What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
100 Comments
- gta3mobster, on 10/13/2007, -3/+50Instead of settling, if everybody would go to court, it would be very hard for the RIAA to continue suing people. Not only because of extreme strains on the employees, but eventually they'd get what will eventually come to them (ie. the jurors/judge not being retards).
I wonder what the RIAA would do when they send out their "avoid a lawsuit by paying us $4000" letters by the thousands and have all the recipients to court.
Regardless, ***** the RIAA. - wild, on 10/10/2007, -0/+39Call me an *****, a shill, or a suit, but I don't need to be risking $200k in debt to prove a point. If I had that kind of money laying around I wouldnt be d/l'ing tracks for free.
And due to this attitude, I really hate the RIAA. Because I am exactly the guy they are feeding upon. Bastards. - amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Can we assume that the RIAA just can't compete anymore so they have to resort to intimidation to sell their product. Wow, when you think of the marketing economics behind intimidating your customers, makes you wonder where they will be in 10 more years.
They say they are just protecting their industry, and maybe they are. But I think most would agree that their industry methods are not what consumers want. Sony trying to tell people that making a backup copy of your own legally purchased cd is theft, is quite a jaw dropping statement, even from them. - KING5SIX1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16I say all the bands follow in suit of NIN. Drop the record labels and go straight to the fans. We will have free downloads. No RIAA trying to strongarm everyone who downloads a few songs to see if they like a band good enough to go out and actually buy the cd. Seriously people how many have went out picked up a new cd and 1 song is good on it, The rest are halfassed versions of the same beat with different lyrics to them. And they wonder why we still download. Sad part is its not really the bands going after there fans ( with the exception of Metallica ) but mainly the money hungry record labels themselves. Sure sales are down but quit bitching and put out decent albums so people dont just have to download 1 track and we wont be here.
***** RIAA !! LONG LIVE PIRATEBAY !!!! - CaptMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I was wondering about some of that when I heard about this suit. It seems like if she just had an unsecured wireless router and didn't use her regular user name for the downloads, the RIAA wouldn't have had enough of a case against her to win. Heck, even a router secured with WEP is easily hacked into. I think the $40 for a router would have been better than the $200k.
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10While I praise NIN, not every band can do this. Even this day and age. These are music artists, not business entrepreneurs. We seem to forget that collaberation between artist and songwriters and marketers is still a necessity. It isn't that all bands need to be "independent" of ANY label, it is that the artists need to pick better record labels and stop signing contracts with companies that are there solely to line their pockets with your talent.
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9yes a router will protect you... a router in another country that encrypts your entire internet stream and hides your home IP and home traffic. It may slow you down a bit, but the 90$ a year might save you, $219,910.
- darkstar949, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8It would be very hard, but as the RIAA also testified during the trial - they have been losing money through out the entire campaign and as such I doubt they would care if people take them to court. If they had lost this case they might have lost a bit of momentum, but since they won this case they are going to gain a bit of momentum as they can use this case in other trials now thanks to the legal precedence.
It is worth noting though that the facts of the case were pretty straight forward - she really couldn't claim other people were using her computer or on her IP address. If the next case actually has better evidence of this then the case might roll the other way. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a college student were to take them to court as if you are in the dorms it is easy to make the case that others have access to your computer. - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"she really couldn't claim other people were using her computer or on her IP address"
Hmmm.... In a sick and twisted way, this almost has me thinking that setting up an unsecured access point might actually be a good idea. :-) - PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The problem with that is that the RIAA does not have to prove that there was no possible way for anything else to happen. The RIAA has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that someone violated a copyright.
Yes it is true that there is a small chance that someone went through hoops to spoof her MAC address, etc. But for any jury (computer literate or otherwise) to believe that you will need to show some evidence showing that someone did it, not just it being in the outside realm of possibility. - j0hnglist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7exactly, Reznor already has clout and an established fan base. The reality is, the majority of people find out about their music due to promotion and thats where the labels come in. Most people don't even realize that almost all indie labels are actually being backed by a major label. They have to do this in order to compete. It sux but thats the reality. Without money in promotion, its very difficult to get your music out there. What band is going to pass up being backed by a proven label?
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7A poll doesn't mean much when the question is totally useless. The industry should take a look at the TRUE cause of online copyright infringement and adjust their business model to benefit both customers and their own bottom line. No one should be out there just to get something for free, but the issues causing what they consider infringement are being ignored entirely by the industry.
With that said, my answer to the poll would be NO, they shouldn't go after anyone freely sharing files until they FIX their own business failures. But they are afraid of losing control to another company who has more intelligence in internet marketing. - amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Has any file sharer [that reads this] actually stopped because of these actions taken by the RIAA? Please reply here.
