What is Digg?123 Comments
- sio2man, on 10/10/2007, -2/+81It's good to see the RIAA going after people who actually buy CDs. if they keep it up and put away all their customers, they won't have any money to sue people.
- Abomonog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+40Face it. She is probably guilty of downloading SOMETHING illegally, but who isn't. I have yet to see a 100% clean computer. But it's looking like the RIAA's case is falling flat with this latest developement. Even if she was downloading, she probably already bought the CDs. How many times must you pay for a song before it is yours? That's the question I want answered.
And can you be sued for downloading a song you wrote? - amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+37Let me point something out here.
bingobongony says in a previous post. "most Diggers are social outcasts who never interact with humans. "
Yet, he has made 1,628 comments in about 40 days. Averaging 41 comments a day, every day, since August 24th. Way to stick it to those social outcasts. - amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33yes
- ZiggityZhang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29I like this defense lawyer. He makes a fool out of the RIAA's star witness Professor Jacobson:
Once cross-examination began, Toder started asking Jacobson about things such as MAC address spoofing, cracking, P2P pollution, and multipeer contamination, intimating that one of those things could have been in play when Media Sentry detected the shared folder at the IP address in question. He then questioned Jacobson about his assertion that the music currently on Thomas' computer had to have come from a hard drive and announced that he wanted to demonstrate to the jury that it was possible to rip CDs as quickly as the timestamps from the forensic examination showed (the timestamps were approximately 15-20 seconds apart with a longer 30- to 45-second gap between CDs).
The RIAA's Gabriel objected, and the jury was led out as the attorneys discussed whether the demonstration should go forth. Judge Michael Davis gave his assent to the demonstration, and, after the jury filed back into the courtroom, Thomas ripped two CDs, timing it on her cell phone. When the first CD was done, she announced the time as 2:36.18. Gabriel immediately objected saying that they timed it at over four minutes. The apparently-amused judge said that the jurors could figure out the time for themselves. The second CD ripped in 2:17.71 according to the defendant's timing (I timed the second demonstration in 2:18.97). Gabriel again objected, saying that he had it at three-and-a-half minutes.
With the results in hand, Toder got Jacobson to admit that, despite whatever differences in hardware and software (e.g., WMP 11 versus WMP 10), the results of the test indicated that it was possible that the music was legitimately ripped from CD. "Is it still your testimony that the music on the defendant's computer was copied from a hard drive?" asked Toder.
"Given new versions of software, you could rip this fast," conceded Jacobson. - natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Don't forget that if you're sitting on your porch, playin' your banjo, and some idiot drives by blasting 50-Cent, the RIAA wants to charge you for hearing that music...
- winmywii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22If it is important to a majority of the digg community it will be dugg. The is a bury button there for a reason. Watch.
- natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23For once, someone has something positive to say about Best Buy's computer services.
- fiorenza, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19bingobongony: if the report is accurate, the claim that she swapped the hard drive to avoid being caught is cleary *****.
- Altotus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Not quite right. The RIAA's position is that the owner of the car was publicly performing the work (if it could be heard form outside the car). They would sue the driver, not the person on the street.
- cloudyprison, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18I'll never understand their attempts to burn their fans at the legal stake. If anything the strong arm tactics of the RIAA/MPAA have only pushed more users to pirate.
- exomni, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Guess who's stealing music and movies? THE PEOPLE WHO BUY THE MOST MUSIC AND MOVIES.
Guess how much money we're spending on music and movies since the dawn of P2P? MILLIONS MORE THAN BEFORE.
Guess why. BECAUSE P2P IS THE GREATEST THING TO HAPPEN TO THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IF THE RIAA WOULD OPEN THEIR GREEDY ***** EYES AND REALIZE IT. - DooM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15RTFA: Debunked because the Geek Squad confirmed that there was a legitimate problem that they fixed and that they did this one month before she was even notified that the RIAA was doing their death from above act on her.
- natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14What a nasty ploy with misreporting the time that it took to rip the CDs. Court should have had a big ***** digital clock on the wall to measure it.
- exomni, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15If she was able to get all those songs so quickly off of KaZaA, I congratulate her.
