XPost: alt.fan.cyndi-lauper, alt.fan.david-bowie, alt.fan.david-cassidy   
   XPost: alt.fan.debbie.gibson, alt.fan.dennis-miller, alt.fan.depeche-mode   
   XPost: alt.fan.devo, alt.fan.don-imus, alt.fan.douglas-adams   
   From: deedlydee@earthlink.net   
      
   After reading several items on line about this issue produced the following   
   facts. The RIAA didn't "target a twelve year old girl," they had the address of   
   a Kazaa user who was offering trades of over 1,000 songs. the reason they   
   quickly settled for the low amount of $ *was* because of the age of Brianna's   
   age. She was *not* sued for downloading, she was sued for content she was   
   providing.   
      
   Your original post does suggest that you think the RIAA are bullies for   
   targeting the poor little girl, but once again, she got off very light in   
   comparison to what the other 260 folks are going to go through. It's all   
   emotional propaganda being used by the pirates to confuse the issue and try to   
   get themselves a break.   
      
   My question to you is -- considering that this little girl got off with paying   
   a fine of less than $2 a song (only double what she would have paid to download   
   them from a legitimate provider), and that you now say you're *not* pro file   
   sharing, what exactly are you saying?   
      
   bwalker wrote:   
      
   > Read the original post: she was sued for DOWNLOADING. It's not said she's   
   > the one who put those files in the first place and there is no mention   
   > anywhere that the files were made available for other users. But since you   
   > still think I'm pro file-sharing despite what I posted, maybe you just have   
   > a problem with reading...   
   >    
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)