What is Digg?63 Comments
- durrty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+58"Last year, Judge Lee R. West dismissed the case against her with prejudice after it became clear that Ms. Foster was simply the Internet access account holder in her home and had no knowledge or experience with file sharing software."
This is interesting because a vast majority of file sharing is being done by kids on their parents internet accounts while the parental knowledge of the computer ranges to struggle with opening email attachments from friends.
Also: "West also hinted that the RIAA might have pursued the secondary liability claims "to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they ceased to believe she was a direct or 'primary' infringer."
Thank god because we saw that in fact that is exactly what they did, as soon as you fought back they tried to settle out of court and luckily the judge saw right through that.
Whats yet to be seen is if this case will actually stand up when/if defendants try to use it as stare decisis
Link to the actual EFF article:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005114.php - oddmanout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+55so if you download... open up your wireless router... then they can never prove you're the primary offender. Either that or they'll sue everyone in your neighborhood with a computer with wireless.
- natmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+45Courts should add an emotional distress award to those who are sued too.
- tim507, on 10/12/2007, -0/+43I do see a change in the near future of legal systems refusing more and more claims of RIAA shenanigans. And i cant wait for the day for when everyone that got sued can all file a counter claim and put the RIAA back under their rock.
- DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32notice that no matter who wins the lawyers are the ones getting paid.
they should start doling out punitive damages to the RIAA. and also take note that a song is worth 99 cents and not $2000 or whatever they are claiming. and make them pay back the people they already ripped off in the courts. - UltimaNut, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32[Nelson Voice] Ha Ha [/Nelson Voice]
- gundammman2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26[Rocky theme plays as I raise my arms in triumph]
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26What I've never understood.
IPs can be and are spoofed
MAC addresses can be and are spoofed
MD5 sums can be and are spoofed
What exactly are they using as cold, hard evidence? - sikosmurf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24You're the smellinator. It's probably you.
- Devrdander, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24I've read in the past the RIAA barely breaks even on these lawsuits after legal fees. The Lawyers make the money, and any extra usually goes back into the pot to hire/pay for more head hunter firms to find more law suit victims. The profits come in the form of the Terror they strike into people over downloading and thus the hope they will buy the music instead out of fear of trial. Maybe we can get Bush to fight the war on this Terrorism.
- pglowiak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20The problem is, will she ever get paid? You think the RIAA will just roll over and send her a check? Anyone taking bets?
I still think that using RICO against the RIAA will stop it a lot faster. If this is not racketeering them what is? - johngluck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Suing your customers is always a bad idea. Wrongly suing them is even worse.
I have nothing against the RIAA going after people who are really pirating and selling bootlegged CD's or whatever but going after the average Joe is backfiring.
The RIAA is killing the recording industry with sheer stupidity.
I don't buy or download music anymore. CD's are overpriced and listening to downloaded compressed songs is about as appealing as drinking freeze dried orange juice. - alrahman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17+1 for the Consumer.
Even if the RIAA doesn't pay up, the legal precedent is set, and that mean RIAA is gonna have to be careful incase ppl start doing counter claims. - Jonjonr6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I don't think the non-geek community understands just how important this legal fight is, or how important any victory, no matter how small, is for all people.
What ever happened to the case where the judge was making the RIAA justify their $750/song charge? That is also another significant suit, especially if the judge denies their monetary damage figures.
I also cannot understand how judges can deny compensation for legal fees for these law suits. Seems to me like anyone who is wrongly accused of anything and has to take time and money to defend themselves in court is entitled to compensation. - LetsGoHawks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11It's the number the copy-write lobbyists convinced the lawmakers to put in the books.
There really isn't a formula behind it.
I have to agree, if I ever got sued I'd go to court and explain the weaknesses of my wireless router. I've personally seen a case get tossed for less. (I wasn't the one charged)
Heck, even if they had the name of the PC that the songs were downloaded to, good luck finding it unless they to subpoena my PC's. Which all they are going to find is an old IBM laptop. Because *cough*cough* that's all I own. - lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Justice starts to prevail in this legal swampland.
- unununium, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12The courts recognizing that someone was being wrongly sued for sharing copyrighted materials is not a license to illegally download music.
- kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Even if it's of limited use as a reference in other cases, at least someone contested the RIAA's hunt, perhaps this will spur others to fight back, maybe enough of them to hinder the RIAA until they only file when they've actually got a case.
- DJCult, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@ j200: Yes, yes, there's no need to plug that company at every F'n article that somehow relates to p2p. Knock it off!
- wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@ smellinator - Here, let me help you... Press "Alt + F4" at the same time.
- codelogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You can't use a spoofed IP to actually download anything.
MD5 is a type of checksum used to verify the integrity of a dataset (something both a sender and receiver does). MD5s are known to collide, but that's the extent of it. There's nothing in MD5 to spoof because it cannot be traced to a location or computer like IPs and MAC addresses can. - oddmanout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7speaking of which, where does that number come from? or is it arbitrary? I'm guessing its the largest number they could come up with while still finding a way to justify it... albeit not a legitimate way... just a way they could put numbers together and get a big number.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I agree.
I'm absolutely behind the police when they arrest someone for selling thousands of copies of an album/music - when you're profiting from someone else's work by selling copies of it, and never paying them a penny, well it's almost like stealing.
When these organisations go hell-for-leather out to ruin average Joe or Jane for something trivial though, they alienate their consumer-base.
I'm sorry, but someone downloading a movie or a song for their personal use is trivial - nobody cares, they're not taking anything from you - deal with it. I don't even do the whole p2p thing myself, but they're don't seem to be doing anything more morally wrong than listening to a radio show. Even if there is some "market value" to what they're doing (which is probably a lie for the shareholders) is it worth ruining some small-time person for something like that?
Personally, I'd always been the sort of person who bought several CDs, and some DVD (before that VHS) movies every month of my life, I've got disposable income and I'm the sort of person who likes everything legitimate - so I would say that people like me are your A1 cash-cow for RIAA companies, along with the teeny-boppers - and since seeing how they like to sue kids' families and stuff, and how they like to infect media with crap, I've stopped funding them.
The last RIAA-type CD I wanted, I spent a bit more cash on a concert ticket I didn't use (the artist gets a decent slice of those unlike a CD) and bought the CD second hand from amazon. Hey presto, artist paid for their excellent work, and I didn't give the bulk of that hard-earned money to the publishing company so they could throw a few derisory pennies at the artist and fund more lawsuits and DRM.
Another thing I've been looking at lately is magnatunes - not the biggest names tbh, but every now and then I buy something from there to reward the non-evilness.. - GraceMolloy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Less than that if they count the cost of wholesale CDs. They might sell that disc for 15 bucks but they would only make around 5-8 selling it to a vendor.
So let's say average 12 songs on a CD. 5/12 or 8/12 == 42 cents or 67 cents.
Course this is guesswork, but it shows actual "damages" a little more clearly than the $2000 per track BS they're spouting. - acomj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You can only spoof an IP if your not expecting the traffic from coming back. You can set your IP address to whatever you want, but the odds of it working on the network are small.
- TGA4Life, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5OWNED. Finally. Is there anyway this judge could move to where I live? heh
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The lawyers that take these cases should be driven out of business. Actually they deserve a lot worse than that, but it's a start.
- Chivalrysae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5We are not dealing with terrorists. And this does not fall under the patriot act. I'm not saying the RIAA should not go after people for copyright infringement, but just like any other case they should have to weigh the risk vs. rewards. i.e. If they accuse people and connot defend their case in court, they should be panalized just like any other case proceeding. It is not fair for someone who is not found guilty to have to pay for their legal fees just because the RIAA feels they have been wronged and goes on a witchhunt.
"Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her!" - Monty Python - krets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And there was much rejoicing...
- rehkcts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This story made my day. There's lots to be frustrated about with our legal system, but it's nice to see it work for "the little guy" , too.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Let's just remember these people are one side in a civil dispute, not criminals, and that nobody's ever proved they're "guilty" of anything.
One of the things the RIAA is known for is frivolous law suits against people who have too little money or understanding or legal nouse to defend themselves. THAT'S why it's good to see them slapped for it. - aforsberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3lol this is great. the RIAA sucks royal donkey balls. that's that. wvdavis is right. Do it, smellinator!
