What is Digg?84 Comments
- lukeydukey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+50It's indeed very smart she's hiring independent data forensic experts. I bet the RIAA would plant stuff in her hard drive if they examined it. But who knows.
- ilitorat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+37Where does the RIAA get its scare tactics from? They sound like the mob how they come to people and suggest they pay them a small fee and this problem will go away, but don't pay the racket money, and you are in for big trouble.
- futurekill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26That would be an interesting angle to go after the RIAA and MPAA with...try and charge them with something under the RICO act...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25LMFAO about time someone started a full fledged defense.... Whats great is not only is she going to win the case, but now shes going to set a precedent.... If she is proven 100% innocent, the RIAA is fairly screwed, cause everyone, even the guilty will actually take it to court. The RIAA may have a huge lump sum of $$ (provided by the people they are suing) but I can't imagine they have the resources to actually goto court for each case.
------------------
http://www.findacritter.com - thegsa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19It would Be Great If The Riaa got charged with something under the RICO act.
I would laugh my ass off. - MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18That's what shred is for.
- TheReport, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16"The RIAA has so large a legal budget that it doesn't matter if you win the case or not, you'll be ruined financially if you fight. Pay 'em a nice chunk of change up front, or go through years of expensive legal wrangling and still risk having to pay them way more than the settlement offer, plus legal expenses."
Tis true but imagine if all of the broke little guys throughout history had decided that they would not stand up against modern day injustices. Tobacco companies would still be shoving Joe Camel down our throats, Merc would still be mainlining Vioxx into your loved ones, Lenny Bruce would have never paved the way for comedians like George Carlin and David Chappelle, and the list of people who died broke standing up for what they believed in through countless legal battles goes on. I think these bully tactics are brutish and uncalled for. Every week I read about some mother being dragged through our legal system because some hard-on in a suit thinks that everyone with a computer is out to download their "clients" ***** illegally. Have they not learned that this will never end. They are fighting a losing war with a high rate of collateral damage. I'm not saying that this woman is innocent by any feat, and even if she wasn't should she pay the price? that isn't really for me to decided. What I am willing to drag my fingers through is the evolution of the times. It is obvious that P2P file sharing will never go away and to try to suppress it instead of addressing the issue and finding ways to regain capital through it, the whole "if you cant beat them join them" theory, is just plain ridiculous. They are fighting a war against a whole Generation raised to think pragmatically and are computer savvy. Its time to rethink your tactics. - knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Pirate your music.
If you want to help out your favorite bands just male them the $10-$15. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13You would need to do more than reformat (that just deletes the FATs), you'd have to write over the data. Its possible that she could figure out how to do this or her lawyer could show her how. In any case props for not breaking down an taking out a mortgage to finance these RIAA sonsofbitches.
- Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I'm glad the judge is forcing the RIAA to pay for the 3rd party work. It shouldn't be open season for them to run up the bill. I hope she counter sues if it is found out that she didn't have any of the files they said she did. I don't believe in stealing copyrighted media, but the *IAA's have gone too far, one too many times already.
- surfbass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12If Joh Gotti and Adolf Hitler had a love affair, the RIAA is what came out of it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14*koshak
Did you RTFA? A forensics expert went through the computer and found no evidence of any pirating.... - venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@koshak
Even if she's found guilty, it wouldn't be of stealing. No matter how much the RIAA and MPAA pretend otherwise, copyright infringement does not equal theft. - AndreMA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Not exactly. The RIAA wanted carte blanche to look at her drive; instead the judge told her to hire a qualified forensics expert - at RIAA expense - to look only for things relevant to the RIAA suit. But of course you knew that, having read the article.
- Raldikuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"Not at all incidentally, the RIAA is also being sued by Andersen - in a RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization) case which is on hold pending the results of the investigation of Andersen's hard drive."
From the article...obviously you read it. - oneeyedelf1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Actually doing a low level format 0's the hd rather than just deleting the FATs. but in any case, all you can do is reduce probability of recoverability by overwritting data multiple times with different patterns (shred)
- Ignathius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11the blurb here is actually incorrect.
the RIAA didn't loose a 'bid' to examine her hdd. in fact, the RIAA has basically refused to examine her hdd (probably afraid they'd get cought doctoring the drive to make it appear she was actually sharing songs when she wasen't). she was almost pleading the RIAA to examine her computer so they could see they were wrong. instead, a judge told her to have it examined by a 3rd party to prove or disprove the RIAA's claims, and ordered the RIAA to foot the bill.
this is but one of many nails in the RIAA's forthcomming coffin. heck, who knows. maybe in the near future, artists will actually get paid for the works they create once the RIAA has been shut down. - Xiol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10http://dban.sourceforge.net/ - Cleans hard drives to US DoD standards.
