What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee’s singing debut.
68 Comments
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+71I guess even the judge was tired of hearing *****
- edzilla, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I want hollywood to make one their great movies about a poor guy unjustly accused by either the mpaa or riaa, who decides to fight back, against all the odds, and finally wins, 'cause of course the good guys always wins!!
- Beatmiser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9As sad as it seems this is the first time I think the RIAA may actually win one in court. The defendant is a bad liar who has unfortunately been more or less proven to be lying. I'm guessing that won't sit well with the jury. And if she does lose, this sets up a bad precedent. The RIAA will have just the moral victory they've been looking for.
The implications of this one trial are fairly scary. - amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8bingobongony said 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. - heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Well if truth be told the wanker in question should never have been put on the witness list in the first place ! Some one in the RIAA wanted to turn this from a courtroom to a five ring circus replete with performing pink elephants and purple seals.
I can see why the judge sided with the defendant here ,!
The ex boyfriend had full access to the computer at the time in question and also mentioned she had also a large extensive collection of real genuine record company music Cd's and would at times burn a few compilations at his request for personal fair use ! - llbbl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8riaa, ***** you and the horse you rode in on
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Or it wasn't relevant to the case. The effect of piracy on the industry has nothing to do with the defendant's innocence or guilt.
- RealmDown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Nope. The judge feared for the stenographer who would have been charged for illegal copying.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Actually, you need to study all the related stories. For instance: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-firs ...
Quote:
"The alleged infringement was identified on February 21, 2005, and SafeNet's investigator sent an IM to tereastarr@KaZaA warning her that she was engaged in the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials.....She [the defendant] had the hard drive replaced in March 2005 at a Best Buy store...."
The defendant claims she never got the IM on Feb 21st and only had the hard drive replaced a couple of weeks later after bringing it in to BestBuy for repairs. - apolloae, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Conflict of interest?
- physphd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Obvious troll is obvious.
- sjaaksken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Look up what the word evidence means.... you 've confused the definition with the one the RIAA uses (evidence= every assumption that can be used in their advantage). Evidence is NOT a screenshot of an IP with a few records being made available to it. It is NOT about having a user with the same name on kazaa, because frankly, the internet is pretty unanimous and EVERYONE can use whatever nickname they want. It is in fact NOT DIFFICULT AT ALL to abuse someone's computer, 80% of windows PC's has been infected by malware once or more... I'm not even saying that's the case in this specific situation but considering the arguments the RIAA uses in this case it 's very relevant. There just is NO way you can prove the identity of someone on the internet, unless you bust him/her doing the act. Just linking an IP address or a username to a certain person is about as reliable as a Ford Pinto during a crash.
The RIAA 's not in the comfortable position you consider them to be in. They might come across that way, and certainly they have alot of friends in the legal society. But actually maybe their behavior should be interpreted more as a lack of understanding the real world, maybe even a structural incompetence or they might have been to caught up in their businessmen attitude. Them asking if their big boss is allowed to perform and influence the jury (because that's what they wanted to do, he isn't involved in the actual trial) shows their lack of respect for any individual and their rights. The judge made a good decision in that specific incident, but it's not enough. The RIAA is intimidating everyone all the time, their sharky lawyers use every little dirty trick to discredit normal people. They should get a response, a clear signal that although they're powerful they're not untouchable.... By that I mean courts should be less tolerant towards the RIAA's tactics.
And another thing: if you ditch your hard drive two weeks BEFORE you 're sent a letter that you're infringing, you have to be like Nostradamus or whatever. Stop not mentioning that it got replaced before they sent her a letter and than acting like she ditched it, or face the fact that you're one incredibly biased b*st*rd. - goldfishey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3While, on reading a summary of *all* the evidence put together I figure this girl is most probably guilty. I cant agree with the username argument. They are not unique. My own username goldfishey for example is my username accross many online accounts, except for a few exceptions where i had to go with another name because goldfishey (with the incorrect spelling) is already taken. So that means there are other people out there using goldfishey as their name, for all I know they are right now breaking laws right left and centre.
All that being now being said -I also dispute their definitions of the crime. unlicenced distribution of copyrighted material fair enough, but ripping a cd you bought, for your own personal use? That is not theft - that is some execs knee jerk (and slightly facist) reaction to the fact they dont know how to catch and counter mass unlicenced distribution.
