What is Digg?86 Comments
- chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23If they win this case, we can safely say the court system is totally ***** beyond all repair and that you had better just bend over and take it like a man when it's your turn.
- FinalSword22, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25Awesome. Hope she wins. I hate the RIAA, bunch of lying pigs and hackers.
- joyntkid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21Rule #1: Don't use KaZaa.
It's been known to be infested with searchers like this and RIAA fakes for years, why do people still use it? - AmateurX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21Any chance I can get a live courtroom video feed?
- webcure, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15...and we are all waiting to see how it turns out...
- psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -8/+22oh this is so gonna get dugg down..
i dunno, everything about the article sounds like the RIAA has a case that even a jury might have a problem letting go.. you people steal ***** then cry foul when you are busted cold. don't get me wrong - i hate the RIAA - i hate big business 'owning' the rights to an artists intellectual property - but the artists signed up for it. stop listening to mainstream. stop feeding into the problem. start listening to independent artists. and if you want to listen to mainstream, buy the cd or the mp3's. or listen to the radio, *****, i dunno, but stop crying about it when you know the rules and still break them and then get busted because you are too ***** dumb not to use a popular p2p. RIAA are evil lying shrewd bastards - people who get busted by them are ***** dumb. The writing is on the wall, floor, ceiling and i hear they are starting to tattoo it on those they've ***** in court. - jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15You may be able to find an avi on kazaa
- crweaks23, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14One thing I don't understand is how a screen shot of a Kazaa window constitutes "proof." Why not create 50 different "forms of proof" screenshots in photoshop, walk them into the courtroom and use these as evidence of why a screenshot proves absolutely nothing?
I'm actually in favor of protecting intellectual property, but I never understand how the RIAA/MPAA has a leg to stand on in these cases. An IP address and a screenshot is a pretty thin case. Unless I'm missing something? - shredswithpiks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+151) piracy is a different crime than theft (although still a crime)
2) all this court case is trying to prove is that you have to own the copyrights for something in order to sue for that something. Virgin Records is trying to sue for copyright infringement on copyrights held by a bunch of companies that aren't Virgin Records - sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Wouldn't this be a good time to bring in a "CAM pirate crew" for some court room video? :)
- Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Now you're just putting words in people's mouths. At no point is an IP address enough information to convict someone of a crime.
- c0ldfusi0n, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Because they don't know better.
- Bobbler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Because this was from nearly 3 years ago before it got to court? Kazaa was in heavy use back then along with many other file sharing applications in the mainstream.
- shredswithpiks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9think you missed the point of the case though. Virgin Records is suing over copyrights that aren't held by Virgin Records. In which case their actions to threaten lawsuit unless an out of court settlement was made could legally be considered extortion. Or, more realistically, it would be considered filing frivolous law suits with no grounds or something...
- reed311, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12She's going to get hard by this. She was on Kazaa (which is not known for it's legal sharing) sharing over 1,700 songs. Virgin Records would have to prove that they owned only one of those songs for her to be guilty of infringement. She did end up destroying some evidence by, coincidentally, having her hard drive replaced which judges usually don't take kindly to.
People get busted all the time for merely downloading child porn just by an IP address. Courts have found that to be sufficient evidence and I don't see any reason why they would see any difference with this. Especially, when that person is using a program that was used for rampant infringement, Kazaa. - DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8So if you're in the store the same time it is robbed and someone remembers you and accuses you, you should be thrown in jail based on their word? This really isn't a matter of did the person steal or not, it's a matter of can you prove that the person stole. If someone were to photoshop a "screenshot" of your hdd filled with child porn, should you go to prison for 40 years?
Do you not see the problem by giving the RIAA a victory over using this as "proof" of guilt? While I agree that the guilty should be punished, I also believe that more solid evidence is needed beyond an IP address and screenshot. - The_Wallbanger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Sorry, not in Minnesota. You might be able to find some sketches and transripts though.
- objectcode, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7courts find the child porn on the harddrive to be evidence. i sure hope someone doesn't get charged by IP alone, since IPs can be hijacked
- NJank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6wouldn't most cases use the IP address as reasonable grounds for further search of criminal activity, at which time a computer connecting to said IP is typically found with a hard drive full of kiddie pics, and THEN, there's an arrest and trial? I have never heard of a case being brought to trial with just an IP address somehow getting a person convicted.
- BinaryCleric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6There is always jury nullification which would royally ***** over the RIAA. But knowing how the RIAA is in bed with the US Government the jury is probably going to consist of RIAA employees and artists like Metallica.
- NJank, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7no, he's assuming the evidence is compelling beyond a reasonable doubt...
- objectcode, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7***** the RIAA
- MxSam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7So, they don't own the copyright to those songs, well done Virgin
- indiefan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5i think (could definitely be wrong) that the bigger legal issue is the "distribution" of copyrighted material, as opposed to just downloading it. Even if she purchased the cd's, she still doesn't have a right to distribute them to others.
- dustyshadow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You are assuming that the evidence is 100% accurate.
- indiefan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4As far as i understand, some cases involving unsecured wireless routers have been dismissed or simply not pursued (the RIAA is terrified to lose and set precedent), but certainly never to a trial by jury.
