What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
78 Comments
- doiveo, on 12/31/2008, -1/+67Cost of infraction: $5000.00
Being pissed about how weak their system is: $899,995,000
Illustrating how everyone involved looks like greedy douche bags ... - gigabyte3d, on 12/31/2008, -1/+62900 million? Judge is gonna laugh and then tell them to ***** a duck.
- ansatsu29, on 12/31/2008, -0/+49That is quite insane. 900 million dollar suit just for using someone else's account, including copyright infringement too.
- mrzeero, on 01/01/2009, -0/+38Who uses this? http://www.bugmenot.com/
- mrcaulfield, on 12/31/2008, -0/+33This is reminiscent of that guy who sued for millions b/c the cleaners messed up his precious pants. Ridiculous.
- 8randon, on 01/01/2009, -2/+24control+F: 900 - Phrase not found
control+F: million - Phrase not found
??? - ryrocker, on 01/01/2009, -1/+21
900 million for using someone else's account?
that better a ***** good porn site! - euro22, on 01/01/2009, -0/+18That's because no one is going to share their paid accounts. This is meant for the free websites that won't show content until you register.
- c07g, on 01/01/2009, -0/+18People suing others for inexplicably high sums of money thanks to a stupid little problem they let happen in the first place ? It can't be!! No one would ever do that.
- Collecto, on 01/01/2009, -3/+18***** THE RIAA!!!!
- skuzzed, on 01/01/2009, -0/+14But it is America. Any amount for a lawsuit is possible.
***** it, sue everyone. - allocate, on 12/31/2008, -2/+16DMCA ftl
- asdfgafawer3, on 01/01/2009, -2/+15"Ever used a friend's account to sign on to a Web site instead of paying its subscription fee? Of course you have."
I don't think this as common as the person who wrote this thinks it is. - inactive, on 12/31/2008, -0/+11that guy was a judge and got in serious trouble for trying to destroy that guy
- spritom, on 12/31/2008, -4/+13Wow, I must have done my math wrong. Here I'm only asking $450 million from the Digg Power User Cartel for sniping my stories. I need a better lawyer!
/s - DaManIAm, on 01/01/2009, -0/+8overpriced real estate is porn.
- inactive, on 01/01/2009, -0/+8The company certainly has a claim, but not a 900 million dollar one.
- jec68, on 01/01/2009, -3/+11The occupation of "realtor" needs to stop existing.
- 8randon, on 01/01/2009, -0/+8just did a quick search for "mlb.com" - came up with usernames such as "*****" and "*****". funny how they're all registered "@*****.com".
it seems this site only works for major news sites/ sites where no fees are required to join.
the success rate button seems like a neat idea, though. - 2oonhed, on 01/01/2009, -0/+7Better pay the duck too, or it can sue for theft of services.
And everyone knows, you cannot ***** a ***** duck. - bizeb, on 01/01/2009, -1/+8I agree. Sounds like he just ratted himself out, though. LOL.
- weister42, on 01/01/2009, -2/+8I dealt with a customer today who was being really difficult for no reason, I should sue her for wrecking my mood.
- the2989, on 01/01/2009, -2/+8The article doesn't say $900 million, the person who submitted this is a fruitcake.
- mithrasinvictus, on 01/01/2009, -2/+8Reading the first line of the article: "Editor's note: This story has been modified since its original publication due to a transmission error."
Probably not trentmonica's fault then.
RTFA before you digg. - Dewhead, on 01/01/2009, -1/+7There is a little more to it than that. I am realtor and I have to pay very hefty dues to access the listing services. The site is designed to be used by licensed agents not the general public. I would lose my license and probably be sued if I gave out my log in info too. It almost like giving out your company intranet log in to a competitor.
- bjornski, on 01/01/2009, -0/+6Or letting someone else use your business license.
- BlakeEM, on 01/01/2009, -2/+7This title is BS and it's not 900mil. The submitter of this article is almost as big of a douche as the company suing.
"We're using copyright because it gives us access to enhanced damages compared to a straight breach of contract suit."
