What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
80 Comments
- alpha88, on 01/10/2009, -0/+140"Brennan was responsible for sharing at least five copyrighted songs"
Jesus ***** christ. RIAA, go die in a fire. - inactive, on 01/09/2009, -1/+133That is because their key witness is gone. The MediaSentry company has been proven a fraud.
- exspasticcomics, on 01/10/2009, -0/+112hope they racked up some decent size court expenses in the process of doing this.
- dukrous, on 01/10/2009, -2/+102***** the RIA...damn you, kyoobeh!
- kyoobeh, on 01/10/2009, -7/+82in before ***** THE RIAA.
- chasemassey, on 01/10/2009, -0/+44Between this and the story about the Harvard law professor calling for a public broadcast of the proceedings, things don't look to good for the RIAA.
- julianmaestas, on 01/10/2009, -4/+44bahaha
smash mouth??? come on, man - ajv570, on 01/10/2009, -0/+35woohoo die RIAA everyone hates you
- albatrossSKY, on 01/10/2009, -0/+35why do they even bother?
- alricsca, on 01/10/2009, -0/+29Well I think the judge's primary reason was that they were unable to notify the supposed person. Basically he said, if you cannot tell a person you are accusing them of something and there is no proof that they are actively evading you then a judge cannot rule in abstentia. Think about it, barring this anyone could basically win any time some moved from an address over 6 months past, this is when mail forwarding service stops, with nothing more than an accusation. Then there is the interesting element that judge implied even if the defendant had been present without more reason that he was given that he may not have been able to rule for them. This does raise the minimum standard they need to reach.
- zadadka, on 01/10/2009, -0/+29I liked the part about judicial onus being placed upon RIAA to demonstrate "actual distribution" to qualify as Copyright Infringement.
The best the RIAA can hope for thereafter is recovery of the retail value of the individuals songs cited.
Which bodes well for us leechers. - bdbr, on 01/10/2009, -1/+27The purpose of the lawsuits was to scare people away from illegal P2P. They spent far more money on investigations and legal expenses than they ever got in court (or from those settlements).
- Typhoon2009, on 01/10/2009, -0/+23Good to know. I'll just not show up to court if the RIAA tries to raise hell with me.
- OptionalPirate, on 01/10/2009, -0/+22Jesus masturbating?
- shulkman, on 01/11/2009, -0/+21Finally... I can come back outside... It's been hell hiding out in this basement...
-Christopher Brennan - inactive, on 01/10/2009, -1/+20I invite RIAA to eat many dicks
- snatchmstr, on 01/10/2009, -0/+19Just make sure you don't allow yourself to be handed a subpeona
- bdbr, on 01/10/2009, -0/+18This is probably why the RIAA changed their strategy. Its nearly impossible to gather the evidence that is now required to sue individuals, so they're trying to get the ISPs to just disconnect people.
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -0/+17Well honestly, he's getting sued for a P2P network that hasn't existed in about 4 years...
- trafficlight, on 01/10/2009, -0/+16No it wouldn't. It essentially be a guilty verdict. Just because the settlement was $1 the first time doesn't mean that's what it would be the second time.
- macfan93, on 01/10/2009, -1/+16I have very mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I’m concerned that the rampant downloading of my copyright-protected material over the Internet is severely eating into my album sales and having a decidedly adverse effect on my career. On the other hand, I can get all the Metallica songs I want for FREE! WOW!!!!!
—"Weird Al" Yankovic - ThatGeek, on 01/10/2009, -1/+16they get free money
- bakajojo, on 01/10/2009, -0/+14If they ever find him, that is.
- ljfrench, on 01/10/2009, -0/+13They didn't drop the case because the defendant didn't appear; they dropped the case because they couldn't find him to serve him with the complaint, which is required under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_of_process - inactive, on 01/10/2009, -0/+13True.......gotta think precedence
- Premier, on 01/10/2009, -0/+12not really
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -5/+17The judge should have granted a default judgement of $1.00
It would render such lawsuits worthless! - futureisours, on 01/10/2009, -3/+14Wow. Usually if you don't show up the plaintiff will almost always win by default. The RIAA is not stopping these lawsuits to be nice, this shows how weak their position and tactics are.
- valimar77, on 01/10/2009, -2/+13"The judge's rejection was also notable for raising the possibility that merely making files available to the world might not count as copyright infringement, unless actual distribution could be shown. "
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 01/10/2009, -0/+10I don't. They'll just charge their artists more.
...Although, I guess I don't have sympathy for those artists anyway. Nevermind. - RlAA, on 01/11/2009, -0/+10Impostor!
- betrayed, on 01/10/2009, -2/+12LA LA LA LA
I CAN'T HEAR YOU! - sciencelovesyou, on 01/11/2009, -0/+9Chris! Hi, nice to see you. Anyway, just want to hang out at TGI Fridays, y'know, catch up. Have a chat. Sue you until the face melts off your skull, that sorta thing. TTYL.
-The RIAA - RlAA, on 01/11/2009, -1/+10I would go die in a fire, but unfortunately...
♫I don't want to set the woooorld onnn fiiiiire
I just want to start
a flame in you're heaaart.♫ - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 01/10/2009, -0/+9Propaganda. Free media exposure. Fear tactics.
- drakethegreat, on 01/10/2009, -0/+9Thats assuming that the defendant is aware of the case but they couldn't even prove that at any point the defendant had received notice in anyway. Plus their evidence was weak. So giving them a default would certainly look bad for this Judge because it would appear pockets were being lined.
- AmazingSteve, on 01/10/2009, -1/+9Instead THIS guy just decided he was gonna stay home and download some hot Smash Mouth bootlegs.
- thesquirrelwood, on 01/10/2009, -0/+8why didn't anyone else think of that? Probaly because it doesn't work.
- 11oops, on 01/11/2009, -0/+8Civil cases don't have innocent/guilty verdicts.
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -0/+7Are any artists reading this? Like legit, signed, have a label out artists? Why do you guys pander to the RIAA?
- dlinkwit27, on 01/10/2009, -1/+8dugg for actually reading the article
- BobTheTaco, on 01/10/2009, -7/+14When someone says "Jesus ***** Christ", does anyone actually think about its literal meaning?
- AngelBunny, on 01/11/2009, -0/+6recap in 10 seconds:
"you've been served!!!" *runs away*
random guy: "but i'm not this chris guy...."
riaa: the defendant has not shown up. we win!! *starts dancing*
judge: oh rly now? - greevar, on 01/10/2009, -1/+6Good luck to them getting the ISP's to foot the bill to search their networks for infringing content. I don't think they will cooperate without some compensation.
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -1/+6***** the RIAA! :D
- jtbell04, on 01/11/2009, -0/+5Get the ***** out.
- supguy, on 01/11/2009, -0/+5***** YOU RIAA!!
- Games4Life, on 01/11/2009, -0/+3Why hello there RIAA.
- AngelBunny, on 01/11/2009, -0/+3the defendant was never served. he wins by default. i'm surprised RIAA even kept trying to push this case at all.
- OblivionMage, on 01/11/2009, -0/+3or yours
or mine -
Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is