KaZaA sucks ass. If you don't end up downloading horse porn, you end up with a crappy, glitchy, low bit-rate song that's virutally unplayable.
But unless the Jury are actually decent people, the only way this lady's getting off is either:
A. Coming over to my place.
B. The Chewbacca Defense. - jcounterman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12And as retribution for his court-room demonstration, the RIAA is now suing the lawyer for ripping music and "just stealing one copy."
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Democracy works fine for me, thanx m8.....DUGG!
- aliengoods, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12That comment was so stupid, that when coupled with your username, you have earned a place in my blocked list.
- winmywii, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Seriously why do people waster there time trying to spam digg? They get buried faster than the Olsen twins got nailed when they turned 18.
- credence, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10hm, for once I agree w/ the RIAA as 50 Cent interferes with my banjo pickin'.
- tehnico, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9You processor speed has nothing to do with it. As long as it's powerful enough to read the data coming off the cd as fast as the cd can read it, then it doesn't matter how many cores you've got. My 733 can read data from a cd at 52x (max cd speed) just fine. And rips cds in about 2-3 minutes. More processor isn't going to make the cd spin any faster. And that 733 is about 4-5 years old now.
- SleepingOrange, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Which is why I will never sign any contract with any of the big companies... no matter how lucrative ( I am in a 'working' non-cover band)
- TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8She is not clearly guilty of 'stealing' music at all because the moral and legal definition of 'theft' does not fit filesharing. She is guilty of intellectual property infringement, and that's a whole different ballgame.
Legally, it is impossible to steal something without the intent to permanently deprive. The only way you could 'steal' a file is to take it with intent and then remove it from it's original source with deliberate malice. - natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9True, I made a mistake. Thank you for correcting me :-)
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Thank you for being one person who is actually part of the answer
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+81) she is being sued for distributing the files ... they are suing her for the upload, not the download.
2) If you u owned every song you downloaded and you haven't uploaded anything, then you have done nothing wrong.
3) You can be sued for downloading a song you wrote if you don't own the copyright. - Ghstfce, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Did you even RTFA? She had it replaced two weeks BEFORE getting the letter from the RIAA. Even Geek Squad (As much as I hate them) had fully documented case notes that there were hardware issues and the hard drive needed to be replaced. Now, we all know it might have been through the Geek Squad's error that the hard drive needed to be replaced, but that doesn't make this issue any more apparent and your reply any less insane.
- maffiou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6How can Gabriel be of such bad faith, just that should disqualify the case alltogether... If the guy can't refrain from lying even for stupid verifiable things like that, how can he expect to be trusted for anything else...
- offspring06, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I think the RIAA would sue both the owner of the car for distributing and the guy sitting on his porch for unauthorized copying since he made a copy in his brain.
- Kronos6948, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Artists themselves can be sued for playing a song that "belongs" to the record company. Sometimes when artists sign record contracts, all intellectual property belongs to the record company, that way, they can be the ones who put out the "greatest hits" albums, etc. So, say artist A has a contract with Sony. That contract states that the music that Artist A makes is the property of Sony Music for the duration of the contract. Let's say that contract is for 10 years, 9 albums. Something happens to piss Sony off (records don't sell, Artist A doesn't put out an album almost every year) and Sony decides not to drop the artist, but just not to push them anymore. Artist A is still under contract, and can't book shows for themselves as themselves and play their songs that are recorded because they belong to Sony.
Other scenario is that the band themselves want out of Sony's contract, but Sony's lawyers won't let them break the contract...even if another record label wants to hire Artist A. Therefore, Artist A cannot perform as themselves, nor can they play their old material. - MindStalker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The debunked claim is that she purposefully swapped out the hard drive. They have also proven pretty well that most of her music was obtained from ripping her own CDs. The claim that she shared this music though may still be true, we will have to wait and see where the trial goes in the days ahead.
- consoneo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6If you're stupid enough to use your username and share files on Kazaa, you're too dumb to figure that out. Sorry!
- tehnico, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Super! But I'm talking about minimum required speeds to rip a cd at 2-3 minutes, and showing Spuy767 that the bottleneck was hit long before his 8 core came out. And if I have this case information correct, it would fit my time frame and not yours.
