA has become a conduit of illegal activity, utterly unpoliced. It fits the RIAA's argument against the kid, too.

Stravo - it's obvious that record sales are declining. Napster and KAZAA virtually eliminated the need to purchase CDs except out of "pity" for the one or two "good artists who deserve my money." Well, the only way you know they deserve it is because you already possess their tracks. And you've already weeded out others by illegal means.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-06-09 05:44pm

Axis Kast wrote:KAZAA has become a conduit of illegal activity, utterly unpoliced. It fits the RIAA's argument against the kid, too.

Jebus H. Frelling Crimbo you stupid fuck...see above about how people abusing what you make does NOT make you liable for it...otherwise the gun makers would all be in a world of shit.

Stravo - it's obvious that record sales are declining. Napster and KAZAA virtually eliminated the need to purchase CDs except out of "pity" for the one or two "good artists who deserve my money." Well, the only way you know they deserve it is because you already possess their tracks. And you've already weeded out others by illegal means.

Bullshit once more....ever heard of RADIO or TELEVISION...let me guess...hearing a song there and deciding its good or not is an illgeal means in your stupid ass world.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-06-09 05:46pm

Axis Kast wrote:KAZAA has become a conduit of illegal activity, utterly unpoliced. It fits the RIAA's argument against the kid, too.

FIRE UP THE KAZAA CANNONS!

CANNONS FULLY CHARGED SIR!

FIRE AWAY!

TARGET LOCATED, REELING IN WITH TRACTOR BEAMS!

(Shep cackles with glee with as hundreds of MP3s flow into his harddrive)

*tip of the hat to Einy for the above convo*

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-06-09 05:49pm

Axis Kast wrote:
See the patent office and read more carefully. Even the most spectacularly important INVENTION has a royalty shelf life of 17 years, while copyright is indefinite. That is an injustice. The term limits on patents are intended to provide incentive for invention while simultaneously restricting the ability of the inventor to hold society hostage for his own profit. Why was the same wisdom not applied to copyright? Do you realize how many movies and songs would be public-domain if there were a 17 year expiry on copyright?
But we?re talking about violation of copyright. NAPSTER and Kazaa are illegal. There?s no legal excuse for downloading free the work of somebody else. You might like it and want to continue. That doesn?t mean it?s right or correct.

You're a fucking moron. Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X provide the exact same functionality: the ability to search a LAN for files. When are the RIAA going to sue Microsoft and Apple? Oh that's right, never, because those two companies can actually afford the legal fees and not be litigated into the ground.
Obviously, the RIAA had a case against this kid. Plenty of websites police their own networks and post terms of service. It wasn?t only his fault ? obviously no single man can police a campus -, but legally, it was his to pay the price.

Light really bends around you, isn't it?
If you were to sue anyone implementing a search algorithm, then you're in for a big deal of work.

What that student did was nothing illegal. Just because he wrote a search tool doesn't make him responsible for the things a search will uncover on their HDs.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-06-09 05:50pm

Axis, what the fuck have you been smoking lately?

Simply put, ChewPlastic.com and KaZaA provide a service to search for any type of file. What the users put online is their decision, not the decision of the aforementioned sites/services.

Simply put, the RIAA is sueing him only because he's an easy target. He has a site that, with the right lawyers, can be construed as providing access to illegal files. He's poor, being a college student. And they know that. And they're taking advantage of it.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-06-09 05:51pm

Axis Kast wrote:But we’re talking about violation of copyright. NAPSTER and Kazaa are illegal. There’s no legal excuse for downloading free the work of somebody else. You might like it and want to continue. That doesn’t mean it’s right or correct.

Napster is illegal (and THAT through a truly cocktarded interpretation of the law). Kazaa is not.

Obviously, the RIAA had a case against this kid. Plenty of websites police their own networks and post terms of service. It wasn’t only his fault – obviously no single man can police a campus -, but legally, it was his to pay the price.

No, they knew that they could effortlessly bankrupt him with legal fees if he fought back, even though they had no legitimate case. This wouldn't be as much of a problem if the US had a loser-pays legal system.

