What is Digg?78 Comments
- Jaakob, on 10/10/2007, -4/+89***** the RIAA.
- palehorse864, on 10/10/2007, -2/+58Let's pray this sets up a good precedent.
- snotrokit, on 10/10/2007, -4/+50can I be on the Jury? I promise to be impartial, really I do.
- acidbathfan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26Whats so sad is that this is not a article by The Onion nor are we in the Twilight Zone, this my friends is the 100% true blue path mainstream American music has decided to tread down.
- greekgoat91, on 10/10/2007, -6/+28see if you played them with good speakers, you'd definitely see the difference between a crappy mp3 from Kazaa and a cd.
- Doktag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Hate to say it, but the "If you're going to engage in illegal activity, are you going to use the name everybody knows you by?" argument is pretty weak. People are stupid, they will use the same username for all their accounts if they can because it makes it easier for them. And "tereastarr" isn't exactly a "smith" of internet usernames.
- Lutraphobia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Her first mistake was using KaZaA- out of the 6000 sued each year, most are FastTrack users. Pirate responsibly.
- Mexrocker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18I really do hope this case is lost by the RIAA.... I'm keeping my fingers crossed
- sockpuppets, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Before the lunch recess, the jury and the rest of the courtroom were subjected to Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" played from a portable CD player over a cheap set of computer speakers. Pariser played two versions of the song, the one she said was downloaded from KaZaA, and the version from the album Escape, to demonstrate that both recordings are identical. The courtroom then suddenly turned pitch black and quiet, leaving witnesses wondering how to conclude the decade of testimony they had invested in.
- TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16No, he really didn't. Last time I checked, acquiring a loss-less audio file from Kazaa was about as unlikely as 'Britney Spears Anal Sex tape!!1' being anything other than horseporn.
- Slimtoad, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13It begins!
- TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12The most telling line in this entire thing was this "It's important to combat," she explained. "If we don't, we have no business."
This demonstrates the 'stuck in the mud' attitude of the record industry. For so long they've enjoyed insane profits at the expense of artists, consumers and the quality of music in general and now the digital revolution is killing off this rotting tree. And as well it should. Any real business adapts to the changing environment, they don't try to destroy it. - ikillpeoplexx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9So I am agree wholeheartedly that music distribution models should be modernized to compete with free instead of stifling pirating with DRM and lawsuits, but this case isn't about that. The bottom line is that the defendant most likely broke the law that is in place today, a law they most likely knew existed and what the consequences of breaking it was if caught. It's kind of sad to see so many people saying "I hope the RIAA loses" when really it's the law itself that needs to change-- not exactly the role of the judiciary.
- plamoni, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Unfortunately, they didn't seem to have picked the world's greatest defendant for this test case. The fact is (and you're welcome to digg me down for saying this) even a broken clock is right twice a day. This doesn't appear to be a case of a mislabeled IP address, or a total ***** of the name assignment. Ms. Thomas used her own handle on her KaZaA account, she probably had enough technical know-how to start file-sharing, and she had access to a computer. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's very compelling nonetheless.
Honestly, if I had my choice of which of the 20,000 cases to take to court as a test case... This would not be it.
Our only real hope is that the jury will see the flimsy technical trail for what it is, or she will get off on a technicality. And, of course, when I say "our" I mean those people with enough technical no-how that even though we don't download music, we wouldn't get off based on being totally computer illiterate, not owning a computer, being 12 or being dead. At this point, getting on the Internet is taking a risk. You never know when the randomly chucked dart of the RIAA might land on you. - sockpuppets, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9A comment so nice they posted it twice.
- lukeydukey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Sigh.. more of this crap again? So I wonder if they're gonna use the IP mediasentry approach again? Or is it, burned cd-r's equal stolen music? not sure which card they want to play.
- kevthecatslayer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8A comment so nice they posted it twice.
- BillDoE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7About the Jurors:"All of them are Caucasians, two of them don't own PCs and have never used the Internet, and a third described himself as a "total computer illiterate."
Well then how the hell are they supposed to make an informed decision about a case based on IP and MAC adresses? The only thing these people can and will focus on are two words. Piracy and Theft. The rest of the arguments may as well be in a foreign language. How can a computer illiterate be seen as a peer in this case? - Harbinger67, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"two of them don't own PCs and have never used the Internet, and a third described himself as a "total computer illiterate.""
Almost the same thing. They'll go "If someone took something you made without paying for it, should they be punished?" and these people will go "OMG YES" and that's that :| - TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8It's a standard defence strategy, it casts doubt on the RIAA's testimony and her case is hinging on their lack of evidence that it was in fact, her. Quite frankly, it's a scrape. I hate the RIAA, and I hate it's strategy, but they really are holding a lot of the cards on this one. The defence's case is shaky at best.
- gavin422, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5In criminal cases, yes, but this is a civil case. All you need is a "preponderance of evidence" on your side. That is, if there's a 50% chance or greater that you're right.
- bobdobolena, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8I have a bad case of burrito gas right now, but if I can comment...Obviously the person doing the sharing is a newb using kazaa, Best Buy and their own cable modem. Oh...and Journey? I think they should be brought in to testify as well. For example, the song "Don't Stop Believing" has been licensed in so many TV Shows and Movies it isn't even funny. Soprano's? Family Guy? Laguna Beach(ok a stretch there but you get the point). They have made so much money off of that song I find it hard to believe that they are loosing 'BIllions' from 1/10/1000 bad Kazaa users.