Wait till bands all do what some are: Radiohead for example, their contract with the label expired so they produced their own album and its freely available to download from their site - they have an honesty box type thing going where people can pay what they think the album is worth, and you know what? people are paying. even if they dont make as much as the label might have made, they dont have to share it with anyone - its all theirs. I reckon their gonna come out ahead. - actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Looks like that link crapped out during truncation. The article referenced is presently the first link under "related stories" on the parent article. The headline is: First RIAA trial gets under way with jury selection, opening statements
And just in case it works this time, one more shot: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071003-judg ... - amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I thought your comments were accurate and even agreed with the absurdity. Then I read some of your other comments and realize that you're just very ignorant and self-absorbed. Kinda smells like Karl Rove in here now.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Actually she swapped the drive before she was contacted by the RIAA.
Learn to read, ignoramus. - amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If you removed the "effects of piracy" then she is guilty of nothing. Just because the law exists, doesn't make it accurate or just. You are right, they don't have to prove it here, because their lobbying efforts clouded the way to begin with.
- ghostlywind, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Why would you want Hollywood to do it they are the mpaa, they would make a movie about how it's ok to sue people. You need a independent film maker to do it.
- edzilla, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4And the best buy guy confirmed that it was changed due to hardware problems.
- cyberwarriorx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well, they say you see yourself in others. Or as the saying goes: "it takes one to know one".
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3She broke up with her boyfriend in 2004 and blocked his access through passwords. The alleged infringement took place on Feb 21, 2005. She was the only one who had access at the time.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I did read. She CLAIMS to have done that. And was caught in a lie. Then said "Oh, I was off by a year in my deposition." Yeah...right.
And regardless of that...I notice you are ignoring the part where the user on Kazaa that just HAPPENED to be sharing the same exact eclectic music collection that this woman has...used the SAME EXACT user name that this woman uses on at least 4 differnet sites, as well as her Windows login. And that she claimed to have ripped 150+ CDs in 2 days. Riiiight. - heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Not again !
Grow a brain ! - aluminumpork, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Man, I wish I would have sat in on this, would have been really interesting. Don't get this opportunity often in Duluth.
- edzilla, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That was irony, of course...
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, it's more a case of "living in high crime areas does not by make you guilty of crimes yourself." She can only be judged for her own actions, not by the actions of others. Sherman wanted to illustrate piracy as rampant to turn the jury toward guilt-by-association (i.e., "millions of computer users do it, therefore it's not farfetched that she did it too) and to drive home the need for this jury set a precedent. Common courtroom tactics.
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Did I say that I didn't agree with this comment you made? No, I didn't. In fact you are probably exactly right in this case. Your other comments, as I stated, make you look that way. And again, your comment make you look like the idiot. Let's see if other people agree with me. Maybe I'm wrong?
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Time ran out before I could finish. add "unless my digg capabilities are weak and I interpret the stats wrong."
- useful, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Civil cases aren't about reasonable doubt. OJ lost his Rolex last week and it had nothing to do with him trying to steal things.
- smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Hate to say it, but she sounds guilty. I think she probably ripped her CDs and shared them knowingly or unknowingly. Kazaa and other P2P programs search for your My Music folder.
Not that I'd ever want to cross the RIAA (I wonder if they'd go after someone like me), but I could imagine it like this...
Plaintiff: And what makes you an expert?
Me: Well, I am an MCSE and MCT. I have been a network engineer for almost 20 years, since the days of Netware and LANtastic. I teach networking as well as security.
Plaintiff: Uhh, well what do you know about music?
Me: I had a double-major in college for music and music production. I understand both sides of the business quite well. I can run a board and even fake it pretty well on a few instruments. I'd be more than happy to testify at length about the problems with your business model. I was also a manager for a major retail chain for some time.
Plaintiff: Err, and you're saying that someone used your wireless router to get these files?
Me: I have an old 802.11b/g router for my Nintendo DS. They are easy to break into. As an expert, I can attest to that. It's a security hole I'm comfortable living with, but it's on it's own subnet so it has no real impact on my security at home where my other PCs use 802.11n.
Plaintiff: You have files with timestamps that look like downloads.
Me: I can't recall, but as an expert I can tell you that if I took them off of my phone, both Bluetooth and USB cable transfers would take about that long. I might have copied them over the LAN or over a USB hard drive. They're not that fast, either. Really, there are countless explanations more plausible and likely than what you suppose. The doubt is beyond reasonable that any number of things could have caused this. Where you see guilt I see many totally normal usage instances.
I can't imagine they'd ever sue experts. - amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It isn't letting me reply to your comment. And please don't think I am saying you are wrong, just clarifying what in fact is causing "rampant piracy"
Maybe I live in a different world, but in my world, the effectS of piracy are caused by an industry who has failed to pick up on the future business model. I for one, would never have touched p2p if there were valid, usable alternatives. I had an mp3 player years before there was any other way to get mp3s. And the RIAA claims burning my own cds was theft. I guess I just wanted free music. - Abomonog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3She's busted. However, I'm surprised at the fact that there is no question of the legality of the RIAA's data gathering methods.
