What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
116 Comments
- Dhalsim007, on 10/12/2007, -9/+150Your choice RIAA ... rock ... or hard place ... either way, you lose!
- InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+125I hope they pick the jury trial and get roasted, but since even the RIAA knows they're full of ***** I doubt they'll take that choice.
- jaydj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+78A jury trial sets precedent. A dismissal does not.
- ryodoan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+78My favorite part was when they mentioned the RIAA was sueing a single mother with 5 children. Lets see that go to a jury trial.
- InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+61FTA: Money. Specifically, lobbying dollars.
- deathscytheh64, on 10/12/2007, -4/+59My complete lack of knowledge of our fair judicial system will show, but why the heck isn't our Dept. of Justice preventing any more frivolous lawsuits from being filed or even suing the RIAA themselves for being such a chore?
- KicktheDonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51"...since the defense gets to choose the jury."
What are you talking about? Both the plaintiff and defendant lawyer teams get a say in choosing the jury pool. If I remember my John Grisham movies correctly, they each get a certain number of potential jurors that they can remove from the pool, but I don't think the defense gets to select the entire jury by themselves.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection#Selection ):
"Selected jurors are generally subjected to a system of examination whereby both the prosecution (or plaintiff, in a civil case) and defense can object to a juror. In common law countries, this is known as voir dire. " - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+53All you have to do is jumble the jury's head with techno-jargon. There by confusing them and rendering them unable to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. That would be my "Custer's Las Stand" defense.
- ripple123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42In a barren, red soiled wasteland, the sun beats down relentlessly. A single tiny ant slowly crawls down out of the hollow eye socket of a bleached skull. Barely perceptible to the naked eye, it seems to carry what looks like a rectangular grain of sand. The ant stops, puts the rectangle on the ground, and opens it up with its tiny ant mandibles. It pulls out the tiniest violin in the world, tunes the knobs, and then starts to play the saddest song ever to exist. Then the RIAA sues him for copyright infringement.
- cderry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury....I'm just a caveman. I fell into a cravese of ice and later got thawed by your scientists. Your world frightens and scares me. Sometimes when I hear your honking horns, I want to get out of my BMW and run into the hills. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: 'Did little demons get inside and type it?' I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know....When an an evil coporation like the RIAA is out to pick on the little guy, like my client, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you."
- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer - Koray, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35Um.. you do know there is no filtering here right? I mean.. just saying. Because it took me a while to work out that $hi7 wasn't some slang for lots of money or something.
- ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -6/+37It's more then likely that they judge is an owner of a portable media device and is just sick of all the RIAA ***** that has been going on. Basically with the recent crap that has been filed, the **AAs have basically fraked up more then just a few digital media source, legals ones at that too. Internet radio has been hit hard, people are essentially breaking the law if they rip and encode DVDs onto their iPods / PSPs, heck they even tried to make it illegal to rip CDs but thankfully that didn't pass.
Good for the Judge.
The real biggie is that the RIAA just got its foot shot. They *have* to win the case, which they have a very good chance of not doing so, and they will be held accountable for their actions.
Maybe we'd finally actually get to see the RICO Act get thrown at them.
Or not, depending on who they have already bribed. - rabidwonton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29"All you have to do is jumble the jury's head with techno-jargon. There by confusing them and rendering them unable to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. That would be my "Custer's Las Stand" defense."
It would be a civil case, there is no 'convicting' as there was no criminal action by the RIAA (at least she isn't pursuing that angle). Additionally, civil cases are not determined by 'beyond a reasonable doubt' but instead on a 'preponderance of evidence'. Basically, each party in a civil case is assumed to be starting equal and whoever puts forth the most convincing evidence wins. - ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24As someone once said, "Its not what you know but who you know."
Bribes otherwise known as "Campaign contributions" towards your cause...as long as you fight for *MY* cause. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25"The new lawsuit claimed that Michelle had admitted to illicit downloading and that Robert's best friend had implicated him. "
What an ***** of a friend. - fireball74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23"The courts should have NOTHING WHATEVER to do with lobby money."
