What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
174 Comments
- asif5th, on 10/12/2007, -14/+222***** the RIAA, Bunch of pieces of *****
- InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -13/+185@kiv,
"You can be a lot more insulting to the RIAA without being a little ***** and using slurs."
Am I the only one who sees glaring irony in the above statement? - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -23/+156They are a bunch of morons, but I don't see what that has got to do with man-on-man anal penetration.
=/ - Plasmatica, on 10/12/2007, -2/+78What's next...suing the deaf?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+57Next they'll be suing the living dead.
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+63I think homosexuals would be outraged to be associated with the RIAA. Try using something less detrimental.
- deepfog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+50Well they go after basically helpless people like this because they pretty much know statistically they have a better chance of winning in their favor.
- Flametndo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+51*****.
- RaistlinMajere, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42First time on Digg ?
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35I agree, the outrage I see at the RIAA is usually "***** *****" and "kill these bastards" ect.
I wish you guys would be alittle bit more constructive in your retorts, because you're letting everyone know you're immature, and that's EXACTLY what the RIAA wants. If a bunch of civilized adults attacked the RIAA on what they stand for, people would actually listen. The Pirate Bay is a joke to most people, it undermines their goal. - muvment256, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32To this day, i still cannot find a single case that the RIAA has won, once the alleged infringer fights.
If the above statement is 100% true, we (or someone) should start a non-profit that defends all people that are harassed by the RIAA. - Poco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34This just makes me want to pirate music MORE, Arrrr!
- Twoodge, on 10/12/2007, -22/+51Yeah, I agree! Just without the blatant insensitive homophobia, *****.
- RedHerringHack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Everyone knows that zombies don't have ipods.
But seriously, I continue to boycott the RIAA in as many ways as possible.
I am witnessing to the masses the evil of the RIAA. - wompninja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25then they better be suing Microsoft because everyone has one of those folders
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24@stisaac
If you read the article, you'll see that this goes beyond a simple mistake.
Sending one of their "Pay up or we sue" letters and THEN learning the target is a partially paralyzed stoke victim living off disability isn't news.
What's news is that the RIAA filed suit AFTER learning of the man's financial and medical situation. - Plasmatica, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26You're probably one of those people who think it's justified to get a speeding ticket while driving 10 mph too fast on an empty highway.
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20@RedHerringHack
Considering the fact they've sued people who didn't even own computers, I'd say that not owning an iPod won't keep the Zombies safe. - halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19@mandarin
They don't stop there:
"RIAA lawsuit hits family with no computer or Internet access"
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7495.cfm - simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19You have no idea (or maybe you do) how good of an idea this is, not only for the obvious aspect, but because it's a symbol to demonstrate the cruelty and idiocy of the RIAA.
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19More to the point, did the stroke victim illegally upload music? ;-p
It seems to me that the medical condition is an irrelevant fact in the argument. Either you like what they are doing or you don't, I don't care if they are going after stroke victims or murderers, it is the same issue.
The only reason it is relevant here is that I gather from the article, though it is not entirely clear, that his condition made it impossible for him to pirate music (He claims not to have done so, but that doesn't mean he didn't). - calamnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16They'll sue them if the wireless case goes through, involving public networks.
- temmons, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Got this email at my school account today:
On Friday, March 9, and Saturday, March 10, the University of Michigan received notification that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) intends to sue or receive settlement from more than a dozen members of the U-M community engaged in unlawful peer-to-peer file sharing of music over the Internet. The RIAA has designated these individuals through IP addresses, and the University is in the process of identifying and notifying them.
This action is part of an increased effort to curtail unlawful peer-to-peer file sharing. As a result, individuals who engage in this practice are more likely than ever to be identified and sued by the RIAA. Most have settled these lawsuits out-of-court, typically for $4,000-$4,500.
The University does not condone unlawful peer-to-peer file sharing. Individuals who engage in it are violating a variety of University policies including Standard Practice Guide 601.7 - Proper Use of Information Resources, Information Technology, and Networks at U-M. This reminder also has been sent to all faculty and students. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14They probably have already... can't be that much harder than suing the dead dead.
- 8177, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Do you live beside a crippled guy who had a stroke?
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Somehow I have a feeling they're going after everyone who owns a computer...
- jcb1987, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14This conversation got really irrelevant really quickly.
- ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14@theuber1337
I hope you realize what a prick that makes you. - Disillusion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12There are 3 kinds of people that would defend the RIAA.
1. You work for them.
2. You are taking an uninformed stance.
3. You know a little about it and are taking the law = morality stance.
I'm guessing you are # 3 from your comments. There is no reason to defend an industry that refuses to adapt to new technologies. The RIAA lies and falsifies numbers to justify their behavior and rally support. If you really do your research, you'll find out they are not being hurt. You might also want to look up the words illegal and immoral and see what the difference is. No good and just business would sue their customers (or potential ones.) - amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12blue_eon: The mature and graceful thing to do would be to apologize. The idiot thing to do is defend using bigoted terms.