- indiefan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4For the record, copyright infringement isn't the same as "stealing *****". You've watched too many MPAA commercials.
- zombiedepot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"I dugg down all the stupid "***** the RIAA" comments because they are stupid."
Stupid comments are stupid. You can learn a lot on the internets. - Vostran, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Am I right in thinking that a screenshot of file names says absolutely NOTHING of what was in those files? Surely they would have to download all these file to proove their content which would make her hard drive replacement irrelivant as the evidence would have been copied to the RIAA agents or whatever.
- superdrew0413, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3no, he's assuming that the RIAA has a preponderance of the evidence.
This is a CIVIL matter not a CRIMINAL matter. The person in the case will not go to jail; they will only have to pay a judgment if they are found guilty. The RIAA only has to prove that more likely than not the person did infringe on their copyrights. - munkyxtc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well, it's nice to see the case going into a courtroom; although I'd like to see a bit stronger case for the pirate side of the house...this one seems flimsy at best and could set a nasty precedence for the RIAA to go after the rest of us
- psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3before you get all 'this was forever ago' i think you should understand that kazaa has been infested with ***** like the RIAA since the very beginning. napster was quite possibly the only one that wasn't infested right away because it was the first of its kind. all the popular p2p networks are infested. wake up, fools.
- Stee1e, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I could be wrong (I'm just going by what I see on the news) - but I think that investigators use IP information as a starting ground to build a case which leads to an eventual seizure of the defendants PC (where they find the REAL evidence they need to actually prosecute).
- shredswithpiks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Just to make the note again:
The defense is working on the fact that Virgin Records is filing suit for copyright infringement of materials which have copyrights held by companies that aren't Virgin Records.
More evidence that the RIAA files frivolous law suits and doesn't take care of court-required tasks before taking these things to court.
FTA: "Two weeks before trial, but several months after they were supposed to be produced in discovery, the labels produced another 784 pages of documentation they say they need to demonstrate copyright ownership." - danc4498, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wasn't there a case a few weeks/months ago that went to court, and the guy got off because he had an unsecured wireless router? Or was that case just dismissed?
- objectcode, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3an IP is not really good evidence
- jeftones, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4What about wireless routers, who is to say that you ip address is even being used from your house?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm assuming that they have the IP logs that show the IP was in fact being used by the defendant. I don't know exactly how you use an IP to PROVE that is was a specific person sitting at the keyboard. I'm assuming that you don't have to prove it. I'm further assuming that the "botnet defense" doesn't work? It seems bizarre if JUST an IP could be enough to say THIS person is responsible.
I understand that if they gave up IP as the identifier then they'd no longer be able to sue anyone. Just based on that I'm assuming the lawyers will figure out a way to make sure that just IP is enough. I get the feeling this woman is going to get reamed. - Azuroth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Creepy Set Painter Guy FTW!
- ImTheChaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The fact that the user was using Kazaa has absolutely no legal bearing on the case whatsoever. Of all the P2P networks there are none that are less prone to piracy than any of the others.
- Abomonog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Believe it or not it still is. But yes, Frostwire, Torrents, and Emule have taken over the P2P scene since 05.
- Spawn2105, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4For all you that are laughing at her for using Kazaa: Keep in mind this was in the beginning of 2005! Alot has changed in the past 2 1/2 years, and back then Kazaa was still pretty popular.
- zensequential, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"They're protecting their property"??
the problem is now, the defendant is claiming that Virgin Records is not the copyright holder for those songs, therefore, it can't be that those records are their properties.... - westhe32nd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So apparently she (or at least her IP address) was in fact downloading the songs. On Kazaa. I can't say I feel for her too much. I hate the RIAA just as much as any other guy, but come on! Kazaa?!?!? You almost deserve to be sued for that!
- indiefan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think worst case scenario this case would only show that it's not a very effective strategy to try to claim they don't own the copyrights to the songs you downloaded. Although it sounds like they blew it getting evidence to discovery, so you never know. I'm pulling for her.
- zensequential, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think they might be able to get this case turned based on their motion, that those records' copyright holder is not Virgin Records. It's kinda like Bill Gates personally suing all the Windows-OS pirates for copyright infringement, when Microsoft has the exclusive copyright. You can't claim someone stole something that you do not own!
- objectcode, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2thats the idea, nightfall thinks the IP is evidence alone
- nickj6282, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It would be cooler if you got off your ass and went down there and liveblogged the thing for us. If I was still living in MN I'd have taken today off to make the drive up to Duluth for this.
- objectcode, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10***** the RIAA
- crunchyeyeball, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"...merely downloading child porn" - now there's a phrase you don't hear every day.
In any case, the problem is one of proportionality. From what (little) I know of the case, it's quite possible she's guilty, but ask yourself what she's actually guilty of. There's no suggestion she was the mastermind behind a multi-million dollar international counterfeiting ring. She didn't steal anything (despite what the industry what have you believe). All she did was download some crappy music to listen to.
Proportionality ought to be a fundamental legal principal, but if the industry had their way, she could spend the rest of her life paying off fines just for copying some mp3s. The whole concept just completely sickens me. I really hope she has a decent lawyer who can give them a taste of their own twisted legal medicine. -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is