Chew on that, RIAA mofo. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10What really angers me about the article is this:
"The woman, Tanya Andersen, lives alone with her nine-year-old daughter, Kylee, surviving on Social Security disability payments."
Could we pick a more defenseless target here?! Suing disabled single moms doesn't strike me as giving them the moral high ground they like to pretend they have. Fines are not enough punishment. This calls for jail time. - nullmind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Remember that hard drives and magnets have absolutely no connection what-so-ever. Makes good sense when you consider a small motor is involved in the operation of the damn thing.
You'll have better luck burning it, or just host some popular website that gets on digg :) - SavannahLion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9If you read the article carefully, it mentions, "The RIAA had always ignored her but then, out of the blue, suddenly wanted a court order to allow it to ferret freely through her hard drive." It was then that the lawyer refused unfettered accessed to her drive (due to, I believe, privacy concerns) at which point the Judge gave the woman the go ahead to hire a private investigator to do the examination and to send the bill to the RIAA.
You're kind of making it sound like the Judge is *forcing* the RIAA to examine the drive. - venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8They do need to be sued under RICO. Extortion is what these lawsuits by the RIAA are all about IMO. The RIAA has so large a legal budget that it doesn't matter if you win the case or not, you'll be ruined financially if you fight. Pay 'em a nice chunk of change up front, or go through years of expensive legal wrangling and still risk having to pay them way more than the settlement offer, plus legal expenses.
All they need is some thug to come by and say: "It'd be a real shame if...I dunno...you got sued or something." - matija, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9LOVE this quote from article:
"RICO suits are more normally used in Organized Crime prosecutions."
how appropriate for the RIAA - sinembarg0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The RIAA is not the man. Stick it to the RIAA.
http://www.jinx.com/scripts/details.asp?affid=-1&productID=181 - frozencaldera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I still think the British system of 'if you lose you pay court costs' would help prevent more cases of this type.
- SavannahLion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@ oneeyedelf1
That's no longer true. When you formated older drives, it really was a low level format. For some time (not sure when it started), a "low level" format of a drive doesn't do what you think it does. A standard Format utility, such as the one found with Windows, merely erases and rebuilds the tables. Might even do a read/write test, though I doubt it.
The so-called low level format utilities you can get from some of the drive manufactures don't do a true low-level format either. They generally just do a read/write test in some manner. Low-level formats went out the door when the manufactures started implementing more advanced techniques to ensure sector information lasts the life of the drive. Even if the drive manufacturer utility simply writes out patterned data, the old data can still be recovered.
In the department I work for, I learned there's only one true way to destroy data on a disc drive. Shred the drive, literally. - asplodzor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6koshak, As far as I know, NO ONE has been found guilty yet, because no one has actually gone through trial... everyone has just settled beforehand.
Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. - Xiol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@sanjay
You have no idea what you're talking about. That's why people developed DBAN (link above, same thread).
It takes at least 9 passes to make data completely unrecoverable - up till that point it can still be recovered. Hell, they recommend 38 passes as a failsafe! Professional recovery systems can get data back if you just do it your way.
And why, oh why, would you write a C program to write 0s to your hard disk????
# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda - venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's pretty much how it is here too, at least when huge sums of money are involved. Part of the damages sought are often legal costs. You just have to ask for them, it's not automatic.
- MrCodeDude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Is the website down?
edit: Apparently, you must put the www. before the site name. - MasterSplinter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Nice! Its about time something like this happened. I'm glad to see the news is picking up on this as well, now if only people will listen.
- itsmekirby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@PaulRClark
That's not true, but titanium decoy didn't say it correctly either. Both of your comments are half-truths.
It IS a felony to securely delete files IF they are requested as evidence. You may not do what you want with your property in this case. - titaniumdecoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You can be sued for securely deleting files.
http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6048449.html?part=rss&tag=6048449&subj=news - centinall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I hope I'm not changing the subject, but there are a couple of things that I have always wondered.
1) Unsecured wireless networks. I bet if you were to look at all the available wireless networks right now, more than half of them would be open to anyone. That means that anyone could connect to Kazaa/Gnutella/etc and download copyright material. Should the owner of the network, or the person that set it up be culpable for the infringement? Is it a reasonable/legal excuse?
