This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Comments

  • Damnit make it a link! Do you know how many Internet etiquette laws you're breaking by not making that a link? Well, you're breaking one. And that is... Make your URLs links.

    RIAA being extra evil.
  • Damnit make it a link! Do you know how many Internet etiquette laws you're breaking by not making that a link? Well, you're breaking one. And that is... Make your URLs links.

    RIAA being extra evil.
    Do you guys know how many times a day we linkify posts? Do you know how many times we have to edit posts to click the HTML button when people forget? Maybe we should just stop, then you will learn.
  • image Preview your post before clicking the 'Add your comments' button.
  • This sets bad precedent... what if someone accused of murder dies? Can the children be held responsible for the murder? Absolutely terrible.
  • This sets bad precedent... what if someone accused of murder dies? Can the children be held responsible for the murder? Absolutely terrible.
    I think it depends what you mean by responsible. To the best of my admittedly limited knowledge a criminal suit (State vs Your Dad) can't be brought against an estate but a civil suit (RIAA vs Your Dad) can because all a civil suit does is receive monetary compensation. So really the children aren't being held responsible, Dad's money is. IE: If Dad hadn't had the misfortune of dying so unexpectedly then it would have been his money that was levied in court and the estate would have been smaller anyway.

    Regardless, it is an undoubtedly asshatish thing to do.
  • What's going on here is perfectly legal and, while reprehensible, is at least understandable. Death alone should not cancel debts held by the deceased if there is indeed money in his estate for their payment. If the RIAA's claim were in fact valid, then they would be doing the proper thing.

    What bothers me is that they're choosing to pursue this piddly case despite the obvious pain it will bring to the man's family. The money the RIAA gains from these lawsuits is negligible: it's a PR game more than anything. Stepping back from this particular case would bring no harm to their mission, and continuing it can bring nothing but suffering and further ill-will.
  • Soooooo about PR

    no sue
  • ... it's a PR game more than anything.
    Myep. That's all it ever was, and all it's going to be. The only reason the suit was dropped was that it was generating the wrong message. ("RIAA is a heartless bastard" vs. "Piracy is TEH EVIL!!!1") RIAA must know (at least, so I hope) that their tactics won't get them the money they "lost" through piracy. It's all just to generate fear of file-sharing to try and get people to not do it. Not so different from a number of other "wars" going on lately...
  • didn't the story just break that they are stopping the lawsuit against the grieving family?
  • If somebody dies, they debts should die with them. And that's just tough..
  • No, debts should not die with the debtor...

    If they did terminally ill patients (or suicidal maniacs) would just rack up a ton of debt and then die.

    A creditor needs a way to get back such losses.
  • I plan to rack up all sorts of debt before I die. I don't anticipate leaving behind many assets that could be used to cover those debts either ;^)
  • I plan to rack up all sorts of debt before I die. I don't anticipate leaving behind many assets that could be used to cover those debts either ;^)
    O RLY? Me too.
  • No, debts should not die with the debtor...
    I'm pretty sure all of that depends on the loan contract and whether or not the creditor decides to pursue collection. Probably varies in law from place to place too.
  • So, you two planning on dieing soon?
  • edited August 2006
    So, you two planning on dying soon?
    I think it's time we introduce the new listeners to Mr. Period.
    Post edited by trogdor9 on
Sign In or Register to comment.