- dondara, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Well, then they stole her porn
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6So, you admit you're guilty of stealing music. Hazzah! You have fallen into the trap, my friend.
- jstevewhite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I generally agree with the sentiment that even if she is "Guilty", it's of infringement of copyright, not 'theft', but I've not been able to find a legal definition (google or lexisnexis) that required intent to deprive, only intent to convert, leaving the definition ambiguous in the application of copying a file [but IANAL]. For Alpione - the defendant IS NOT CHARGED WITH THEFT. Learn the difference between proper terms and ***** propaganda. From ars:
"Like over 20,000 US residents, Thomas stands accused of copyright infringement by the RIAA, but this case is the only one to make it to trial."
Copyright Infringement. Not theft. The companies that have created industries based on the ridiculous extensions of copyright laws WANT you to associate copyright infringement with theft and piracy. It's PR, spin, and dishonesty. That's because nobody gets too worked up about 'copyright infringement' - it doesn't sound 'bad enough'. Obviously, it's also not "theft"; theft is a crime, whereas the defendant is being SUED for a CIVIL TORT, not a criminal infringement. So TotalHalibut is OBVIOUSLY not 'rationalizing theft', since, in fact, no one in this legal action is being accused of theft - even by the plaintiff. - Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Just say no: To Caps-Lock
- Kronos6948, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I totally agree. No one forces an artist to sign the contract. I was just making a point about the comment "And can you be sued for downloading a song you wrote?" from Abomonog.
- sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Even their argument that the music was copied from another hard drive proves nothing. I have copied my legitimate, CD-Ripped music collection to probably its 4th drive recently. Proves nothing of my illegally obtaining the music. Hard drives fail. Files are restored from backups.
- consoneo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Thus where the whole "Free to reproduce if you pay for the electricity" paradox comes in... You transfer data bits that cost no money to replicate, they just have to use energy to turn themselves on and off. Thus electricity and your cable bill pay for this. It is stealing of IP, not physical property such as a TV. That requires acquisition of resources to create it and you hold those resources for the entire time you have the stolen good. It cannot be used by anyone but the person who stole it. Directly opposite for IP. (Intelectual Property... And I made up that "paradox" if you couldn't tell.)
- munkyxtc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Well, back in the day with kazaa I found plenty of stuff from people who inadvertently shared their entire hard drive...not saying it's the case here, but it has happened before. Perhaps she ripped all of her music [which I know I did when I got my first MP3 player] and shared the drive accidently?
- IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And to calling copyright infringement "stealing".
- a5tr0cr3ep, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5this is not youtube and this is not myspace get the hell out of here with your advertisements
- realyst, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Wow.....I'm actually liking this lawyer.....liking...lawyer....fascinating.
At the very least, I'm sure his practice will definitely get a boost from the IT industry once this is over(Wow! A lawyer who can say "multipeer contamination" and no thinking it's some kind of STD thing)". - Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Witticisms are cheesier when you put loads of exclamation marks!!!
- RonPaulSpammer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Downloading isn't the problem, sharing is. They really don't have much of a problem with you downloading ***** you already bought, it's when you share 1,700 of those songs to millions of users, do you have a problem. Which is why the argument of whether or not her songs were ripped from a CD or copied from a hard drive won't really matter because they are more concerned as to whether or not those files were shared over P2P.
Sued for downloading a song you wrote? You must be joking. The RIAA doesn't own every copyright in the world, only the ones for mainstream artists. - vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yes, you can be sued for downloading a song you wrote and played. As an artist, once you sell your soul to the RIAA, you become as liable as everyone else if you don't play by the rules.
- WhereAmI, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You successfully brought Bush in a RIAA trial comments. Nice.
- Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I download my music from thepiratebay. with demonoid and oink's tracking systems, i don't need my username to be linked to anything. And if I were under investigation fromt he RIAA, I'd probably replace my hard drive with the clean ghost drive I made when I installed everything; at least then, everything wouldn't have an installed date of yesterday.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4That's criminal. The standard for criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, for civil cases the language can vary by jurisdiction, but it is typically by "preponderance of the evidence," which is a fancy way of saying "more likely than not."
-
Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is