What is Digg?57 Comments
- gamer31, on 10/10/2007, -14/+115***** THE RIAA!
- joshua5, on 10/10/2007, -5/+30"In the over 20,000 file-sharing cases filed so far, the RIAA has relied on a simple procedure: scour P2P networks for shared music, file a John Doe lawsuit to learn the identity of the account-holder responsible for the IP address flagged by the RIAA's investigative arm, and, if the account-holder doesn't agree to the RIAA's settlement terms, file a lawsuit using a boilerplate complaint. A federal judge in California has now refused to grant the RIAA a judgment based on just such a complaint, forcing the RIAA to draw up a new complaint containing specifics."
So in one case out of 20,000 the RIAA has a bit of trouble and that's supposed to mark the beginning of sweeping reforms? Not bloody likely. - treed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25What about me? I need some *****, too!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21What about the MPAA? They need some ***** too.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17"I digg you down because as much as I and most every other digg user agree with you, your comment failed to add anything to the story. Let's have at least some intelligence evident in our comments."
Well to be honest, your comment doesn't add anything to it either (nor does mine). - ZigVicious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14no, you did it wrong. you have to be the first person to say it.
- bionicvskungfu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14The RIAA should still have to verify/proove that the offending filename actually contains the copyrighted material itself.
- sibhod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12The RIAA's shotgun lawsuits aren't in any way actually attempting to catch or stop piracy directly. They are trying to create an atmosphere of fear to dissuade the public from using the internet in a way they deem illegal. They have the money and resources to lawyer up on random US citizens, and they win because the average defendant doesn't have those resources. It's flagrant misuse of the US justice system, and it will continue as long as judges are ignorant of technology.
- Phantom784, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Yolanda Rodriguez was being sued for only 5 songs? Don't you think they'd want to go after somebody with a few more files than that?
- Unlgued, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9No kidding, with $3,750 for 5 songs... well, let's just assume I'd get the chair.
- Nanaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7It's about time.
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9It goes without saying that they should need to specify who's infringing the copyright. It's surprising they have been able to do this for so long. All they keep coming up with use to be IP addresses, like if they've never heard of gateways. No wonder innocent people have got in trouble in the past. What happens if a sysadmin don't maintain good access logs, or mess up? Is that when the unlucky ones get the cease & desist letters? Already in 2004, they sued hundreds of people they didn't know or care for who they even were ... http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,114387-page,1/article.html
To solve these problems, I think a minimum requirement by law should be to be able to point to an actual person, not a router. :-p If the RIAA can't do that in all their abusive might, and need to involve the cops, well then that's the way they should need to go. This whole "private company bypassing law enforcement to sue routers to extort people" is so risky to be inaccurate that it's sickening... - carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7wrong, they're a private industry group.
- lucidapathy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Uh... this isn't the first time they've had a problem. RIAA = losing more and more cases frequently.
- basye, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6/watches as RIAA's candle grows dim/
- gildude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's not that there were only 5 files. The RIAA tries to strike a balance between collecting a "suitable" (to them) settlement that scares people "enough" and actually having people show up in court to dispute the charges and, possibly, force them to show actual damages. When they ask for something in the neighborhood of $3,000-$5,000 most people realize that attempting to fight it out in court will cost more than that and they just send the RIAA the check. It's completely in the RIAA's interest to keep the requested amounts in this range so that they DON'T have to go to court very often.
- BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5And if out of all those cases they manage to extort about $3000 out of each (some will loose, some will go through court and end up earning more), they'll be 60 million richer. If suing people wasn't profitable, they wouldn't be doing it.
- Chandon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4joshua5 -
Have they won any cases? Not settled, but actually won? - InsaneMachine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3i think you would have had better luck in getting dugg up, had you not said you were coming from Netscape, though I'm not sure on that, but certainly if you had skipped on the catchphrases. Everyone hear absolutely hates anything relating to self promotion.
- Fhwqhgads, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Can they prove that Rodriguez herself was actually using that specific computer at that specific time? No it cant. Period. Case closed.
- metateck, on 10/10/2007, -12/+15I digg you down because as much as I and most every other digg user agree with you, your comment failed to add anything to the story. Let's have at least some intelligence evident in our comments.
- Nossie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"I digg you down because as much as I and most every other digg user agree with you, your comment failed to add anything to the story. Let's have at least some intelligence evident in our comments."