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3""" I'd buy music online but they don't sell it, I won't buy it with DRM. Emusic doesn't have the music I want, I would pay, but the band is part of a label and part of the RIAA). They're just excuses."""
You see, I don't agree with you there, these are not just excuses.
I don't go around downloading music and stuff, but I face exactly the problem of how to get legal, DRM-free music whilst paying the artist for their labours, and without funding these lawsuits more than I can help it.
I do so, but the process is fairly convoluted (buy a concert ticket or some such, don't use it, then get the CD second hand) that even I really can't be bothered to do it very often. If I was 17 years old I daresay I'd just have downloaded it, to be honest.
I used to copy tapes off the radio/my cousin's records when I was a kid and exchange them with friends - it was fun to share, and life was good my pocket money enabled me to buy precisely 0 albums a month, but every now and then, I'd buy one of those albums.
Nobody "lost money", nobody died, no members of metallica were raped and murdered by my cassette tapes, but then the world didn't take hysterical ***** very seriously in those days, so the RIAA of today would have got nowhere. - tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The problem isn't the guilt or crime they may or may not have committed. The problem rests with due process and supportive evidence. Imagine the world we would live in if murderers were convicted on "a sure hunch" supported by limited evidence.
- daborg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Clearly there are cases (like this one) where the defendants are not guilty. Hence you are wrong. Thank you for playing.
- JimDinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3huh? i dont get it either way.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The next time we hear about this lady she's going to be pressing charges against the RIAA for mailing her a horse head in a box.
- MikeOSX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2NAT FTW!
- SniperX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, WHO will we get our music from???
The artists don't know how to give us music!!... Apparently...
I, too, hope tim's vision of the future will happen. - Jonjonr6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, the dead guy they sued was guilty. Also the old lady who didn't own a computer. And the old lady who owned a Mac. All GUILTY! Get a rope!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The RIAA should be disbanded. Recording IP addresses...hmm, isn't that what spyware authors do? What a bunch of *****. They think they can control the internet and stop the distribution of movies. Ha, get a life, staff members of this stupid group.
- PrivateGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Support your local musician. There are a lot of good ones out there, and they don't work for the RIAA.
- Beakerz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1/marry Mr. Judge
This is great, I personally have 6 friends who have had their internet shut off b/c of the RIAA or MGM or whoever else, but I have not known anyone to be sued yet. Great news - a step in the right direction. - takeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"You can't use a spoofed IP to actually download anything."
What about TOR? You don't use your IP but you can download :)
I know technically it's not spoofing but the end effect is similar.
I understand what you mean, and I'm just picky :) - atharianmedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good for her.
The RIAA is an embarrassment.
As a former "artist(s) they're trying to protect...", the majority of the ARTISTS I knew didn't make jack on their sales. Many friends and bands we toured with had (sometimes multiple, simultaneous) Top 10 hits, regular rotation on MTV, and making less than a McDonald's gig. Those buses, 4-star hotels, and limo's are nice, but wait until that advance runs out and the royalties start going to everyone else but you. There are exceptions, but is is NOT the norm.
Hell, *I* made more money at McD's before my deal, lol! My first and second record deals resulted in debt, and they were "average" deals...I wised up and went independent. Commercials and broadcast pays better than being a rock star. ;) But I digress...
I'm wth BlackAdder - I do agree that piracy is wrong. But c'mon - go after the bootleggers and highly organized rings; leave grandma and the kids in college alone. In the old days, we all made cassettes of our favorite songs off the top 40 radio shows, and the RIAA said "home taping is killing music". They did the same thing when CD-R's came out, now it's Mp3's. A lot of the albums I bought, was because I heard it on someone else's "home tape". Too bad the artists didn't make any money on their sales.
Now...I buy maybe two or three CD's a year, only from my VERY favorite artists. (and no, I don't download through the p2p networks). I tend to hit the indie sites like SoundClick, etc., and local acts. Buy the downloads direct from the artist. I also shop eBay for used albums.
The only thing killing music is the industry itself. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Music is a necessary good, in sociological terms. That is, if you listen to good music.
Not you, Fred Durst. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think using someone like named Rico, who has a middle name in quotation marks, like "Icepick" would be more effective. The lawyers deserve to lose a lot more than money.
- conna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I see hope....
- doublsh0t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1THIS is chewbacca.
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is