What is Digg?131 Comments
- ElectricKetchup, on 09/25/2008, -7/+111***** the RIAA!
- ghuytro, on 09/25/2008, -5/+108"The RIAA, which is the music industry's lobbying and litigation arm, fought hard to keep Jury Instruction No. 15 in play. The group told the judge that copyright infringement on peer-to-peer networks is implied, and that it shouldn't have to provide proof of an actual transfer -- because it's impossible."
WHAT THE *****!!
So because you can't prove that a single transfer occurred the only logical conclusion in the absence of evidence is to assume that IT DID?!?!
What kind of justice system founded on the burden of proof is that?!? - CptSaladin, on 09/25/2008, -1/+52The sum of $222,000 is nothing short of cruel and unusual. The idea of making an example of individuals when there are millions of file-sharers world-wide is just absurd.
- jamesthewitch, on 09/25/2008, -4/+52I am delighted that Jammy's case ended in her favor. It appears this federal judge may have tolled a death knell to the "making available" argument.
- wolfenraider, on 09/25/2008, -0/+33File-sharing is not a crime; the RIAA however, ARE criminals. RICO lawsuit anyone?
- wunksta, on 09/25/2008, -0/+32the kind of justice system that is on the corporate bankroll
- Ratteler, on 09/25/2008, -2/+31While this is good news... we should wait and see if the RIAA takes another run at her. A mistrial basically means they get a "do over" if they want.
We also need to see how bad her legal fees are. Nothing worse that loosing for winning. - poordavey, on 09/25/2008, -2/+28"While the court does not discount plaintiffs' claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far-reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs -‐ the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000 – more than 500 times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than 4,000 times the cost of three CDs."
This is what is important and favorable to Jammie. - Shaman760, on 09/25/2008, -3/+26RIAA ***** THEE
- poordavey, on 09/25/2008, -0/+19The case hasn't ended in her favor yet, this is just a mistrial. He declared a mistrial because he basically, unfairly, instructed the jury to find her guilty.
What is favorable for her is that Davis did voice his opinion that the damages were probably very excessive, and if she is found guilty again, (in my opinion she probably will be), the damages might be a bit more reasonable. - sirhomer, on 09/25/2008, -1/+19This brings the number of successful RIAA cases in "RIAA vs The People" to ZERO.
- prisoner24601, on 09/25/2008, -0/+16Well this is a novel legal theory:
"Your honor, we shouldn't be required to show that the defendant bludgeon the victim with a hammer because it's IMPOSSIBLE to produce the hammer as evidence. Because we can't find that hammer. But we're still like, you know, really really sure that the defendant is um... the dude who did it. Plus we KNOW that a hammer would fit in his hands. And we're positive that the victim was hit with a hammer. And we even know the defendant OWNED a hammer at one point. So it's like, you know, totally for sure that this dude is the guy who did it."
Let's call it the "Actual Evidence is Overrated" theory. - audiomodder, on 09/25/2008, -0/+15Whether or not you think downloading is legal or illegal, what the RIAA is doing is unethical at best.
- MaynardJK, on 09/25/2008, -0/+15It wasn't legal for blacks or women to vote for a long time either.
legal != right
illegal != wrong - mrsteveman1, on 09/25/2008, -3/+17.......***** 64705!
:D - shadeOfGrey, on 09/25/2008, -0/+13Yeah, get medieval on their asses!
- Obermeister, on 09/25/2008, -0/+12Justice is blind to them that owns it.
-James McMurty - audiomodder, on 09/25/2008, -0/+11"Pay us or we'll take you to court"
Extortion, anyone? - Mankrik, on 09/25/2008, -0/+10"The RIAA sues after online detectives log onto Kazaa, Limewire and other file sharing services. They look into open share folders, take screenshots of the music listed and download some of the songs. They also obtain IP addresses, which are easily determined on open networks."
"and download some of the songs."
So shouldn't they be suing themselves for illegaly obtaining this files? - shadeOfGrey, on 09/25/2008, -1/+10If you can't prove it, it must exist.
That sounds logical from a legal system that would have you swear on a bible. - DaClub, on 09/25/2008, -5/+14Dugg for saying ***** the RIAA!