So they are suing for the wrong thing that has nothing to do with anything because they might get more money, but really this case will just get thrown out if the judge isn't a complete moron. - billricardi, on 01/01/2009, -1/+6Oh sweet, sweet irony. From the description on here (never used in the article):
"One realtor is facing down a $900 million suit"
The word 'realtor' is defined as a member of the National Association of Realtors. To use it to refer to a group, they should have an NAR membership requirement to work as an agent in the office. Dumann Realty doesn't display any of the NAR logos, or mention them once on their web site (which is a requirement if you make that claim).
Thus: Your use of the term 'realtor' to refer to a non-member is in violation of NAR policy, and an attack on their registered trademark and the copyright of the text of their logo! Congrats! You've just breached Copyright and Trademark violations yourself! :)
Eh, what do I care, I'm not an NAR member anymore. Go crazy. - bjornski, on 01/01/2009, -0/+5Nah, it's not porn.
But it IS obscene. - 13ohemian, on 01/01/2009, -0/+5its been edited , its not 900 mill anymore
its 150 k for each picture he used. - mysticalone, on 01/01/2009, -0/+5"We would have sued for breach of contract but copyright infringement gives us more money in these tough times."
OH! It's ok then.
/s - carlosos, on 01/01/2009, -0/+5The pants weren't messed up. Those pants were lost for 2 or 3 days. He didn't get his clothes the day he was promised. That makes it even crazier.
- AdamWest2122, on 01/01/2009, -0/+4There is a firefox extension "BugMeNot" that can auto-enter the user/pass from bugmenot in a form with a right click.
- inactive, on 01/01/2009, -2/+6Might as well round up to an even billion.
- ryrocker, on 01/01/2009, -0/+4clearly you dont live in america
- BigLeeThree, on 01/01/2009, -0/+4Sum is excessive. They'll probably win the suit, but with a greatly reduced settlement.
- bubba9999, on 01/01/2009, -0/+4Well, someone is getting ***** one way or another.
- cowsgonemadd3, on 01/01/2009, -2/+5Bugmenot
- Midtowner, on 01/01/2009, -0/+3I'm actually glad to see that there are two potentially well-funded litigants here who might actually take these statutory damages claims all the way through the federal court system without settling. It'd be nice to see an appellate court strike down the $150K/violation provision as being unreasonable.
I think the argument that there was an infringement on the copyright here is a valid one assuming all of the facts. I think that according to the law, a reasonable interpretation of it lends to us concluding that each and every violation of a copyright = $150K. I do not think, however, that Congress' intent was for copyright award claims to result in such massive windfalls to plaintiffs that judgment amounts might easily exceed (by multiple times) their company's annual revenue, or further, exceed the actual damages of the plaintiff by hundreds or thousands of times.
A recent Supreme Court verdict (in a different area of federal common law) recently set aside and reduced the verdict for the oil spill caused by the Exxon Valdez because the damages were unconstitutional in that they were more than 10x actual damages. I'm hoping to see that sort of scheme applied across the board in cases like this. - muchenik, on 01/01/2009, -0/+3This is just sickening. They stated themselves that they are claiming copyright violation just so they can go for the big bucks.
Now the RIAA has really shown how copyright violation per access has yielded no results in court. I wonder how it will work here. Because who is next?
Fileplanet? - inactive, on 01/01/2009, -1/+4Indeed. Throw enough lawsuits at people, and something's gotta stick.
- 13ohemian, on 01/01/2009, -1/+4***** a duck ....NEW ONE !
- inactive, on 01/01/2009, -1/+4Not even close.
It would be like going into Blockbuster, duping all of their DVDs then selling them.
This is certainly a legitimate case. $900M worth, I doubt.
But Dumann will certainly be paying in the millions. - hmunkey, on 01/01/2009, -0/+3But will it cover all the legal fees?
- inactive, on 01/01/2009, -0/+3And he was a Lawyer, not a judge.
Only a Bush appointed Attorney General or a complete wak job could think like that,, - christoast, on 01/01/2009, -0/+2Faved for emergencies.
Thanks. - Craftybegonia, on 01/01/2009, -1/+3Amazing what people will do when money is harder to come by than usual.
- Jables30, on 01/01/2009, -0/+2if you have to explain your joke it isn't funny
- inactive, on 01/01/2009, -0/+2Who knew pictures were really worth that much, i need to get a camera.
- inactive, on 01/01/2009, -0/+2I feel cheated
***** you trentmonica
buried -
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is