Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

RIAA Fines Students $3,750 Without Showing Evidence

p2pnet.net — More of the RIAA using "pay us or else" tactics. Guilty until proven innocent?

Bury

rrobster 2 years 300 days ago, made popular 2 years 299 days ago

887 diggs
digg it

jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Stop Stealing, it's so simple. :-D

Apparenlty you can't prove you're innocence so you pay the fine like a good little thief.
RpgActioN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can remove the media and say you don't know what they're talking about... They will have no proof to convict you other than connection logs, and all you have to prove is there's more than one way to use somebody else's connection without them knowing.
anarchy2465, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2the RIAA and record companies no longer have a place in our society.
Monkeman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Apparenlty you can't prove you're innocence so you pay the fine like a good little thief."
Apparently this is America and since America was founded it has (supposedly) worked the other way around, and it's disappointing to see that people are letting even the most fundamental of our rights as American citizens be trashed by corporations in the face of "theft".

P.S. It's not theft. Theft is the removal of an object. If I take a photocopier into a store and copy the entirety of a novel, then leave the novel, and walk out, I have not stolen anything. Stop throwing around words for the sake of abusing their weight for emphasis.
ForumTroll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"You can remove the media and say you don't know what they're talking about... They will have no proof to convict you other than connection logs, and all you have to prove is there's more than one way to use somebody else's connection without them knowing."

The problem is that this doesn't hold up in court where the people making the decisions usually know very little about computers and Internet security. Also, most people won't let it get to court because hiring lawyers for a legal battle like this is more expensive than simply paying the fines. Especially, when you're going up against the RIAAs army of lawyers which consist of some of the highest paid and most successful lawyers in the country.

They continue to do this because the court system allows them to do it and because most people simply can’t afford to go to court to fight them. If what you’re suggesting worked thousands of people would be doing it instead of paying the fines.
tastypastry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2***** THE RIAA and the MPAA
NINJ4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is *****. I'm not worried, this will all catch up to them eventually.
mrfx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah some one needs to stop them it will take someone powerful.
But they wont go after someone like that i bet more like the little guy.
We cant do much at all i wish we could.
tjhanley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0what a bunch of fuxorz... leech songs with the onion router project... http://tor.eff.org/
Diggg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just as well OJ & Michael weren't 'accused' of downloading ...they'd be in big trouble now.

LOL. If you're stupid enough to pay a 'fine' from the RIAA without checking your legal rights, then let me know where you are and I'll send you a 'fine' too.
Majin_Raditz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I dare the RIAA to try and "fine" me. I'll gladly take there ass to court.
redpoint73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The record labels are doomed and they know it. These lawsuits and fines are a desperate attempt to deter people from distributing and downloading music, because these old men that run these record labels can't create a compelling online product.

They all have been dragging their feet for years in developing a web based system of distributing music, while anyone with a brain could see what was happening. COnsider this the death throes of the record labels.
Kindred420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0bunch of nazis,***** them and their stupid lawsuits
OswaldKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why hasn't anybody countersued? Sure going one on with the big Four is a no win battle, but a large cooperative class action suit would make them think twice about their practices.
ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0*sighs*.. look at you all fighting. So sad. Look even if say you have a case that says your innocent. The minute they have your IP logged, that's it. It's over. You're caught either way, whether you have the evidence still or not. I'm not tooting my horn because I could get caught too. I' aware of that. But I do try and sweep my tracks up. And guess what, most of what I have downloaded, I own on tape and Vinyl. But I know for a fact, that won't even hold up in court. The RIAA and MPAA have the power to destroy you easily. Thank your Government for granting them the privilage to violate your privacy for the sake of control over something they lost 6 years ago.

The only safe haven for downloading is the thing that we shall not mention for fear that n00bs will discover it and ruin the whole deal.

As far as I am concerned, these Anti-piracy advocates turned us into theives. Now take that to the bank... and I hope they choke on it too.
salmonmoose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0P.S. It's not theft. Theft is the removal of an object. If I take a photocopier into a store and copy the entirety of a novel, then leave the novel, and walk out, I have not stolen anything. Stop throwing around words for the sake of abusing their weight for emphasis.