- yurishoujo, on 09/25/2008, -0/+9$220,000 is an exuberant amount. And I'm glad the judge realized that.
To put it in perspective, the median income for women in Brainerd (where this woman is from) is $21,217 for females. So, assuming she makes that, it will take her over ten years to repay this debt. For 24 songs/a $50 odd dollar debt.
The Minnesota law itself says if you steal something between $500 and $1,000 dollars, you cannot be fined more than $5,000 dollars. While this is obviously a civil suit, not criminal, it still shows the gross fact that this is not about justice, but about corporate greed. - AtraNoxVII, on 09/25/2008, -3/+12That chick is most definitely not the image I conjure when I think of Pirate but
YARRRR she would make a fine wench, she has a booty that must be plundered. - macbookpromat, on 09/25/2008, -0/+8There's a better one.
Halls of justice painted green, money talking.
~James Hetfield - illDecree, on 09/25/2008, -2/+10let me get this straight....
Because they cannot prove that the transfer actually happened, they shouldn't have to prove it?
WTF!??!!?
***** THE RIAA!!!!!!!!! - pigfister, on 09/25/2008, -2/+9NAME AND SHAME THEM PPL!
dont allow them to hide being the smokscreen of the trade body titles!
RIAA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, CRIA, Ect, Ect, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Universal Music Group
# Warner Music Group
# EMI
MPAA:
# The Walt Disney Company
# Sony Pictures
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner) - jeffsback2223, on 09/25/2008, -2/+8I only hope this shuts up the RIAA and forces them to back off of extorting money from grandmothers and dead people.
- JAHred, on 09/25/2008, -3/+9"Still, a looming and unsettled issue has recently surfaced involving RIAA file sharing cases. It involves whether RIAA investigators broke the law when they gathered evidence, as they are not licensed investigators."
I would countersue for $222,000 - AriaStar, on 09/25/2008, -0/+6File a counter claim for legal fees and punitive due to vexatious litigation. If they bring this case again already admitting to not having evidence of any downloads taking place, and jury instruction 15 is thrown out, then she may be able to force them to pay her legal fees is the rest of the case is decided in her favor.
- latrosicarius, on 09/25/2008, -0/+6Even if its only a mistrial, I'm glad the judge has come around. Getting fined $200K for "stealing" $54 dollars worth of songs seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me.
hell, if you went into best buy and stole the CDs at gunpoint you would be looking at less harsh punishment.
Hopefully this judge's rulings will help set a precedent that will severely limit the damages the **IA can seek. - pigfister, on 09/25/2008, -2/+8ignore masaks as he's a courporate stooge.
Anyway, please, please please, call them who they are, don't allow them to hide behind their trade body name to protect them from boycotts and bad press:
RIAA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, CRIA, Ect, Ect, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Universal Music Group
# Warner Music Group
# EMI
MPAA:
# The Walt Disney Company
# Sony Pictures
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner) - juliohm, on 09/25/2008, -1/+7digg needs a ***** THE RIAA section.
- explnx, on 04/27/2009, -0/+6Maynard - "illegal != wrong"
masaks - "thats right, illegal is wrong"
Masaks just lost all of his digg cred in five words. Not only does he have a Godwin-baiting system of morality, he doesn't understand relational operators. - Boofster, on 09/25/2008, -0/+6Many will pass you as you drive 55 on the freeway....
- Sunflare670, on 09/25/2008, -0/+5@Lukesed
ex·u·ber·ant (ĭg-zōō'bər-ənt): Extreme in degree, size, or extent - jeremyduffy, on 09/25/2008, -0/+5Don't forget pets and printers.
- poordavey, on 09/25/2008, -1/+6This isn't the end of this story, this is just a mistrial.
Davis gave unfair jury instructions, and just because of that does not mean she will not be found guilty again. - AriaStar, on 09/25/2008, -0/+5A judge who is willing to admit he made an error and to try to fix it is a judge I respect.