As much as I agree with you 100% ... I have to ask what your comment contributed to the story?
FORNICATE THE RIAA!! =P - jacobsor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly. This does not change the level of proof needed to bring a lawsuit. A "complaint" in a lawsuit usually only needs to provide a general statement of the allegations and basis for the lawsuit.
This ruling means is that the RIAA will need to be a bit more specific in the language it uses. In other words, it will need to add a few sentences explaining their specific allegations of infringement for any particular defendant. Even in this case, the judge only told the RIAA to be more specific. - ChayD, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Not wanting to sound negative, but this isn't going to change much. It'll just mean they'll have to hire more lawyers to dig the dirt.
- directsun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'd rather support a losing defendant than admit defeat. I'll never support the RIAA.
- sirplus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2heheh.. heheheh.. he said "SCOTUS" huhuhuh. yah.
- Nossie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2she has a cleaner?
she has kids... who have friends that use the computer
she has an open network (wifi or otherwise)
she's been trojaned ...
she has a VERY intelligent dog....
I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to deny plausibility -- everyone else does! - platypibri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Netscape is GOING corporate? When did Netscape CEASE TO BE corporate?
- reddy4it, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Technically this is possible unless she has a great alibi!
- Nossie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And the more lawyers they hire the more its going to cost them to press charges
Suddenly the RIAA stops becoming SCO... or not. - sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, the Revolution will be sold on iTunes. :(
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They are likely targeting people that leave the p2p software running continuously, thereby acting as a constant free source to download the song for others on the network.
- schroeder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But maybe this will set precedent.
- directsun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They don't have much time before the black flame candle goes out.
Anyone? Anyone? - Cherubim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The RIAA will probably start suing people for singing songs in public or even the shower lol! What a pack of cold, fascist bastards. They're all living in the past and now they're watching their gold mint start to crumble.
- sirplus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1totally.
- zammit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Indeed, and the only way to do that would be to download the file... then if they did that, wouldn't they be breaking their own rules?
- psykiv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Geocities? Bah. n00bs. Tripod, xoom, and angelfire ftw!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The RIAA will be a thing of the past soon enough. Technology changes, i remember downloading mp3z from "geocities" and they were zip files, you had to rename .mp3 so geocties wouldn't catch on and delete them, on dial up it was about 20 to 30 min to download 1 song, finally after days, you had the whole disc that you burned at maybe 2x. But it was worth it, bottom line is it can't be stopped, they should embrace the technology, they are beating a dead horse.
Do you think they still have a crew out searching for people that copy cassette tapes or vhs? i doubt it - zammit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Kids these days, all hopped up on the Q
- Makisupa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Sorry, correct URL is http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=interscope_rodriguez_070817OrderDismissComplaint
- ArthurSucks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What's this "proof" stuff that you speak of? Is it cheap?
- Makisupa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Unfortunately, this is really going to have no effect. If you are interested, check out how loose Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) actually is. Even the recent SCOTUS case Bell Atlantic v. Twombly will just require the RIAA to include specifics about the person/songs/IP/etc. Won't be that hard to do. For any lawyers or law students, you can find the nice 3 page decision at http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=interscope_rodriguez_070817OrderDismissComplaints
- 3szoom, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8If that were the case nothing would ever be posted on DIGG.
Damn Straight, ***** THE RIAA - Innagadadavida, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5I read that as Judge Deals Blow to RIAA. As in drugs.
- phazon88, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0When they flag someone's IP address as downloading or uploading copyrighted music, can't the person that owns the computer just say other people use their computer such as friends that visit them and stuff and they don't know who it was that actually downloaded the music? How can they make a lawsuit against you if they can't prove who was using the computer?
- Unlgued, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The war's far from over, but it's good to hear they're losing ground.
- zammit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1just because you don't make any intelligent comments that contribute to digg, doesn't mean that nobody else does
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Why is Digg celebrating a case where the defendant is clearly guilty, and will lose?
FTA
"It took the RIAA little less than a week to file an amended complaint. In contrast to the original complaint, which was extremely short on specifics, the RIAA's latest filing offers more in the way of details. Those details include the date the RIAA spotted the PC it believes was used by Rodriguez on Gnutella, the IP address, and a list of recordings in the user's shared folder." - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5ron paul
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is