What is Digg?Sponsored by The Fourth Kind
What does 3:33 AM mean to you? view!
facebook.com - People have reported alien encounters taking place at 3:33AM. Do you believe? The Fourth Kind - Now Playing.
59 Comments
- Klisk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+78I demand a rise in common sense! It seems to be lacking in our legal system these days.
Nice to see a Judge challenge the RIAA. :) - axcess99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+76The $750 figure was never meant to be applied the way the RIAA is using it now. It was meant for mass piracy distributors not the end-holders of the pirated material.
I'm glad that someone is now expressing the common sense approach to the RIAA in the courts. - sparrowkc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44Judge Trager, you shall be our new God.
- 8177, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3570 cents! Thats cheaper then Itunes.
Save a few bucks pirate your music. - combatchuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26That sounds like the question that will start the lawsuit to end all lawsuits.
- steelmaverick, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33RIAA = Pwned
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25About Time.
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Are you saying that you doubt the journalistic integrity of our friends at The Inquirer? For shame.
EDIT: That's weird. When I first responded to your comment, you said, "If only it weren't the inquirer...". Now I just look silly. Oh, well, not the first time.... - jtcalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Maybe after a class-action lawsuit...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20I hope changes are made to where we can destroy the RIAA completely and revamp the very system that made users cynical to the Recording Industry to begin with. The Massive increase of P2P users is not a coincidence nor was it an accident.
- RandomSkratch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16If only this would apply to CD's that have been released that contain 2 good songs out of 18.
- seanalltogether, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Something isn't right with this article.
The RIAA usually sues people *sharing* copywritten songs, monetary claims are based on the fines imposed by the government for being caught illegaling *distributing* material. The article implies shes been sued for downloading copywritten songs, which isn't illegal, and even if it was,the only way the RIAA would know is by entrapment, which isn't permissable. - Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Interesting to compare this to shoplifting a CD. Take California for example:
Merchandise valued under $50: May in some cases be reduced to an infraction, avoiding a criminal record.
But otherwise:
Merchandise up to $400: A $400 fine and/or county jail for up to 6 months.
So shoplifting a CD might get you nothing but an infraction, or at the very max it would get you a $400 fine AND 6 months in jail (although I doubt that that would happen for just shoplifting one CD).
So let's say a CD has 14 songs on it. If you download the same CD and get caught, the RIAA says you owe 14 * $750 = $10,500. That's pretty messed up.
I don't condone stealing either way, but the penalties need to be in sync with the offense, and they're clearly not. - dpknc84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13It may be the Inquirer, but it's no bs here. Here are some court docs:
http://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm#UMG_v_Lindor - crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13See that symbol next to the post age? The circle with a line through it?
Yea. Use it. - aramova, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Before you digg down... The parent comment is in reply to the comment by ohgr,
"So if these changes are made, does that mean the RIAA has to give the people they sued some money back?"
So, the parent has a point here - supspn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I love these kind of Digg stories. People who fight back against crazy suits.
- duality, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11In fact, he does make a good point. The problem is that the money that most of these victims shelled out to make the RIAA leave them alone was agreed to in settlements, not ordered by judges themselves.
I'm not saying it's impossible to contest, but it's a lot more difficult since a judge will be forced to look at these cases as voluntary. Denouncing them as blackmail is a possibility, but not a very strong one. - TruthElixirX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Yeah, originally he said
"If only it wasn't The Inquirer". - duality, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This was a good idea by the judge, but the RIAA won't let this get in their way. The problem with the RIAA is that they are the most paranoid of cowards. At the first sign of trouble, they pack their bags and run out of the courtroom. They're suing enough people that they can just cut their losses on the ones that demonstrate enough intelligence to be a threat to them, and they still get plenty of money from the ones that don't realize they have a real chance for victory.
That's why the $750 figure is so important. It's high enough that they have room to maneuver. The RIAA probably took the basic economic principle of supply and demand and then applied it in reverse to come up with this quantity of money. - arkmtech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Save lotsa' bucks... by not getting caught doing it!
- Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Yeah, it is similar to blackmail. These people have two options:
1. Pay the exhorbitant settlement fee.
2. Try to fight it in court and definitely pay astronomically MORE than the exhorbitant settlement fee in doing so...and then maybe lose anyway. Not to mention the time wasted and the stress involved.
So the only realistic choice is #1 for most people. When you have two choices and one of them is not even an option that you can even remotely consider, then yeah, I'd say that that is pretty equivalent to blackmail. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Higher quality and no DRM either.
- imyayo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8As someone pointed out earlier, finally someone with some common sense is sitting behind the bench.