2) Spyware/backdoors/trojans/etc... Does anyone know of any piece of software that is installed without the owner's knowledge that acts as a node, and only a node, in one of these P2P networks? It would look like the person that is "infected" is actually the one that is downloading the copyright material. Again, are they culpable?
These are two issues that I never see brought up in these copyright infringement stories. Now, I'm sure that most of these people wouldn't have a clue about what I'm talking about, but I never see geeks mentioning it either. What do you think? - monsieurgrand02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A few million is quite an understatement.
- Portfolioso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The only problem with this case is that the woman is probably innocent, and not trying to take on the RIAA to make a point. Just because she wins does not mean everyone who does download music is clear.
- samstr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Good post. Lets hope the RIAA get screwed in this case.
-------------------------------
http://www.wirah.com - cadpo76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Only gov/milspec magnets can reliably wipe a HDD's data. Anything else (kitchen magnets, science fair magnets) just won't cut it. Also for FYI, a DoJ secure wipe consists of 9 passes while 38 is considered failsafe.
- Smily, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3From the website:
We have 79658 signatures so far - this is amazing! If we can get 100,000 signatures, we will deliver the petition to the Senate and House Commerce and Judiciary Commitees.
Nice :)
I would sign up if I would be in the states :) - hayden.evans, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5***** them
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I am so happy that people are starting to sue the RIAA under the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization) act. The RIAA and the MPAA are acting no differently that any other organized thugs and should be prosecuted as such. The mob has lots of good lawyers and they lose everyday. It's time for the RIAA and MPAA to share their same crooked fate.
- PaulRClark, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ titaniumdecoy
He was sued because he deleted files off of a computer that wasn't his. He did not own the property to destroy it.
You can do what you want with your property. Property being the arrangement of bits on your hard drive. - Web_Weasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A external magnet powerful enough to affect the drive would also be powerful enough to crush it. There is no such thing as a reliable erase. Just making it expensive to retrieve.
Complete destruction (i.e. shredding and melting) is the only way to make sure. Remember 80% of the drives retrieved from the WTC collapse were recoverable. - astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Finally someone succesffuly stuck it to the RIAA!
- enog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3maybe the independent expert might just drop the hard drive and break the platters inside. oh well, accidents happen.
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Awesome article! Def deserves a DIGG!! I hate the RIAA as much as the next person, however, this absolutely proves nothing. Let me explain. The RIAA claims the downloading happened well over a year ago. This lady could've easily swapped harddrives with someone else who has a used harddrive that's never touched MP3's. Hand over that harddrive and there's proof that nothing was downloaded, but only on that harddrive. I personally have 5 harddrives, some of them are old ones. Why not just give the forensic guy one that I know is clean? All this thing does is prove that the harddrive she gave them didn't have any downloads on it, not that she never downloaded anything. I believe her personally...but legally this proves NOTHING except that it's not the harddrive the RIAA is claiming she downloaded files onto...there is no possible way to ever PROVE she is innocent. And the RIAA doesn't HAVE TO prove she is innocent...it's not a criminal lawsuit (innocent until proven guilty) it is a civil lawsuit.
Example: OJ Simpson was declared "Not Guilty" Legally, but civilly he lost millions of dollars because they didn't have to PROVE "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did it. Thus he lost the civil lawsuit, and this lady might potentially lose it too because she can't prove she's innocent.
There's always hope the judge/jury will side with her though, and there's always hope the RICO lawsuit will win her more money than she loses in the RIAA civil lawsuit! - Synoptic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It would be brilliant if the RIAA got charged with racketeering and had to pay damages in a class action suit to all of those families that were "stealing" from the music industry.
- matt0ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How can you not digg this article... bout time this happened to the bloody RIAA
- tuxidomasx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I thought about this too. seems to me that its an easy way to dodge the RIAA. just offer a wireless connection. then connect to it with your other computer to download whatever you want (use a forged mac address). If the RIAA comes knocking, claim someone must have cracked your WEP and used your connection to download or share stuff. give them the forged mac address and the saved arp tables showing when someone connected and how long they stayed on.
i dont think a jury would convict someone who's computer connection was compromised (especially if they took "decent" default steps to protect it-- wep). its like someone breaking into Bob's house, stealing a gun, and then robbing a bank with it. can you blame Bob? maybe they could push the blame to the supplier of the wireless access point for selling products with weak default setups that resulted in Bobs connection getting compromised and used for copyright infringment.
but then again, the RIAA is from the 7th gate of hell, so you never know. they might still try to sue Bob. "failure to not get compromised" or some BS. - j0c1f3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3jeese....she can just buy a new drive and set it up.....
-
Show 51 - 84 of 84 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