digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Can RIAA sue for songs they never verified by downloading from you?

recordingindustryvspeople.blog… — Preclusion Motion Filed in UMG v. Lindor; Lindor Says RIAA Cannot Introduce Songs into Lawsuit if it Has Not Produced Song Files

Who dugg this? Made popular Sep 23, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

39 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • someguyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22The RIAA makes me want to download and distribute music illegally...
  • MikeKnoop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21It Used To Be A Common Business Practice To Type Like This In Formal Letters And Documents.

    -Mike
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Well that only makes sense. I mean the basic requirement for a lawsuit is proof of damages. Lawyers... pshaw
  • woxidu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16it Appears as Though they've Left Pronouns and Prepositions in Lower Case.
  • cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Just don't buy RIAA product (used is ok) try to support artists that are not part of this group, go to concerts, use DRM rippers for music you have purchased, and share music every chance you get.
  • misterpurple, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Every Word In The Subtitle Doesn't Have To Have Capital First Letters, You Know.
  • woxidu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8One thing I don't understand is how the court can be certain that the RIAA downloaded the songs from YOU. Is their story corroborated by the ISP in question? Were there witnesses? Is there something keeping their claim from being their-word-against-yours?
  • Darth_tater, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7they shouldn't, but they certainly will try
  • monkeywizard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"not in civil suits. in civil suits all you need is to convince the judge that it is more likely that you did download/upload a song than you did not."

    Right, and you still need some sort of proof. Or you could use it against them and counter-sue for extortion damages. You have the same proof they do.

    Them coming up with IPs and showing "logs" doesn't prove a damn thing since those can be forged.

    The thing is these people are too stupid to fight it to even get that far.
  • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That's the title of the article it's linked to.
  • Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7not in civil suits. in civil suits all you need is to convince the judge that it is more likely that you did download/upload a song than you did not.
  • HellifIno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6They need to stick to the tried and true defense: An IP is not a person. Especially if the IP is on a wireless network.

    On another note, "our proprietary and undisclosed source code" software told us this person had an EXACT copy of the track of music we are trying to assrape them about. It's ***** again. I hope it fails via judicial knowledge.
  • compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6you're Quite Observant!
  • klawz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"The thing is these people are too stupid to fight it to even get that far." -----------------------------------------------------More like they don't have enough money, and are scared to not fight - "pay us 5gs, and we'll let you off, otherwise, legal fees will cost upwards to 100,000.00" - This can be called stupid, but I'd like to consider it scare tatics used by the corporate gluttons.
  • Germanopinion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@geekee

    "They're generally guilty,[...]"
    you mean like the guy that only owned a MAC that could not even run the software the RIAA claimed he used to infringe their exclusive copyrights?
    Or guilty like the old granny that was accused of downloading Gangster Rap before she died a short time before filing the suit? (maybe she was a reincarnated "Ma Baker"? And that's why you changed the rules to guilty until proven innocence!)

    Or guilty like Larry -that's cause of death might be stress related due to the harassment the RIAA-thugs inflicted on him- who has said (according to a RIAA spokesperson that could not even cite his last name correctly) it was his stepson that operated the computer in question?

    I see, you go conform with those RIAA guys that everyone is guilty they accuse and all they need is snooping on everyone harddrives to prove that all Americans they accuse are guilty!
    Welcome to the "copyright-cartel"-state of America ruled by Japanese (Sony) and German (BMG) guys.
  • WalkerBurgin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6So the RIAA can sue you for downloading songs, but they have to download them from you first... anybody else see any irony in this?
  • hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Use this: http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp

    If it's RIAA, steal it. Go see the band live if you're feeling guilty.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Actually no.
    They have the legal rights to the music, but not to download it over a service they themselves have claimed is illegal. You can't have it both ways as far as I'm concerned, and I hope a fre judges/magistrates will feel the same.
    Either way though, with the IP /= a person defense, it looks like the RIAA days of being able to sue ppl with impunity may be comming to an end.
  • ptrcd003, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9www.*****.com
  • Feanor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Well considering they own the copyrights, its technically legal for them to do so.
  • cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2add a touch of civil disobediance and use pay russkie sites for riaa music...i -) those high bit rates & no DRM....
  • JackHallows, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I swear, every time the RIAA tries to sue, they can never get their ***** together. You would think they might have learned to get things right after countless cases..... but then again, this IS the RIAA we're talking about here... ***** ignorant bastards.
  • kidd3ckz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Leeching FTW!
  • Germanopinion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1mazza558
    I'm not aware that linux has a build in "RIAA and their toadies"-blocker, so yes they can download from you if you offer downloads.
    And because the RIAA lead counsel Mr. Gabriel claims that crappy mp3 are "perfectly digital copies of plaintiffs copyrighted sound-recordings" then a better sounding Ogg Vorbis would be even more illegal according to the RIAA!
    (but maybe those dinosaurs in the RIAA exec floors haven't heard of .ogg so far so it might not be illegal according to their view of the laws they buy with their money ) :P

    Disclaimer: IANAL, so please ask Mr. Richard L. Gabriel yourself regarding the legal state of ogg files. His phone number according to court documents is: (303) 861-7000

    HTH
  • hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp

    But go see the bands when they're in town.
  • xr56n44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2the RIAA is a scum sucking ***** organization designed to sell vapid airheaded slave music to the moronic masses and to prevent independent artists from getting airplay. they should be burned to the ground.
  • cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1RIAA is just wierd...H.Rosen, I almost felt sorry for her...
  • compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And try effectively until someone stands up to their ***** (and quite illegal) tactics.
  • montagg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Although the specifics are muddy, very generally speaking... Downloading a digital copy of something is NOT illegal if you have the means to legally make that digital copy yourself. Uploading music, however, is illegal. (There are some loopholes in the latter; for example, if you're just sharing some music with close friends, that's okay, because they might go buy the music themselves.)

    That's a general overview of the legality of these issues. Don't confuse that with what the RIAA says is legal. They may be lawyers, but they're a lobby. The only people you're going to get good advice about that will be from your defense lawyer or the judge.
  • RayBeckerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Better yet, I'm collecting a list of links to sources of non-RIAA music. See Liberated Music: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com#liberated_music. Any suggestions for additions?
  • daborg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lol, that's exactly what I was thinking too, even though I agree with him.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Now now. I know some very nice *****. Lets not muddy their reputation by comparing the RIAA to them!
  • tranix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Please post link to list of RIAA Albums & Bands to avoid..
  • compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Not that we need much motivation to do so anyway! :)
  • garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ehm... I'm pretty sure downloading music is not illegal, thus they can only sue when you upload it to them, since uploading is illegal, not downloading.
  • pogfreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@zybch: "You can't have it both ways as far as I'm concerned"

    ^^ Sound legal argument. Where did you study?
  • mazza558, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Can they still download from you if you use linux? Also, are ripped oggs considered illegal?
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Hence the "as far as I'm concerned" you limp jerk!
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4They're generally guilty, so the only hope in fighting is getting off on a loophole.

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.