- xMetaRidley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Finally. I always wondered why when Sony was sued over their rootkits, they offered the plaintiffs either 3 downloadable albums, or $7.50 & one downloadable album. Simple math would make that 3x = 7.5+x or 2x=7.5, x=3.75, or one album having a $3.75 value to Sony. Yet they can turn around and sue for hundreds of dollars per song? I realize that the RIAA has the right to seek punative damages, but $750/song is outrageous. The punishment should fit the crime, and it is currently many orders of magnitude cheaper to shoplift the actual physical CD (which deprives the store of selling the copy, in addition to potential losses incurred by having one less person interested in purchasing the CD) than pirating it (which only incurs the potential losses, no one is deprived of the copy).
- datcrazydj, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11They should. But..its the RIAA. Come on now.
- LycoLoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@vhcougar
"'Higher quality and no DRM either.'
Why, yes, these *are* advantages of buying CDs!"
Funny...I remember something with Sony about a rootkit about a year ago. If that's not DRM, I don't know what is. As odd as it is, piracy is often a better alternative to buying the album just to save yourself the possibility of DRM. - TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6we've found a new Chuck Norris!
- Geekbeard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Justice, in reality, is only for the rich. If you think you are equal, even before the law, you've got another thing coming.
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Trager damn it.
- dragazis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I hope this comes through for Ms. Lindor as in the $750 price is deemed unconstitutional.
- TekkaManBladeX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What I'm guessing the RIAA is thinking is that they can't catch ALL the people out there to pony up the 70 cents per track. So instead, they decide to bleed dry the ones that they do catch. Pretty messed up. Like punishing one shoplifter for the crimes of 40 others. Does the RIAA have ANY positive merits to them? I mean, does ANY member of the public like the RIAA?
- fallenone05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If the RIAA is sueing for more than what a track is worth, it's because it is sueing for punitive damages: which incourages the "criminal" to not do it again, rather than for compensatory damages: which will only recover the monetary loss. If you still don't understand the difference take a look at this equation which explains it much easier:
((price of track) + x) + 1.5% - actual price * future price / labor - one mexican = sueing charge - repruhsent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I guess this means unless the RIAA can find a music retailer that sells at $750 per song, they're *****.
In all seriousness, it's nice to see someone standing up to these extortionist bastards. Protecting copyright is one thing, but what they're doing is something else. - Spanca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wii = wee = piss. So if you substitute wii in the title it's "taking the piss"
I don't know if you have that slang in the US, but in the UK and Australia (and probably elsewhere), it's a play on the term "taking the piss", which sort of means 'making fun of' or making a joke out of something. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It isn't just the penalty. It's the pricing.
Remember when people used to get prosecuted for "stealing" long distance? Remember phone "phreaking?"
Now that phone service is cheap, nobody steals it. If songs cost $0.10 and the price was split three ways among the musicians, the publisher, and the retailer, nobody would steal music and nobody would need DRM. AND the musicians and retailers would get just as much money as they do today. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Does anyone LIKE the RIAA?? Ha. They went form being an obscure industry org to being a mafia. I'm surprised nobody has smashed an RIAA lawyer's kneecap yet. Act like a mafia, go down like mafiosi.
- nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6digg that.
I'm on the fence where pirated music is concerned. I don't think, in most cases, that it encourages wholesale piracy, but rather encourages users to buy the rest of the album or other material by the same artist or of a similar genre.
But I concede that piracy is illegal, and there is a type of theft taking place. But if you're going to sue for lost income, you should be honest. If the going rate is about $1 per tune, that's all you should be liable for. The RIAA should think about how many more people would settle if they sued for real damages. - LycoLoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Inquirer != British Enquirer. This is the reputable one.
- bigtoe416, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Uhh, why does that story have "Wii" in the title? Is The Inquirer taking a tip from digg on posting stories?
- twh99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I believe the Supreme Court has recently said that overly excessive punitive damages are unconstitutional. Unfortunately they didn't specify a multiplier. However they recently threw out some where the multiplier was over a 100. So even if you use that for a guideline it turns out that they shouldn't be asking for more than $70/song ($0.70 * 100).
- leowatson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2About time. How is it that the figures that they RIAA comes up with are more than sales of each song would be?
- Spanca, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10I'm still at a loss as to why people who point out that this news has already been submitted and homepage'd on Digg are still getting dugg down. Do you people not want to see the digg system work properly?
Instead of having one story with 1700+ diggs, we now have one with 1000 and this one with 700. How is that a good thing?
But yeah, go on and digg me down and cement the stupidity of what's already gone on. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"As odd as it is, piracy is often a better alternative to buying the album just to save yourself the possibility of DRM."
...why would anyone buy an album solely to avoid DRM? - superspak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the RIAA is ***** retarded
- kortiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this is cool and unusual punishment...I mean cruel...
- blackbrrr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Now.. Whoever stands up to TicketMaster will be our next President
- warnergt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We are not worthy!
- daeyeth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3oops
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 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