- goldfishey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The offence relates to 2005 I believe. Thats two years ago.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@ Honored: You'll notice this isn't who the industry sues, they sue people who either are distributing the music or downloading it without buying it. They may feel that you can't rip your CD, but this is not grounds for their lawsuits.
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You have to live with the reputation you forge for yourself, and can't feign credibility for a single comment because your reputation precedes you. Guess what, that's life. Better luck next time.
amsterdamordeth is just looking our for himself. "He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed." - MewtwoReturns, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The judge should let him testify...just so someone can go in and kill him. Cut off the head and the rest of the RIAA will fall?
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I agree with you that the RIAA is being stupid, which is why I don't buy (or steal) any of there music. But their poor business practices don't give anyone the right to steal from them.
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It may be to late for them to successfully profit AND steer people away from 10 years of free music. 10 Years ago I would have taken napster's user base and started with a very, very cheap monthly rate for unlimited music in lower quality, and a higher rate for increased quality music. You make a little money off of people wanting 128kbit music, and more off of higher quality tracks. In a year, slightly raise the price a little. Every consecutive year you slowly tweak monthly pricing to see what people will accept before feeling like they are being ripped off. As I said though, it is probably to late for this because now they have major stores like walmart and target controlling prices, not the RIAA.
Look at allofmp3.com. It was the perfect alternative and people ate it up. Until it got squashed. - Crazyviolinist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Theoretically anyone can get a subpoena for anyone's IP address without a hearing and quickly for any legal proceedings. It's legal, but questionable due to privacy concerns. You know something is wrong when counter-terrorism officials have to jump more hoops under the Patriot Act to get a suspect's IP address than the RIAA or the MPAA.
- weaksnyc, on 08/14/2009, -1/+2In response to PA42... I agree with your value argument. Unfortunately, as value decreases, prices should decrease... except in the case of the music industry, where price continue to increase, and for no sound reason. Dropping prices would mean smaller profit PER SALE, but that's the nature of business. When value/demand decreases, you lower your prices to stay competitive, or you're driven out of business. For example, I personally don't think $20 for a CD is fair, which keeps me out of CD stores, which means I make less impulse buys, etc etc...
No matter how you look at it, the RIAA are not being smart about anything, and they've driven a wedge between themselves and their customers. - actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not taking as slam. We're just having a discussion. That said, digital downloads with low-quality try-before-you-buy samples have been available for some time. With that, people have also stopped being tied to buying an entire CD just to get one or two songs. So where do you personally feel the industry has failed to pick up on the future business model? Are you talking about DRM specifically?
If you ran the industry, how would your business model differ? - actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh yeah, and thanks for catching "effects". I sure didn't. ;)
- sjaskow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I find it really amusing that the RIAA lawyer seems to think that you couldn't rip that quickly. When I upgraded my PC a few years ago and finally had enough disk space to store all of my MP3's at 256 VBR, I ripped my entire CD collection at the time (around 100 CD's) in a weekend. I'd start one, go off and when the ripper ejected the CD, I'd start another.
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1...as was clearly recounted in the ars article.
- sjaaksken, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2and by coincidence windows never had any security issues that specific day...
- careyd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thanks for bringing this up. What about that?
- sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Music is freely available. If the same music was available without DRM, I would purchase it. Currently, I listen to ripped CDs, but that is because most new music is crap.
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've heard a few sources say she actually replaced the drive after getting the letter. Can you point me to a source that says otherwise?
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Certainly the industry is warming to new models as much as it absolutely has to, but in every case, their efforts are too little, too late. There's also just no excusing their insistence that the law enforce their ideas that you should pay for things you already have over and over again, based on how you're (personally) using it. You're either allowed to personally use copyrighted material or not. Further distinctions are ***** with the sole purpose of profiteering off of past work that will run its natural course through the free market, or more likely, already has.
- bmatherlyjr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Busted eh? Funny. The ONLY shred of evidence which is circumstantial at best is an assigned IP address from Charter and files on the hard drive. NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE TO SPEAK OF. No time stamped web cam image, no finger prints (not that it will do them any good since it's a family computer), nothing at all that suggests that this woman committed a crime. The ONLY thing that bothers me is why didn't she use the "sovereign nation" defense? That would have been my first legal move that I personally would have taken.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 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