Maybe the RIAA should "Stop Believing" that going after Joey Kazaa is a solution to loosing money. Artists such as Radiohead, NIN and others are basically saying "Hey here is my music, if you want to buy it great...but we would still like to see your stoned asses still out at our concerts and if you want you can download our stuff for free or name your own price".
Dear RIAA, Embrace this new-fangled interweb thing, or go down in history as the single most organization responsible for destroying big-named record companies while every other good artist goes independent. (You can keep Brittany, she is entertaining to read about at times.) - Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Keep in mind, they used it in court; it's now publicly available in evidence records, and is therefore public domain.
- nastajus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4this needs equal representation, from the pros to the newbs. the case should be explainable to a stereotypical "computer illiterate" too from inside the courtroom. if not, they're not doing they're job.
- TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Could we abandon this pointless suit and simply have her sued and possibly jailed for her horrendous Myspace layout?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4lol, exactly what I thought.
- pAq6Swad, on 09/16/2008, -1/+4It's like a backwards lottery system -- we all get to cash on the benefits of downloading free *****, since there's a 1.0 E-100 chance of getting caught by the RIAA.
But if yours is the set of 4 numbers they choose that makes up your IP address: you're *****! - KEMIC1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3i wonder if the RIAA had permission to play that crappy Journey song publicly. i hope copyright rules still apply in a courtroom audience...
- pAq6Swad, on 09/16/2008, -0/+31. Many torrents are already 'lossless', they use .FLAC format
2. They've already pushed the "support artists" ideology, some artists themselves have done so. It doesn't work.
The only solution for the RIAA is to invade our privacy by building hardware support for digital property into our machines. Otherwise they're doomed and we donate money directly to artists on an honor system. Hmmm I wonder which I want. . . - IamBored, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Wow. Hard to believe this is being tried in my hometown. After RTFA, I have to say it doesn't look good. In all seriousness, it seems pretty obvious that she was the one downloading the music, and trying to convince the jury otherwise is going to be a difficult battle, especially when a quarter of the jury is computer illiterate.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow. http://law.jrank.org/pages/11154/Voir-Dire.html
- PopcornDave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Damn, I was hoping that the jury whipped out their bic lighters when the lights went down and waved them back and forth in the air.
- DeathfireD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"She had the hard drive replaced in March 2005 at a Best Buy store, and Gabriel said that both the RIAA and Thomas' forensic expert agreed that it wasn't the drive in use when the alleged infringement took place. Pointing out that the defendant was not planning to call her own forensic expert, Gabriel intimated that the hard drive was replaced to cover the defendant's tracks, saying that she said it was replaced in March 2004, not March 2005 as was actually the case."
I guess Bestbuy isn't bad all the time. - actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The recording industry pays taxes too, and I would venture to guess that they pay more taxes than you. I am by no means suggesting they should win because of this -- I think justice should be served, regardless of what side that fills on. I do, however, think they've paid more than enough into the system to cover the financial obligations of their day in court.
- Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2shhh
People are stupid; they don't know that. - ZetaVu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sadly I agree, there is no hard drive evidence, there is no proof that the media sentry or whatever method works, but the tracing does not reveal a router was used, and the username being used by the defendant other places makes it too much of a coincident. Sadly, with a civil trial only nine guilties are needed, and so far this defense has been mediocre at best. If lucky they could demonstrate that the mediasentry (or their new safegay whatever name) are not using reliable methods or proven methods, that the Iowa expert does not even know these methods, and that the RIAA was reaching about destruction of evidence (she replaced her hard drive a month before she was alerted about the subpoena). However, the coincidence of the same user name in Kazaa and the ip address being registered to her, that is too much. If the username could not be traced to her, then you can argue the ip address is not concrete evidence.
One can hope that maybe the arrogance of the RIAA executives is enough to anger 4 jurors, I think that is their only hope. - carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3too bad they'll likely pick a jury of people who don't have the faintest idea what's been going on with media downloading since researching the subject at all makes you pretty much incapable of being impartial.
- Ronnie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes. Let's pray, Let's pray this sets up a good precedent. Let's PRAY!
What part of Thou shalt not steal don't you get? - pmr12002, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ha Ha.. Gotta digg up that comment.
- Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I disagree. Assuming that these tech-illiterate people are well meaning and can reason, and further assuming that they won't feel they have a proper understanding of whats going on (which is quite possible), they might decide to do what most people consider right in that circumstance, and vote innocent. After all, better to let the guilty go free then the innocent go punished. Right?
- Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No. As MySpace pages go, it's not to bad. As MySpace pages go.
Really, all it needs to be legible is to adblock the background. - Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I hope she loses, appeals, and succeeds; a precedent needs set here, not just some ass-covering.
- eatbeefjerky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1if you like someones music enough to steal it maybe you should buy it directly from the source...
Except that.. you can't, for the most part. - NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would agree. The jury that was chosen doesn't sound particularly promising, and the defense went pretty technical right off the bat in their opening arguments. Even if all of the jurors didn't describe themselves as "total computer illiterates," I guarantee IP and MAC addresses are something that's a bit more over their heads than they're used to.
- NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Shouldn't it be "tereastarrrrrrrrrrrrr"?
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Especially true in a case of Big Business attacking the Little Guy; she's got a definitive advantage on that alone.
- Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Okay, the law should definitely be change; you've got us there.
Still...***** THE RIAA! They still practically steal money out of artists pockets themselves. - TheJokerV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2atleast it creates reasonable doubt... that's all that's needed in our judicial system right?
- psevium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Good luck Jammie Thomas
- kestrel127, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2cool, I like how the article gave out her myspace and other stuff. http://myspace.com/tereastarr
lets hear it for the internet..c'mon.. -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is