- wolfenraider, on 09/25/2008, -0/+5"file sharing is not a crime... but sharing someone's personal property is.
sharing space in a public park for a gathering, is different than unknowingly sharing your home on craigslist for a frat party.
why do you think you deserve everything digital for free?
what else are they supposed to do to slow it down? "
1) your example makes no sense- the park example implies 'knowingly ran a course of action' or 'knowledge of', and your frat party example states a lack of knowledge- hence, your analogy is incongruous.
2) your example, either faction thereof, does not relate to file-sharing whatsoever.
3) your ensuing questions display your ignorance to the subject matter, and your inability to grasp the larger picture and see beyond what so-called authority figures tell you.
4) read a frigging book, and learn how to think for yourself. - AriaStar, on 09/25/2008, -0/+4That's kind of like saying a store enabled the theft by not having things locked up. If she had the songs available an no one downloaded, there was no loss.
- NeoCortex, on 09/25/2008, -2/+6*than losing
- xL0Sx, on 09/25/2008, -6/+10Wrong as "theft" may be, we all do what we do aware of that risk. While some might argue that this is just a technicality, the bigger abuse of the system is by the RIAA and the way it conducts these cases. It preys on the unaware and non-saavy.
- DivisibleByZero, on 09/25/2008, -0/+4Regardless of what you think of peer-to-peer sharing, I'm not sure how the judge came to this decision regarding the one point in dispute: that making content available counts as infringement, even if nobody downloaded it.
For analogies sake, I could walk up to a police officer on the street and offer to sell him marijuana--or even offer to give it to him free. I assume I'd get arrested and convicted if I tried that. Or would they only be able to charge me with possession, not distribution? I guess I could see that.
EDIT: I just thought of all those cop shows where they can't arrest the guy until the money actually changes hands. This must work the same way. - explnx, on 04/27/2009, -0/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_ ...
Learn *****. - NJank, on 09/25/2008, -1/+5rationales for crime still makes it a crime
if cops started firing warning shots over the heads of jay walkers, peope would rightly be upset too. The system (which was designed to give large penalties to large-scale copyright infringers, like the guy who makes and distributes 10,000 bootlegs for sale) is applying too-heavy penalties for minor offenses. That's what people don't like.
Mark Twain made a pretty good analogy in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" regarding the equivalent of a death sentence or at least maiming resulting from an employer paying someone above minimum wage when demand was high. - wolfenraider, on 09/25/2008, -1/+4Not true. Not true. Not true. & Not true.
By your reasoning we'd all be stuck in the stone age if your advice had been doled out and followed back when. Businesses need to adjust to technology, not the converse, you silly pigeon. - FairDinkumMate, on 09/25/2008, -1/+4Gotta love the US legal system!
In Australia, they haven't tried to sue anyone because an IP address doesn't identify an individual & they can't sue a computer! So the burden of proof(which lies with those doing the suing - in this case the RIAA) doesn't just involve proving the files were uploaded/downloaded to the computer, they also have to prove that the person they are suing was the person using the computer at the time.
That said, now in Australia the music industry is pushing to have ISP's warn & then block people for downloading copyrighted material, but the ISP's have pretty much said "No way - we're not policeman & if you can't prove it in court you can't prove it to us" - illDecree, on 09/25/2008, -1/+4Making a CD for a friend is also illegal, but THAT will not get you a quarter million dollar fine.
How absurd would a $250,000 fine be for a 25cent blank CD.
***** legality here. People knowingly break the law everyday, and do not get this kind of treatment.
Possession of marijuana, and ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE, does not get more than a misdemeanor in most states, and at most 100 bux....
DUI doesn't get much more than that, and that is dangerous as hell. First offense is what? 6 months in "white collar resort" jail?
seriously, ***** the RIAA and ANYONE that agrees with their tactics. - JAHred, on 09/25/2008, -0/+3The RIAA doesn't care, but the only weapon the RIAA has against a person is the ability to ruin one's life. If you get rid of that weapon their teeth become less sharp .
- meells, on 09/25/2008, -0/+3As long as you disable sharing and keep your shared folder empty, you are fine. In a legal sense anyway. It also makes you a 'leech', and sharers might not like that...then again, they wouldn't be chipping in for your fees should a problem arise. Time and time again, people don't seem to be aware that downloading is not illegal at all. Only uploading. It was a good question.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is