- MadMaxx426, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11...you attempted to make a correlation between a disabled guy vs. the RIAA...and a child predator?
....Wow. - Disillusion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11You sir, are a jackass.
Do some research on the topic before you spout off nonsense from your moral high horse. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I am envisioning a massive initiative exposes exactly what these organized corporate gangsters do. Shame them and expose their viciousness publicly. Then go after their industry sponsors, get names of executives who take decissions in giving RIAA/MPAA money. Drag it all out in the open. Publish home adresses, where their children go to school. Create severe repercussions.
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@datastorageguy
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
Which branch of the Bush administration do you work for? - Germanopinion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7tobbb555 "He did something illegal. "
How do you know that?
Just because Mr. Krichbaum, the RIAA lawyer that is accused of messing with teenage witnesses allege so in the complaint?
Are you aware that the RIAA themself admitted that they have sued the wrong persons that did not even had an internet account at the time they claimed they have evidence that the persons were infringing copyrights! - theuber1337, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7fine, fag
- batasrki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@30trip
You're joking, right? The dude is physically severely limited in his computer use. Not only that, he has no income to speak of. That's why they're going after him. He's an easy target and if they win, they'll be able to count him among people they've "successfully" stopped from "sharing". There's no sense in this. - quaunaut, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19Jesus, does Digg have to be politically correct now? I'm not condoning it, but sheesh folks.
- Disillusion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Spoken like a lawyer defending a guilty rapist. The RIAA does sue their customers. I also pointed out that they sue potential customers. If you want to get someone to use your products do you promote them in a positive way, or try to beat people into submission? I'll agree that the law is currently on their side as you point out. It used to be legal to have slaves, kill for various reasons, and other acts that are now illegal.
Your second fault is equating getting an MP3 off the internet to stealing. Physically stealing something is vastly different from aligning bits on a hard drive to match that of another. I'm not saying that everyone should rampantly download all their music and never buy anything, but there are many legit reasons in wanting to download music that the RIAA COULD be benefiting from if they were smart.
Arguments in favor of the RIAA's actions are just as stupid as justifications for drug prohibition. - 8177, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If they havent won a case than almost anyone can get away with it.
All they would have to do is quote one of the many similar cases that held against another?
someone who knows more about law then me, please explain.
All my lawsmarts are from a couple of Law and Order episodes. - ExSlashdotter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@wompninja
::spotlight search: my shared folder::
nah, not *everybody*. - 8177, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12And right next to them the ***** of the MPAA
- DeepDoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6To those saying that the RIAA is ok in going after people for stealing music:
Show me where this guy was convicted of stealing anything.
Show me where anyone sued by the RIAA was convicted of stealing music in a criminal court.
Guess what?
You cant because no one has been convicted of any crime. Instead the RIAA tries to sue people in civil court because the burden of proof is much easier. I do not think that stealing is right, but I think someone ought to be convicted of the crime before having to pay what amounts to restitution.
Not only that, but they are suing everyone for much more than the value of what was supposedly stolen. Explain how that is anything but bully tatctics. - williamharper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6At some point, the RIAA will have to start to become at least somewhat concern with their public image.
Their approval rating is just below GW's and just above infant torture. - dodoporridge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12blue eon--you're an asswipe.
jazzmine--you're a *****. - nobullmouth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If you really hate the RIAA and want to do something about it then sign your name to the EFF petition. 80,000 signatures. With just 20,000 more they are going to to deliver to Senate and House Commerce and Judiciary Commitees.
GO HERE: http://www.eff.org/share/petition/
-Bullmouth
www.bullmouth.com - Germanopinion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Danjak your example is flawed too,
first of all, no one is making money from the sharing of the mp3's
and second the copyrightowners refuse to sell the product themself. so there is no financial loss since they refuse to offer the product in the first place!
And do not try to argue that no one is willing to pay for mp3. (RIAA's stupid "you can't compete with free" argument)
the russian site that the RIAA doesn't like was very successful in selling the same product that their customers could easily get without any payment from the next p2p system! - idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ChumpChief
Well, he's half-paralyzed.
Also, the "offense" was in Michigan, but he lives in Florida. - ray901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Danjak
The common theme throughout your postings on this thread indicate that you feel that everyone who gets sued by the RIAA is guilty. You are wrong.
"Everyone knows that stroke victims should be allowed to break whatever laws they want with absolutely NO penalty"
"but I'm still going to laugh my ass off when you losers get sued for stealing."
"Thieves are people who steal things. This is no different than Walmart suing a shoplifter"
"Spoken like someone who wants to be able to steal without penalty."
This is the fallacy of your argument and you don't seem to realise that many people dislike the RIAA because they sue and hound innocent people. In short, you clearly show that you do not understand the underlying argument against the RIAA and additionally you support the RIAA unequivocally and are quite biased.
God help anyone you defend in court. - Scrappy1850, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5good idea 1...2...3... GO!
what you havent started yet? -
Show 51 - 100 of 174 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is