>This is not assuming good faith. I know that you know that because you would never get away with this kind of disingenuous behavior on the basis that "I'm a New Yawker" when dealing with an opposing counsel. You're capable of regulating your behavior; you're choosing not to.
My behavior is perfectly fine, and you're not opposing counsel and this isn't a court and I don't have any obligations to you that are on the order of magnitude that I do to other attorneys, so this is completely misplaced if not outright ridiculous.
>You were making the claim that these suits were not punitive. I contested that idea by pointing to the RIAA's history of engaging in punitive lawsuits. You then stated:
No, I said that pointing to the damages as a reason why they are punitive only reflects a misunderstanding of the basic practice of copyright law in the US.
>This dismissed both the point that I was making and implied that the entire basis of my understanding was based on a song by Weird Al. I did not provide a more substantive reply because yours was not substantive and just obnoxious.
Sorry, you are calling my response to Weird Al not substantive? Weird Al isn't a source for insight into the legal profession. So, my response was perfectly in line with the kind of substance you were bringing to the conversation.
> You've been rhetorically asking "What's your point?" the whole time we've been having this discussion even when I've stated my position plainly. You did it in this post. This isn't being direct or respectful, it's obvious from how you've been speaking (and how you've interacted with others in the thread) that you aren't a respectful person, and now you're leaning into "This is part of my culture," to try to evade the issue that you are being abrasive and obnoxious, and are now insisting that I'm the one being rude to you.
You're entitled to that opinion. I disagree. You can find me abrasive and obnoxious. I do not particularly care as I have not found you to be a respectful conversation partner warranting any greater effort on my part than that which I've received from you.
>I've stated this plainly three times and you haven't listened so you can read the thread again or I'll take it as a concession that you have no point to make.
My point is the same it has been. Pointing to the damages number as punitive only reflects a misunderstand of basic aspect of the practice of copyright law in the US.
>You are the one fixating on it. Even if we ignore the Limewire case, you still haven't addressed the years and millions of dollars the RIAA spent suing individual pirates at a net loss.
Why would I address that? It has nothing to do with my point.
This is what, the fifth post I've written, explaining my point, which you continue to dispute? You act like you're a fair conversation partner, but you aren't. You repeatedly misstate my point and twist it around. It's obnoxious and rude and that's why you are getting the short treatment from me. If I wanted to actually insult you, which is what you're acting like, I promise you it would come off differently. But I don't think there is anything unfair about pointing out that you aren't relying on any insight into the profession when you are quoting Weird Al. Feel free to report me!
My behavior is perfectly fine, and you're not opposing counsel and this isn't a court and I don't have any obligations to you that are on the order of magnitude that I do to other attorneys, so this is completely misplaced if not outright ridiculous.
>You were making the claim that these suits were not punitive. I contested that idea by pointing to the RIAA's history of engaging in punitive lawsuits. You then stated:
No, I said that pointing to the damages as a reason why they are punitive only reflects a misunderstanding of the basic practice of copyright law in the US.
>This dismissed both the point that I was making and implied that the entire basis of my understanding was based on a song by Weird Al. I did not provide a more substantive reply because yours was not substantive and just obnoxious.
Sorry, you are calling my response to Weird Al not substantive? Weird Al isn't a source for insight into the legal profession. So, my response was perfectly in line with the kind of substance you were bringing to the conversation.
> You've been rhetorically asking "What's your point?" the whole time we've been having this discussion even when I've stated my position plainly. You did it in this post. This isn't being direct or respectful, it's obvious from how you've been speaking (and how you've interacted with others in the thread) that you aren't a respectful person, and now you're leaning into "This is part of my culture," to try to evade the issue that you are being abrasive and obnoxious, and are now insisting that I'm the one being rude to you.
You're entitled to that opinion. I disagree. You can find me abrasive and obnoxious. I do not particularly care as I have not found you to be a respectful conversation partner warranting any greater effort on my part than that which I've received from you.
>I've stated this plainly three times and you haven't listened so you can read the thread again or I'll take it as a concession that you have no point to make.
My point is the same it has been. Pointing to the damages number as punitive only reflects a misunderstand of basic aspect of the practice of copyright law in the US.
>You are the one fixating on it. Even if we ignore the Limewire case, you still haven't addressed the years and millions of dollars the RIAA spent suing individual pirates at a net loss.
Why would I address that? It has nothing to do with my point.
This is what, the fifth post I've written, explaining my point, which you continue to dispute? You act like you're a fair conversation partner, but you aren't. You repeatedly misstate my point and twist it around. It's obnoxious and rude and that's why you are getting the short treatment from me. If I wanted to actually insult you, which is what you're acting like, I promise you it would come off differently. But I don't think there is anything unfair about pointing out that you aren't relying on any insight into the profession when you are quoting Weird Al. Feel free to report me!