That's the most retarded argument I've seen in a long time, apparently you think those of us who work in the creative industry should work for free. If someone wrote a specialised program for a company, then the company turned around and said "well, you can keep a copy so we don't need to pay you" that would be alright? Sure you're not removing a copy of the book from the retailer, but you are removing a sale from the original artist, that's a theft of value.
giggins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Retarted Idiots Association of America (RIAA)
lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If those terrorists hate corporate America so much, they should just fly a plane into RIAA headquarters. That way, everyone wins! Oh, except the suicide bombers. They lose.
joe_mama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"P.S. It's not theft. Theft is the removal of an object. If I take a photocopier into a store and copy the entirety of a novel, then leave the novel, and walk out, I have not stolen anything. Stop throwing around words for the sake of abusing their weight for emphasis."

Doesn't really matter what it's called. If i use a clone machine to make a copy of your mom, and leave. I did not kidnap your mom.
Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2LEARN THIS TO FIGHT THE RIAA
DON'T PLEA OUT

Now is not the time to cower to such repugnant and illegal extortion.

Read what the law says:

Fromt the United States Supreme Court:
Like the prudential component, the constitutional component of standing doctrine incorporates concepts concededly not susceptible of precise definition. The injury alleged must be, for example, "` distinct and palpable,'" Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 (1979) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 501), and not "abstract" or "conjectural" or "hypothetical," Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 -102 (1983); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974). The injury must be "fairly" traceable to the challenged action, and relief from the injury must be "likely" to follow from a favorable decision. See Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S., at 38 , 41. These terms cannot be defined so as to make application of the constitutional standing requirement a mechanical exercise.

Furthermore, [it] is equally true that before one is entitled to a remedy against an alleged wrongdoer, there must be some duty owing from the wrongdoer towards the injured person." State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court, 15 Ariz App 597,598,490 P.2d 426 (1972)
---

That means to have a "cause of action" the RIAA will need to prove there is a real loss. Not "abstract" or "conjectural" or "hypothetical,". Remember the burden of proof is on them.

For more information on how to stick it to the man, visit Mark Steven's http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com
rewritable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is no way they can prove that your IP address contains the music that they said it does. Its like calling the police department and turning in someone's license plate number for running a stop sign. RIAA thug: "We're suing you for stealing music Mr.Rewritable" ME: "Well you guys are some dumb muther ***** because my computer doesnt even have a hard drive, I run Knoppix 3.9 which doesnt have music on it and doesn't need a hard drive so you retards cannot say that I have to have a HDD to use a computer." (mean while my hard drive is sitting inside of my television or many other little nooks and crannys I have).

You see people, the RIAA do not knock down doors over music, infact it is against the law for them to even suggest they'll do that. What They do is send you a letter in the mail telling you to either pony up some dough or they'll take you to court and -TRY- (aol keyword here -TRY-) to get you to pay a horrendish amount of money for each song you supposedly have on your computer that is sitting at home while you're in court telling these dick heads you dont have a hard drive. Badda bing badda boom!
Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1// That's the most retarded argument I've seen in a long time, apparently you // think those of us who work in the creative industry should work for free.

A lot of people create a lot of crap for money. Either you want to create stuff or you don't. You'll take what the market pay you for your work or you shut up. Why don't you go door to door yourself to see if people steal your stuff and make them accountable yourself? Are you too afraid? Need mommy government to do it for you?

Pathetic.
sych0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so theyre getting cocky now eh?

Anyhow, to those of you in the creative industry, if youve signed with a record label youre working for free anyways. You get ***** royalties. TWiT 21 has a good interview with Roger McGuinn on the subject.

The RIAA just pissed of that people are screwing the screwers.
Its like that old bumper sticker: Don't steal! The government hates competition
jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Whatever you petty thieves. If standing behind some obfuscated legal technicality that splits between copyright violation and theft helps you deal with the cognitive dissonance that you're getting something for free that usually cost money, more power to you I guess, but don't be surprised when the owners of said product get pissed at you, while leveraging the same legal doctrine against you in a court of law.

To those of you idiots claiming you would just say you have no clue what files they're talking about. Guess what? The RIAA will just say you're lying. And guess what again? A judge will probably take their word over yours. How else do you think copyright violation cases work?