Saurencaerthai · Post by **Saurencaerthai** » 2003-06-09 05:54pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:FUCK THE RIAA

BOYCOTT ALL MUSIC

No, don't boycott all music, dumbfuck, boycott the RIAA. Many musicians are getting raped just as bad by the industry as the the people forced to pay as much as $20 for a single CD or being cruely sued by the RIAA like this case.

The RIAA is really beginning to choke now! They know they aren't going to be able to adapt to the change of convention in the Music industry. All they can do is try to sue as many peeps as they can in a vain effort to stiffle it.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-09 06:07pm

Stravo - it's obvious that record sales are declining. Napster and KAZAA virtually eliminated the need to purchase CDs except out of "pity" for the one or two "good artists who deserve my money." Well, the only way you know they deserve it is because you already possess their tracks. And you've already weeded out others by illegal means.

As it should be. The age of paying $20 for CDs containing one hyped up track and nine crappy or mediocre ones is over. The music industry will fall and all these overhyped pop singers will die with it. Underground bands will continue the way they always have; playing for the love of the music, working at clubs, bars, etc. CD prices will plummet, and the overexposure of media divas will end. Bands will make money off these CDs not by letting the record monoply charge exorbitant prices, but by touring early and often to drive these CDs, cutting down on the amount of untalented studio-made bands. This is a much healthier state of being for the music industry.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-06-09 06:14pm

Axis Kast wrote:Stravo - it's obvious that record sales are declining. Napster and KAZAA virtually eliminated the need to purchase CDs except out of "pity" for the one or two "good artists who deserve my money." Well, the only way you know they deserve it is because you already possess their tracks. And you've already weeded out others by illegal means.

Many studies have shown that, while downloading mp3 from the internet lessens their sales, it is not the only reason. Even without file sharing, their sales wouldn't rise.
But they're ignoring that little factoid and keep hammering file sharing.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-06-09 06:36pm

Fact is the musicians get jack shit off of record sales anyway support your musicians by going to their concerts, fuck the record companies by downloading music, unless the band is on an independantly owned label

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-06-09 07:00pm

Don't advocate music piracy. It is technically illegal.

As for Napster, they could be found culpable as they had centralized servers to host their search settings on. The distributed P2P applications do not.

The RIAA, of course, is extorting this student: he doesn't have much money and he is/was near the end of his term.

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2003-06-09 07:09pm

All the RIAA goons need to be shot, grr, that pisses me off that they can get away with that.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-09 07:21pm

Axis Kast wrote:Obviously, the RIAA had a case against this kid. Plenty of websites police their own networks and post terms of service. It wasn’t only his fault – obviously no single man can police a campus -, but legally, it was his to pay the price.

Again, that's bullshit. You totally ignored my Windows/Mac OS X analogy. Both provide the exact same functionality that this kid's website did: the ability to search a LAN for specified files. Is the RIAA going to sue Microsoft and Apple? No, because they're not poor college students, and an example cannot be made of them. That's why the RIAA are nothing more than a cartel of bullies on the playground trying to get lunch money from the little guy.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-06-09 07:26pm

Again, that's bullshit. You totally ignored my Windows/Mac OS X analogy. Both provide the exact same functionality that this kid's website did: the ability to search a LAN for specified files. Is the RIAA going to sue Microsoft and Apple? No, because they're not poor college students, and an example cannot be made of them. That's why the RIAA are nothing more than a cartel of bullies on the playground trying to get lunch money from the little guy.

The little guy against whom they could apparently make SOME kind of case.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-06-09 07:28pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Again, that's bullshit. You totally ignored my Windows/Mac OS X analogy. Both provide the exact same functionality that this kid's website did: the ability to search a LAN for specified files. Is the RIAA going to sue Microsoft and Apple? No, because they're not poor college students, and an example cannot be made of them. That's why the RIAA are nothing more than a cartel of bullies on the playground trying to get lunch money from the little guy.
The little guy against whom they could apparently make SOME kind of case.

Bullshit, the only case they had was the ability to bankrupt a poor student who couldnt afford a army of lawyers, they did not have a legal argument

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-06-09 07:42pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Again, that's bullshit. You totally ignored my Windows/Mac OS X analogy. Both provide the exact same functionality that this kid's website did: the ability to search a LAN for specified files. Is the RIAA going to sue Microsoft and Apple? No, because they're not poor college students, and an example cannot be made of them. That's why the RIAA are nothing more than a cartel of bullies on the playground trying to get lunch money from the little guy.
The little guy against whom they could apparently make SOME kind of case.

