What is Digg?66 Comments
- krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -2/+89i really hope you're not serious. the idea is that it's called double recovery. when the RIAA got money from kazaa for all the kazaa users infringing on the RIAA's copyrights, the RIAA was made whole. by going after the consumers, the RIAA want's more compensation than the damages they have suffered... hence double recovery.
- xenozohar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+63Remember those 20 spyware/adware programs that came with Kazaa? They paid for it.
- Phaedruss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+65Effective sarcasm generally requires wit.
- aadnk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40Not necessarily, as they argued the damages he (among others) had caused already had been covered by the $115,000,000 settlement, which surely wouldn't cover any new breaches of copyright law in the future.
- tackle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37Kazaa paid $115,000,000 to RIAA?? Where did they get that kind of money from?
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30These services make tons of money on advertising. Did you think they were idealistic freedom fighters? Look at all the crapware that comes bundled with kazaa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazaa#Bundled_malware - PatrickFisher, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31"It is not their fault. The thing is:
1. It is not an acronym at all, it is an abbreviation.
2. You are a smuck."
-chmod
It's not your fault. The thing is:
1) ac·ro·nym (ăk'rə-nĭm')
n.
A word formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAC for Women's Army Corps, or by combining initial letters or parts of a series of words, such as radar for radio detecting and ranging.
2) You are a smuck. - mookieXL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22@ifonly
Kazaa = *****, malware ridden P2P client using ineffective FastTrack network. Don't even think about using it. - groverblue, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24What the ***** is the internet?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19WTF is WTF?
- sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24Now that is a really good idea. But if he wins, people will be able to legally download songs using kazaa again.
- darkened, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14The RIAA will eventually hit a brick wall with their lawsuits specifically that the defense that statutory damages of $750 is so disproportional to the value is unconstitutional. The more and more people that start to defend themselves, the more likely this will make it to higher courts and become very likely to be ruled in favor of the defendants. Since there has never been any precedent for statutory damages so off skew of real world value.
- brianbennett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13He's using Kazaa. I think that tells you what you need to know.
- keane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12sorry to be a wise ass but technically RIAA is an initialism
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/initialism - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12chmod -f 444 digg.txt
echo $SCHMUCK - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Distribution carries a bigger penalty than downloading. By their design, P2P networks make downloaders into distributers. While you may only download a given song once, you upload it to many people all over the world.
- krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -1/+10@groverblue
don't you mean the "internets"? - Skeksis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I was completely unaware that anyone still used Kazaa.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The RIAA can't recover from the defendant in joint-and-several libaility. Kazaa, on the other hand, can recover from the defendant if they so choose.
But this is merely the defendant's claim (and a pretty decent one). If punitive damages are being levied, then the defendant may be charged merely for his use and that would be severed from Kazaa's claim. - Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Stole? How is reproduction of a product stealing? You can't be serious. The damages claimed by the RIAA area absolutely hypothetical numbers. They are assuming that each download would have resulted in a sail, and that one individual personally seeded and helped distribute the product to hundreds of individuals which many times isn't the case.
This is a new form of copyright infringement, not theft, copyright infringement. No matter how intent a person is on claiming it to be otherwise it is copyright infringement. This takes the severity of the crime down a large peg which the RIAA does not want.
Now in an absolutely moral world I would agree with you that if you don't want to pay for the music, don't try to get it for free. However, I can't disparage a person's moral choice and the RIAA shouldn't consider that choice to be nothing but petty theft. The internet has made this field almost absolutely grey. It is neither theft, nor as easy as suing people to solve. - Kerwin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I agree. RIAA, so stupid they couldn't come up with an easily pronounced acronym.
- graemee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12And who the hell is the RIAA?
- MMulder, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@chmod
Sorry, nope. It is an acronym. Recording Industry Association of America. - Cykaos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Can anyone explain why a 99 cent song costs several hundred dollars in court? Are they charging you for all the other people they can't catch? Seems illegal..
- Beaver6813, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6After reading through the legal response sent back to the courts, i think hes got a good case of defending himself with. The prosectutors have made un-consitutional requests, and have failed to mention many things that will impact on the case. If i was in the jury i would be for the defendant, not because im a supporter of file sharing, which im not. But because the request of $750 is just madness, the RIAA is just the music industries excuse to get more money out of people.
- airstrike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7the way i see it, every initialism is nonetheless an acronym, though not all acronyms are initialisms (e.g. TNT).
- nipterink, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6what happened to the second affirmative defense
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6WTF is reading the article?
- Jolene, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I had a friend who got sued for "Loss of Happiness" by a lady who rear ended him. She claimed that since she was in a accident, she could never be happy again while driving... And she won the case...