Once accused, the burden is on you in a civil case to prove that you're innocent. Bothered by that? Well, profiteer from the copyright infringements to the tune of $10k, then it turns from a civil case to a federal crime with a jury and all that good stuff. Trade off: You can get 5 years in a PMITAP!!!
mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Please stop oversimplifying things. Downloading music from P2P networks may or may not be "theft" as defined in your local state penal codes, but it is a violation of federal law, rendering you liable for damages, both compensatory and punitive, to the individual recording corporations.

If you do not like these laws, do not complain here about it. Do not engage in guerrila tactics. But DO obey the laws as they presently exist.

Most importantly, CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS. Threaten to vote against those who voted for these laws. Donate or volunteer your support for those who support your point of view. For those of you in California, blame Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. The recording industry has lobbyists working against you, not only in the courts, but also within the halls of Congress.

It is your civic duty to express your approval or disapproval on Election Day. If you failed to keep abreast of your Representatives' and Senators' voting record on these important issues, if you choose to leave yourself out of the electoral process, if you choose to silence yourself, then you have only yourself to blame.

As Thomas Jefferson said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Stay vigilant, stay informed, and stay involved. Keep your freedoms.
Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think we need to behead an RIAA employee Taliban style everytime some one get's fined. It's the only way they're going to learn who the boss is in this country.

I'm really sick of watching them get away with litiguos terrorism. It clear that we can't fight back in the court system because the EFF and other consumer rights groups are out numbered, outgunned and out spent. They can buy Senetors and Judges too. We need to strike back with our brand of terrorism to counter theirs.

Their not going to Learn until some one does an Oklahoma City on the Captial Records building or they get a multi billion dollar lawsuit because some releases video of an RIAA secreaty being executed in retaliation.
5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm curious as to how many people here have purchased RIAA music over the past year or so. I haven't bought a CD for years, nor have I downloaded anything. If people stop giving them their blood money (and stop stealing music), they'll have no choice but to stop harrassing people and come up with a business model that's suitable.
ForumTroll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"LOL. If you're stupid enough to pay a 'fine' from the RIAA without checking your legal rights, then let me know where you are and I'll send you a 'fine' too. -Diggg"

Except the RIAA is a rich and powerful corporation that has been granted a lot of power by the government and if you take it to court you will lose just like everyone else who has fought or counter sued. The RIAA is a lot more powerful than you will ever be! You’re just some random noob who thinks he has out smarted everyone by pointing out the blatantly obvious. Everyone knows what they’re doing is wrong but without changing the system they will continue to do it and they will continue to win these cases. If you don’t want to be sued the only way to be sure of that is to stop listening to their music.
mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ratteler:
That line of argument is both immoral and puerile. If you are sick of the recording labels are litigating rights that their lobbying efforts secured, violence is not the answer.

Furthermore, if you do not like the concepts of lobbying as it presently exists, vote for legislators who will effect a change in the system.

As far as the judges are concerned, the RIAA lawsuits, being founded on federal law, are venued within federal courts. Federal judges are appointed for life. Therefore, unless you can show some evidence of bribery of a federal judge, you corruption charge against the federal judiciary is baseless. Most federal judges that I have appeared before are intelligent and extraordinarily mindful of the law. The only people I have met who are consistently better versed in the law than the judges are their clerks.

In short, violence, at least to secure one's "right" to download popular music for free is illegal and immoral. Please stop, think, and obey the law. All of the laws.
hayden.evans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I dont see the artists of the music complaining, nor homeless. to think of it i dont even think they give a flying *****. they got there several multi-million dollar houses and cars for each day of the week. Has anyone seen cribs? its sickening to see how rich some of these artists are.
Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mcbesq. You're right of course. That is the reasonable thing to do. Unfortunatly the RIAA, and Microsoft, and everyone else beating the DRM drum are NOT being reasonable. They don't have to be. The checks and balances have broken down in their favor.

I don't really want to see violence agaist anyone. But I do want the bastards to think about the future they are building. DRM is nothing but censorship evolved, and privitized.

Hopefully the threat of violence will get them to come back to their senses before some one whose life they steal in court actually does what I suggest instead of just blowing hot air up their ass.
mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That is why we have elections. That is why grassroots movements form. Voice your support by donating resources, if only your time, to organizations that agree with your position (within reason). Have you thought of volunteering for the EFF? You can also give your time to legislators who support your position.

