651–654 of 654 posts
It reminds me of:
> "If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A lawless man can be struck down with force without persecution by law, because they are lawless. Doesn't this define modern day police force theory?
No, because these days we are quite explicit that the law binds us all. Citizen or not, legally present or not, criminal or not, every human being within the borders of the US (or any modern country) is entitled to the full protection of the law. When an American becomes an outlaw, it doesn't mean the same thing as it did back then. There is no legal way for the government to deny someone their rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's basically many pages refuting parent's comments framing of "It's pretty easy to validate that everything they're saying is accurate." given the PDF opening is: "On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against its own customers.1 Four years later, the recording industry has…
This entire topic is about Anthropic settling for 3k/book. The parent claimed that the RIAA settled for $2-4 a song, which is true, and corroborated by your link. These were settled prior to legal action. They even had a website p2psettlement.com where you could pay before receiving legal notice. The parent claimed that when RIAA actually sued, they sought statutory damages on a small subset of the infringed songs. W…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This entire topic is about Anthropic settling for 3k/book. The parent claimed that the RIAA settled for $2-4 a song, which is true, and corroborated by your link. These were settled prior to legal action. They even had a website p2psettlement.com where you could pay before receiving legal notice. The parent claimed that when RIAA actually sued, they sought statutory damages on a small subset of the infringed songs. W…
So you're upset I showed proof of parent trying to white was the RIAA, with the "fairness" if suiing people who don't even own computers for copyright infrignment? Not sure what point you're still trying to make when its clearly refuted with your own words. And even parent later said they misremembered.