- bendedavis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"All in all, it was a picture of someone who knew what she was doing when sitting in front of a PC."
Obviously not, she was using Kazaa. - squirrelza, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Over the last 2 days I emailed about 10 bands I listen to that are on RIAA associated labels and told them I will probably not be supporting them anymore due to all of RIAA's actions. I was quite surprised that the majority didn't even know what the RIAA was or what they did. It was also interesting talking to them about the RIAA and what they do, piracy, money, etc etc.
- ayeroxor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Yeah. That totally hides your cable modem's MAC address.
What's your nick on AOL? - jacobsor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Read the article. She wasn't running a wireless network.
Besides, even if someone theoretically *could have* spoofed her IP address and username, why would they have done so? That sounds rather conspiracy-theorish. The more likely explanation is simply that she did it. - bdbr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This oversimplification is annoying. The vast majority of the music sold is CDs, not downloads. The majority of the people won't shop for music online (either because they don't have internet access or aren't comfortable with it). Only a major label will get you into most of the top music resellers.
Bands going purely online (and spending all their time dealing with commerce issues rather than making music) is a grandiose idea, but right now its a losing strategy. - ayeroxor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Step 1: Sue someone named after Pajamas.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit! - vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Indeed. Most startup (or even experienced) bands would be hard pressed to come up with between $10,000 and $1,000,000 to record and master an album, much less the cash to press the CDs, distribute, and advertise.
- bmatherlyjr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Until the RIAA lobby's p2p to be unlawful and 2 rules that no one needs a router on their computer.
Which they have successfully lobbied for in other countries. Just wait it's coming. - RajAtWork, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3So has anyone using torrent been ever prosecuted?
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There is not a big enough profit margin for in store singles any more because the music industry has to cave lower prices to retail giants demanding lower prices.
The RIAA knows that internet distribution is going to eventually be the #1 retail market for music, they just don't know how to fully capitalize on that, while at the same time keeping cd sales from plummeting off the face of the earth, which is their blood line now. - PA42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5please explain the illegal means???!??
- Makisupa, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Good gut instinct. Beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to criminal cases. For civil cases, the burden of persuasion is a "preponderance of the evidence." All that means is the jury thinks more than 50% of the evidence supports your side. Some civil cases (for example libel and slander) use "clear and convincing evidence," which falls somewhere between the two, but no one really knows what the hell that is supposed to mean.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Digg isn't the best litmus for general populace polls. As a rule, most here pride themselves on being anti-popular mindset -- and anti-authority.
- vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not to nitpick, but the definition of 'consumer' has become a bit ambiguous.
If you ride in a friend's car that is of Ford make, are you then a consumer of Ford's products?
People who download music through P2P are consumers to the extent that they are consuming (listening to) music, but they are not paying for the music.
Just a thought. - TTURabble, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Here's a simple solution, don't illegally download music!
iTunes is crap with the DRM but now that Apple and Amazon have started to offer DRM free tracks you can spend the dollar and save yourself the time and hassle of finding a good quality rip and having to worry about the RIAA coming into your backyard and killing your dog for listening to a song. - bdbr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Interesting that the reaction is generally that we should find better ways of breaking the law. Shouldn't we instead be demanding that labels sell us music in such a way that we wouldn't be compelled to steal music? Why do I have to pay full price for something just to see if I like it or not (imagine how quickly a clothing dealer would go out of business if they worked that way)? Why do I have to pay roughly the same price for nothing more than an online copy, as compared to a physical product? Why must you sell me a download that's not nearly as flexible for personal use as an illegal one?
I support indie labels. They don't sue their customers, and when they do offer downloads its DRM-free (unless distributed by companies like Apple & Napster, that DRM nearly everything). They don't even seem to mind if people download music, as long as you eventually buy the stuff that you like. Its a consumer-friendly environment that finds me pulling out my wallet a lot more than the strong-arm tactics of the big labels. - j0hnglist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Ummmm ever heard of a thing called iTunes or other similar sites? You now do have the option of buying only the songs you like and not have to shell out for a full cd. Look we all know the RIAA sux but at the same time artists do deserve to be paid for their work. If the cd sux, why are you downloading it? If is good, can you at least say you go back and buy the music to support the band? Probably not. The RIAA obviously isn't the way forward with this complex issue but the bands do deserve some money for their work.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Reply to squirrelza:
If you did so and truly mean to boycott them -- including not downloading illegally, I applaud you. That, folks, is how you vote with your dollar, while piracy-as-protest only justifies the RIAA's actions and ultimate existence. - BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Everybody lives somewhere.