The system is not broken, merely slightly maladjusted. Many congresspeople have grown too comfortable in their positions - the danger of incumbency. Make them less comfortable through petitions and letters. If you are in school, start a movement at your school or organize a drive to show support for your position.

You can battle lobbyism through the asset you currently have - youth. Every politician wants to be young, hip, and with it. A young image demonstrates reformation and new ideas. If you don't believe me, watch the 92 Clinton campaign.

Finally, take a page from history. Boycott the industry. Trust me when I say that no one has ever died from having to live without Limp Bizkit, Brittney Spears, Jessica Simpson and/or any of the other current talentless hacks. (Fair disclosure - I'm a grunge-loving, Beatle-listening, Zepp-headed Gen X-er.

The number one argument that was never used successfully against RIAA in the lawsuits versus the P2P networks is that the decline in record sales may have been caused by a decline in quality music being released. Napster didn't seem to hurt Bob Dylan's sales.

And if all that fails, viral tactics are in order. Become a lawyer. Become a legislator. Become a leader. Become part of the system and change it from within.
OswaldKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0All this talk about theft and nobody points out the $20.00 price tag on a CD that costs about $2.50 produce excluding advertising. If this is ok, why is a gas station in violation for charging $6.00 a gallon for gas? Price gouging is price gouging. It's supposed to be against the law for everyone.
mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ Oswald

Then boycott it. Use your wallet to show the industry that that price point is too high. There was an excellent recent story about how the record labels are considering pulling their artists from iTunes because iTunes has (a) shown that a $15 price point is too high for most music and (b) offers reliable (somewhat) proof of actual sales, which are the basis for the labels' royalty payments to the artists. Listen to last week's TWiT - the one with Roger McGuinn, formerly of the Byrds.

Stop buying CDs at stores that charge more than $10 per CD. If enough people do this, the industry will change.

And as to your question, Oswald - gasoline is a necessity. Using a disaster to cash in is immoral. More importantly, consider who is making the charges of "price gouging."

While I am not defending the gasoline/oil industry, the charges are being led by politicians and the media. Politicians can make the charge, thereby gaining "common man" appeal come election day. Media can make the charge because it is sensational and boosts ratings. No one votes for higher gas prices. No one writes letters to the editor complaining that gas prices are too low.

Think critically. Question motives.
culebra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Guitly until proven innocent? Well actually yeah, thats how it works. I'm no lawyer by any means, but I did take a few law classes in college. One of my classes specifically covered copyright law, and copyright law is vastly different than criminal or common law. Specifically, when it comes to copyright law, you have to prove your innocence. So, as ***** as the RIAA is, they are within their right to go straight for the throat and not just do a benign cease and decist order. Just my $0.02
billmania, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"That's the most retarded argument I've seen in a long time,apparently you think those of us who work in the creative industry should work for free."

YOU said it right there, creative industry. Any industry built around exploiting art is inherently evil. Besides, if anyone should get fined in this whole deal it's the record companies for ripping off "their" artists for the last forty years. Not to mention us, the public.
adminmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the problem here isn't whether some one did or did not download music. I thinks its that certain people's rights are being alienated. like the RIAA *NOT* giving clear specific evidence linking them to the 'crime'. America was established so every one could have certain inalienable rights, and if a couple million dollars and a pocket full of lawyers merits the total disregard of these right....then this world is going to hell.
cool4u2view, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Unless a nonviolent method presents itself (i.e. tiananmen square style) then I have to side with the violence (maybe not towards people) is best way to get them to listen crowd as the RIAA has everyone overpowered in all aspects.

Most of you will just sit around complaining vs. actually trying to do something about it. Someone should organize a massive protest. I swear there has to be professional protestors who are anti-everything.
adminmatt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Guess what? The RIAA will just say you're lying. And guess what again? A judge will probably take their word over yours. How else do you think copyright violation cases work?"

HAHA. you fag. so your saying the RIAA has every judge in thier pocket. well i guess we have a corrupt system now.... off to comunism..
Kashey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I already convinced many of my musician friends to never sign any contracts with record labels. MAKE YOUR OWN RECORD LABEL.! There is no need for huge record studios anymore. $5.000 is all for your gear and about 2500$ to press CDs. $7.000 is not that much.
OswaldKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mcbesq,
Good points.

