__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Tuesday 15 August 2006 08:28 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> __/ [ JEDIDIAH ] on Monday 14 August 2006 20:15 \__
>>
>>> On 2006-08-14, Gubo Dangle <gubo.dangle.nospam> wrote:
>>>> nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote :
>>> [deletia]
>>>>> End quote
>>>>>
>>>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060812-7487.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't worry. They wouldn't have gone after him if he weren't guilty.
>>>>> It's only right that his children should pay.
>>>>
>>>> Really? So.. if your dad was to die suddenly and leave you with a huge
>>>> debt that was *his* fault, you'd happily pay and not complain?
>>>
>>> I'd tell the shilock to go fuck off actually.
>>
>> There are some famous phrases that refer to children's suffering and
>> punishment for their ancestors' sins. So I'd take the same stance. All
>> it's about is a reign of terror. But what the RIAA does not realise that
>> it promotes anger, as well as hatred which will ultimately kill that
>> industry which it is said to protect. Look at WGA for similarities.
>
> It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Children are able to listen to
> music, so they must, therefore, be responsible for the crimes of their
> parents where copyright violation is concerned. Perhaps one of the
> children could be hanged to set an example? Copyright violation is a
> terrible crime.
Hypothetical, in court: "I tried to tell my dead to stop listening to these
MP3's, but he just kept hiding in his room and listening to them with a set
of headphones. Now I'll have to face jail..."
|
|