arstechnica.com— Schell ruled that the defendant's hard drive can only be examined by a neutral forensics expert, not the RIAA's own "experts".
Oct 27, 2006View in Crawl 4
Are you kidding this is a huge ruling. Before the RIAA could take the computer for however long they deemed necessary to search for missing files/install spy ware and could also potentially find other "skeletons in a person's closet" and use the threat or exposure before the search to force a settlement (not everyone knows all their rights you know. This would be very effective to a person who doesn't know better.). Even better is that it forces the process open and gives insight to what the RIAA is looking for and what types of detection methods they use depending on how they search the computer.Even if they didn't find anything your computer is as good as gone anyways. Want to synch your IPod, sorry no computer. Same with paying bills, surfing the web, getting your email. Not only are you out lawyer fees, you need to buy a new computer as well. Most people don't have 10 computers lying around like us nerds to hold the time over.It also makes the case less of a slam dunk, extending trial times and thus the rate of lawsuit filings. All in all a step in the right direction. Nice to know that while Democrats and Republicans are for sale there are some judges that still follow the law.
It might be whomever loses the case has to pay for the court fees, and other costs. But I would hope the RIAA would have pay for this kind of stuff if they want to "prove" their case.
If thats the truth, i'm gonna disable wpa and start seeding as many torrents as my drive will fit and then blame it on my assh**e neighbors :)Ok, just kidding. I think the real solution to the problem is for people to grow a spine and stop listening to RIAA bands and stop sharing their music. I haven't bought a single RIAA-member CD since they shut down napster back in '00, and I never will again. I don't miss it one bit. There's lots of good indie music out there that can fill the gap, and I feel better supporting those bands anyway. Hopefully, mainstream artists will figure out that they're record company masters are pissing off their fans, and move to an indie label.Should you be infringing copyright? no, probably not. Should you be paying $18 for a crappy CD with 2 good songs on it? Definitely not.
state security reasonscompany or personal data like banking ect that you dont want people getting access to without your knowlegealmost like a digital bank vault
Yeh but the problem is...basically everyone who knows how to use a computer (and even some of those people who don't) would have at some time or another, accepted a "stolen" peice of media or downloaded an illegal media file...Everyone has done it. Everyone will continue to do it. There's no stopping it. RIAA are a lost cause. They will never beat the world of population against them. Although their morals may be right...they still wont win. This is the future...maybe they should be embracing this, and trying to extract from positive out of all the negative they witness.
"You will be held liable if unknown third parties utilize your services at any time for the purpose of illegally distributing licensed software."That means that even if I've taken measures to secure my network, I am still liable if I somehow get hacked or someone finds a security flaw that I was unaware of. Such an exploit could originate anywhere; from the browser I'm using to the configuration of my firewall, whether or not I have any insecure or potentially insecure software installed, or even based on my operating system of choice.Granted I'm not saying the ISP should be held accountable either, but they're basically setting it up in such a way that you could get f**ked over even if you weren't doing anything wrong and did everything in your power to be safe.
fartherOct 27, 2006
A molten lead enema would suit them fine, methinks. Their lawyers should get the same.
dmadzakOct 27, 2006
Are you kidding this is a huge ruling. Before the RIAA could take the computer for however long they deemed necessary to search for missing files/install spy ware and could also potentially find other "skeletons in a person's closet" and use the threat or exposure before the search to force a settlement (not everyone knows all their rights you know. This would be very effective to a person who doesn't know better.). Even better is that it forces the process open and gives insight to what the RIAA is looking for and what types of detection methods they use depending on how they search the computer.Even if they didn't find anything your computer is as good as gone anyways. Want to synch your IPod, sorry no computer. Same with paying bills, surfing the web, getting your email. Not only are you out lawyer fees, you need to buy a new computer as well. Most people don't have 10 computers lying around like us nerds to hold the time over.It also makes the case less of a slam dunk, extending trial times and thus the rate of lawsuit filings. All in all a step in the right direction. Nice to know that while Democrats and Republicans are for sale there are some judges that still follow the law.
jcharrellOct 27, 2006
It might be whomever loses the case has to pay for the court fees, and other costs. But I would hope the RIAA would have pay for this kind of stuff if they want to "prove" their case.
seuaniuOct 27, 2006
If thats the truth, i'm gonna disable wpa and start seeding as many torrents as my drive will fit and then blame it on my assh**e neighbors :)Ok, just kidding. I think the real solution to the problem is for people to grow a spine and stop listening to RIAA bands and stop sharing their music. I haven't bought a single RIAA-member CD since they shut down napster back in '00, and I never will again. I don't miss it one bit. There's lots of good indie music out there that can fill the gap, and I feel better supporting those bands anyway. Hopefully, mainstream artists will figure out that they're record company masters are pissing off their fans, and move to an indie label.Should you be infringing copyright? no, probably not. Should you be paying $18 for a crappy CD with 2 good songs on it? Definitely not.
revadarthOct 28, 2006
f**k the RIAA.
atomic1fireOct 28, 2006
state security reasonscompany or personal data like banking ect that you dont want people getting access to without your knowlegealmost like a digital bank vault
ldavidOct 28, 2006
Yeh but the problem is...basically everyone who knows how to use a computer (and even some of those people who don't) would have at some time or another, accepted a "stolen" peice of media or downloaded an illegal media file...Everyone has done it. Everyone will continue to do it. There's no stopping it. RIAA are a lost cause. They will never beat the world of population against them. Although their morals may be right...they still wont win. This is the future...maybe they should be embracing this, and trying to extract from positive out of all the negative they witness.
apocalyptkOct 28, 2006
/begin German accent/They have ways of making you talk!/ends German accent/
quadoOct 28, 2006
AWESOME
spikitoOct 28, 2006
Dear RIAA,Pirates > RIAAPWNT Sincerely,Spikito
Closed AccountOct 29, 2006
"You will be held liable if unknown third parties utilize your services at any time for the purpose of illegally distributing licensed software."That means that even if I've taken measures to secure my network, I am still liable if I somehow get hacked or someone finds a security flaw that I was unaware of. Such an exploit could originate anywhere; from the browser I'm using to the configuration of my firewall, whether or not I have any insecure or potentially insecure software installed, or even based on my operating system of choice.Granted I'm not saying the ISP should be held accountable either, but they're basically setting it up in such a way that you could get f**ked over even if you weren't doing anything wrong and did everything in your power to be safe.
sleepparalysisFeb 13, 2009
This account has been closed by the user