I have not purchased a single CD in the past 8 years. Nor do I intend to ever buy one again. I'm positive the RIAA is not missing my money.

I do support peer to peer song trading, however. As others have said, I would be more than happy to send the artist a fee for the use of his/her creation, but I will not give the members of the RIAA one cent of my money. And if theft is theft, why is there not an outcry again the entertainment industry? Consumers are being robbed blind.

What baffles me is that people will scream about high gas prices and ignore the gouging that takes place within the "luxury item" scene. You see no one selling their $40,000 gas guzzling SUV in favor of an $18000 fuel efficient car, but they'll rush out and buy the newest Eminem CD and all the greatest hits CD's as they're released.
mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Cool

Violence as a means of wealth redistribution is wrong. Consider your socio-economic station in America relative to those in the lowest economic brackets. By your reasoning, because the system has seemingly (or truly) abandoned their interests, then those worse off than you would be justified in using force to take your property because (and I'm just assuming here) you are a middle/middle-upperclass male, aged 17-49, single, and so the various braches of the consumer industry is based around you.

Cool, have you contacted your representatives? Have you looked into organizing a local chapter of the EFF or joining one if one already exists? Have you taken your money to legal downloading services such as Napster or iTunes? These are nonviolent methods. Look into them. Or are you more interested in merely reflexively adopting the "violent rebel fighting the Man" stance.

Stop posing, Cool. Start doing.

Finally, do any of the people here who download music without paying for it ever actually follow up and buy the CD if you like what you heard? I for one have. I have gone to shows to see artists whose music I've downloaded off of free sites.

If you are not doing this, whatever your political belief may be, by not purchasing music that you have enjoyed or seen that artist live, you are depriving that artist of his/her property. If you like it, BUY IT!
enrltoeac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0IMHO, it seems that people with deep pockets win more lawsuits than those who can barely support themselves.

Unless of course, the case is just ridiculous, like when Microsoft sued Zamos.
digit9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If I bought a CD of some music and then just out of pure laziness I downloaded it instead of buring it does that mean I stole it, even if I had bought it before?

I'm not buying this crap that we are stealing from artists. The artists, in most cases, don't make ***** from their CDs, it's the record companies.

The crime doesn't rest with the people downlaoding the music. It lays with the lawyers representing the RIAA and the record labels themselves that steal millions from artists.

These people suck. If you don't like the fact that people are stealing your "property" or your "craft" then change careers.
bikee4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0My solution: Time for MOB RULES!!!
brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"but you are removing a sale from the original artist, that's a theft of value."

This is stupid logic. It assumes that everyone who copies the book would have bought it..

Theoretically of course, if I just downloaded the Madonna Discography just uploaded to Demonoid that does not mean that I would have bought it...ever, so in that case, what was stolen?
zenghost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah...the RIAA is lookin reaal bad right now...good for them...
karamba_kid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Whats even more sad is that people are still going out and buying there crappy music and downloading there crappy songs. I have been boycotting them (RIAA) ever since I have found better independent artists out there. Obviously the artist with RIAA record labels approve of the RIAA actions against fans otherwise they wouldn't have signed there lives away. Stop supporting them don't download there music don't pirate there music stop going to there movies. If we want them to disappear and die out we are going to have to do it fair and square.
nuxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0y'see it always helps when you don't listen to top 40 crap either, because that's obviously the first thing the RIAA is looking for on p2p services.

somehow, i doubt epitaph, hellcat records, or the many smallish european dance music labels really give a flying ***** about p2p sharing....

solution, listen to more punk rock and electronic music!! ;-p
MrZaiko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why not get rid of the bootleggers first?? maybe because they are harder to get caught???? back in late 1997, I downloaded MP3's from IRC channels, They were only a few little groups of people who got MP3's. I still bought CDs. people reacted to this when they noticed THEY WERE BUYING a $20 CD for just 1 or 2 songs. Lots of crappy music made.
thats why Napster in late 99 was so popular. It was the easy way out...
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

RIAA Fines Students $3,750 Without Showing Evidence

Login or register to add a comment