No, the little guy that they could pound into bankruptcy and ruin forever if he tried to put up any sort of fight.

Mutant Headcrab · Post by **Mutant Headcrab** » 2003-06-09 08:11pm

Axis Kast wrote:But we’re talking about violation of copyright. NAPSTER and Kazaa are illegal. There’s no legal excuse for downloading free the work of somebody else. You might like it and want to continue. That doesn’t mean it’s right or correct.

Obviously, the RIAA had a case against this kid. Plenty of websites police their own networks and post terms of service. It wasn’t only his fault – obviously no single man can police a campus -, but legally, it was his to pay the price.

You seem to have some strange logic going here. By what your saying, shouldn't Blizzard be suing you for using a Starcraft character as your avatar? Technically it is a copyright of their company and obviously you had to download or copy it from somewhere.

Also, you have yet to acknowledge the fact that many other larger and better known companies do the exact same thing. Please, explain to us what the difference is.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-06-09 08:57pm

You seem to have some strange logic going here. By what your saying, shouldn't Blizzard be suing you for using a Starcraft character as your avatar? Technically it is a copyright of their company and obviously you had to download or copy it from somewhere.

Also, you have yet to acknowledge the fact that many other larger and better known companies do the exact same thing. Please, explain to us what the difference is.

Mutant - by my logic, that might be possible. I'm not saying I like what transpires as a result of these legal battles. Merely that it's valid in the court of law.

The difference is that they could get this guy - obviously. But that doesn't mean he was fully innocent.

Mutant Headcrab · Post by **Mutant Headcrab** » 2003-06-09 09:08pm

Axis Kast wrote: The difference is that they could get this guy - obviously. But that doesn't mean he was fully innocent.

You seem to be avoiding the question. If they have a case for a little guy, what's to stop them from making a case against the big guys who are doing the same thing? You have yet to address this in anyway other than "Oh its a little guy".

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-06-09 10:47pm

Whether or not its underhanded has nothing to do with whether or not its legal.

Sure, they're shafting a kid they caught on a technicality. But that doesn't mean they have to get everybody else either.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-06-09 10:57pm

Axis Kast wrote:Whether or not its underhanded has nothing to do with whether or not its legal.

Sure, they're shafting a kid they caught on a technicality. But that doesn't mean they have to get everybody else either.

Jesus man! there is no technicality! he did nothing wrong in the first place. RIAA action was pratically blackmail

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-06-09 11:49pm

Axis Kast wrote:Whether or not its underhanded has nothing to do with whether or not its legal.

Sure, they're shafting a kid they caught on a technicality. But that doesn't mean they have to get everybody else either.

I'll put this in the black and white terms you're apparantly too dense to get.

Nothing illegal was conducted by him. There was no case. The RIAA has committed more violations of law in the past month than this kid did in making this search engine. You are a stupid dumbfuck, eating up the RIAA's party line. Stop and immediately get your brain running. Failing that, go the fuck away.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-10 12:31am

Axis Kast wrote:
Again, that's bullshit. You totally ignored my Windows/Mac OS X analogy. Both provide the exact same functionality that this kid's website did: the ability to search a LAN for specified files. Is the RIAA going to sue Microsoft and Apple? No, because they're not poor college students, and an example cannot be made of them. That's why the RIAA are nothing more than a cartel of bullies on the playground trying to get lunch money from the little guy.
The little guy against whom they could apparently make SOME kind of case.

You're obviously unfamiliar with how the American legal system works. They don't have to have a case to threaten him. They basically called him up, told him they were going to sue him and then agreed not to (because it would cost him money to hire a lawyer and go through the trial) as long as he gave them all his money. That's why I used the phrase "litigate him into the ground," because that's what those kinds of tactics are called. Get your opponent to stop doing what he's doing by threatening him with litigation fees.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-10 01:41am

The Wall of Ignorance is strong in this one.

Axis Kast has always had a "repeat myself and ignore what you just said" debating style, but it seems to be getting worse.