- penguinpc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Do you know what I've gotten tired of since the movie "The Perfect Storm" came out? The use of the words "Perfect Storm" in places where they doesn't belong.
- Clp727, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's the truth that there is usually only one really good song on most albums. The last CD that I purchased was because I like only TWO songs out of 14. The record labels should offer DRM free singles (for every song available on the CD) in stores. It would be more convenient!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm still having doubts that they're losing money on this whole ordeal. Just because they testified it to be true, doesn't necessarily mean it's fact. They could put all their expenses from the process as the "Anti-Piracy" account, but all the money they gain from it as the "Reclaimed Copyright Funds" account. Maybe not exactly like that, but shifting lies around can technically net the "truth."
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I wrote software and used p2p to market my program almost exclusively. 1.5 million USD in sales later, I still spend 100$ a month (minus my server costs and paying customer service).
It can work, but you have to know both sides of the table. - amoeba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How about a community managed fund to support people prosecuted by the RIAA.
People could voluntarily donate and those affected by litigation could claim from it. - XTrek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Your modems MAC address will always be visible from the outside.
What you want is a router with wifi. Always leave it setup to accept unencrypted connections from neighbors and/or war-drivers. Tell the court that you don't trust your ISP to be 100% absolutely certain they can correctly identify illegal downloader’s. I doubt your ISP spends the kind of money it would require to have 100% perfect and verified monitoring SW. It would cost big bucks and would only aid the RIAA and the MPAA. In SW, perfection is nearly impossible and the costs go to the moon as you try to approach it.
I won’t let my ISP be in a position to screw me because they made an ERROR! - amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3There have already been other cases setting precedents in other directions though. They didn't make it all the way to a jury, because they got kicked out first and the victim was awarded attorney's fees. They were indeed innocent of any infringement though, as Thomas wasn't[so it appears].
- TeagueSterling, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2These days professional-grade equipment is MUCH less expensive than it used to be, and high-level production is becoming easier and more accessible with the use of computers and DAWs. While I must admit I don't know the breakdown of costs for the average popular album, I would be surprised if engineering costs came anywhere even close to advertising and promotion costs. Then again, I could be entirely wrong.
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2yea that way some guy can pull up outside your house and download something REALLY illegal. Unprotected wifi is the stupidest answer to the solution unless you know how to limit your wifi connection in other ways. The MPAA isn't gonna sue you then come and inspect your router. Protect your router and if it came down to it, just claim it was open. Leaving it open all the time is ridiculously stupid though.
- zwaldowski, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Apple's "Rip.Mix.Burn." branding is still in iTunes, specifically all of the 7.2 installers.
- zensequential, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I thought at some point the defendent was actually arguing the fact that the original license are not hold by the parties indicated by the RIAA, and to my opinion there's validity in that argument;how did it transform from that to "It might not be me, there's someone out there pretending to be me/using my computer to download and distribute mp3"
- Makisupa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Westlaw doesn't have the opinion yet, so I'm just taking an educated guess to answer your question. She probably pleaded in the alternative, something like "It wasn't me who was using the computer, and even if it was, it doesn't matter because the parties don't hold the copyright." Most likely, the Judge ruled on the copyright issue before the trial started, which only left her with the "it wasn't me" defense for the jury.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah...that was pretty solid. IT is one thing to suggest that someone used her wireless (if she had had one), but to suggest that someone was DELIBERATELY FRAMING her is ridiculous. Not nearly enough to sway the preponderance of evidence part of a jury's decision.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3yeah, it is.
- Makisupa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm going to disagree. I think she was as smart as most people who use their computer to download music. The Digg population isn't representative of the internet, most people are going to find a P2P product and just start downloading.
- BrandNewJesus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Innocent until proven guilty, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
This was a civil case, Correct?
OJ can get away with murder in a criminal case, but he was guilty in civil.
Maybe the chance that some one hacked her account might sway a jury in criminal court, but seems like civil is more...realistic. - Lexomatic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3If her lawyers have half a brain they will appeal the sentence on the grounds that the penalty handed out far exceeds what is a "fair and reasonable" amount. $200k for $30 worth of music is ludicrously excessive to the point of actually being unconstitutional. Of course we are talking about a defense council stupid enough to allow the defendant on the stand, so constitutional rights might not be a strong point with regards to their legal skills.
- llamaguy132, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1iv always wandered, if i were to pay the settlement.. do i now own the songs? can they sue me again? since i know i wouldn't stop, even after dishing out the 2-4k.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is