So... Can I sue the RIAA for loss of happiness? - Xilon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So that RIAA won't come after all the eDonkey200 servers, Gnutella/Gnutella2(/Mike's Protocol) nodes, etc.
- thatrez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't know if you can sue the RIAA for loss of happiness, but I think I might be able to sue president bush for that.
- jetskidude911, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow, I didn't know all of this was still going on. It seems like they just keep on and on about it. I do understand why they're doing it, but you know, it seems like people are just going to keep downloading music off P2P.
- intent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4He should be forced to pay that much just for still using Kazaa.
- positron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Legally a corporation *is* an individual. That is the entire point of incorporating to begin with. Incorporation grants a company, through legal fiction, the status of personhood. This is why, in most cases, the employees and/or owners of a corporation cannot be held individually accountable for their actions as part of the corporation. Only the corporation itself, as an organization, can be held accountable. Ever wondered how the owners of a corporation that has been sued or otherwise accumulated a massive debt can simply disolve the business and keep their profits? Now you know.
If you really want things to change, you'd have to come up with a way to nullify and ban corporate personhood. As much as I'd support you, it's not gonna happen. - brianbennett, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Ha ha! I love it!
- EPeters, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Kazaa owners sold Skype to Ebay for billions. That would make a funny Ebay parody commercial. "Where does the RIAA shop for cash? They got IT on Ebay."
- chmod, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@PatrickFisher
@MMulder
You are wrong. Well, except for my misspelling of "schmuck", but it happens. Please look up the definition to the word acronym. You do not pronounce RIAA as a word. You say the individual letters. It is not an acronym. It is an abbreviation (which an acronym is also), and it is also an initialism (as keane pointed out). Feel free to look those up too.
@airstrike
It is fine if you see it that way, it simply isn't. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You are right. It's been a campaign of mine for a long time to recognize Corporations as SECOND class Citizens. Rather than the Uber_Citizenship they currently enjoy.
Think about it. Every individual in the Corporation still has all their rights. In essence they get the rights of an additional individual as well as the power of pooling their individual rights. This is nothing more than a legalized GANG!
In no other instance would we ever support a gang attacking an individual.
The sooner people are woken up to the fact that the RIAA has no claim to the rights they are defending, and THEN to the fact that the system started off biased in their favor, the sooner we can end this corruption. - RayBeckerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Short answer: they didn't "catch" him. As with all their cases, they have no idea if the defendant was or was not a Kazaa user, or if he had anything at all to do with the shared files folder they identified. All they know is that he paid for an internet access account which they think was used to access the dynamic IP address in their screen shot.
- Punisher2K, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Just because you win a case doesn't mean you'll see any money. Exxon still hasn't paid for the Valdez suit.
- RayBeckerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These cases are based on screenshots from a year or two ago.
- Dunce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So if people are still using it...and we can find it...then...maybe we wont have to sue for loss of happiness...right!?
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From stupid people.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Buy software? Who still does that?
- RayBeckerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I disagree with you on a number of counts.1. The whole concept comes from the US Supreme Court. 2. No district court in the country is going to ignore a decision from US Court of Appeals from the 2nd Circuit. In fact, if their own circuit court hasn't ruled on it, they're bound to follow the ruling of the 2nd Circuit. 3. The link between statutory damages and punitive damages was noted by the 2nd Circuit, and as a matter of fact the US Supreme Court based its punitive damages decisions in part on statutory damages statutes.
- EmperorAwesome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So people still use kazaa...hhhhhhhhhhhuh.
- lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Copy-wrong issues - all rights reversed. According, that is, to those who think it's OK to take things they want and not pay for them. It's risible behaviour.
I'm a musician and a pro-photographer. When someone downloads my work and doesn't pay then it's theft - end of story. What else would you call it? I wonder if the idiots above would argue so vehemently if someone downloaded their credit-card numbers and reproduced them for their own use.
If I wasn't so commonly ripped of by idiots who want to play with the meaning of words to support their theft I'd be a less poor man. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3First of all, the RIAA has no claim to the Copyrights. Article I, Section 8, Line 7 of the Constitution grants protection to the "Author or Inventor" "for a limited time". Not to a third party management corporation indefinitely.
We need to repeal copyright for corporate use. Copyrights should only be held by individuals. - Systembomber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They should work out the cost per song by looking for the highest and lowest cost of the album the song is from and average it, then divide it by how many tracks! Then maybe times it by 4 but thats still a bit insane.
- SpoBo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sure, if everyone would download it once and upload it 750 times to other people ... I bet even a 3 year homeless kid starving to death somewhere in the middle of Burundi should have downloaded it by then.
-
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is