"Should" is the operative word there. Just because it *should* be a certain way, doesn't mean it is. Certain Congressmen are bought and paid for by our friends at the RIAA. This is how ***** legislation like the DMCA gets passed. Unfortunately, the only way to change this behavior is for people to vote, not only with their wallets, but by going to the polls. - workingformydad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19From: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070131-8740.html
"The labels got a default judgment for $30,750 against Robert's sister Michelle, who apparently did not respond to the lawsuit. (Michelle has since retained an attorney in an attempt to have the judgment overturned.) Robert, in contrast, is fighting back against the labels.
In his answer, Robert Santangelo denies the charges and demands a trial by jury, while accusing the record labels of engaging in a "wide-ranging conspiracy to defraud the courts of the United States." Santangelo also calls the labels a "cartel" that acts in collusion, violating US antitrust laws by "entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in an identical manner and through common lawyers."
Indeed, Santangelo and his attorneys appear to be using every entry in the file-sharing defense playbook in this case. They argue that making music available does not constitute infringement; that the statute of limitations on the alleged infringement (which supposedly occurred five years ago) has expired; that the music industry has "enticed and encouraged children to download music for free," and that the damages sought by the RIAA are unconstitutionally excessive.
There is no guarantee that this case will actually head to trial. If it does, it should make for quite the spectacle: the RIAA on one side, and a 16-year-old standing trial for allegedly downloading music when he was 11 years old on the other. " - Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20RIAA has a lot of money and will use it to protect themselves as much as possible.
They sue small numbers of people to intimidate large numbers.
Since I have a net connection, they could sue me for probable cause, I suppose.
The courts should have NOTHING WHATEVER to do with lobby money.
This should be viewed as a step in the right direction for justice.
Frivolous suits like this have to be stopped. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19You can bet he got paid well. Or was threatened with a lawsuit. Or, probably, both.
- workingformydad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18From: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070131-8740.html
"The RIAA has a statement (presumably under oath) from Santangelo's former best friend, who himself entered into a copyright infringement settlement with the record labels." - Smokezz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18No one said it yet? ***** the RIAA.
- crawfishsoul, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24Chubacca?!?!?! You should be beaten with a severed Tonton leg for mispelling "Chewbacca" on Digg, hell, on the Internet.
And to thataoofbill: You can't search yourself? Self-education is king.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_with_prejudice - ChewyBass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17They should go for Rock since no one is probably downloading Hard place music.
- InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Max, if you need me or any other digger to answer that question then you should research the issue yourself before commenting further.
- fernwood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Go to a mall record store and look at who's buying CDs. Then go to Wal-Mart and look at who's buying CDs. The people actually buying music don't give a *****.
- airwalkery2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Friends don't let friends implicate friends to the RIAA.
- EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Adding on to jaydj's comment:
For those that don't know, any precedent set could (and would) be used by future cases if, for nothing else, for the consideration of the judge/jury. It's more ammunition for the defense.
That said, we all assume she is not guilty. I'll likely be buried and scarcely read, however if she is guilty she should be convicted as such. As much as I harbor disdain for the RIAA, if they are correct, I hope for justice to be served. - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14forgive my ignorance but what exactly does dismissal with and without prejudice mean?
- Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12ebfoxbat:
Read up on jury nullification. There's something jurors get to choose besides just "guilt" or "innocence". It's call "not guilty by reason of injust law". The American colonists used jury nullification on a fairly regular basis in the colonies and British judges hated it. It was just one of those silent rules/laws. Once you start overturning "not guilty" pleas based on disdain for a law, you become a subjugator, and any claim to being a democratic government is pretty much over. The reason I can say this with impunity is if the Legislative branch made the law, the Executive branch brings you in for breaking it, and the Judicial branch overturns it's own citizens' "not guilty" plea, then you have despotism with a clear distinction between the will of the entity of government and the citizens that make that government up. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10FTA
"It's a noteworthy ruling because if the case is dismissed with prejudice,
Santangelo would be considered the prevailing party and would likely be
entitled to an award of attorneys' fees"
Its also worth noting that if a case is dismissed without prejudice the defendant can be sued AGAIN for the same alleged 'crime', so if this occurred the RIAA could basically just keep suing Santangelo for as long as they want till the defendant either pleads guilty and pays up, or till someone has the balls to do what this judge has done and basically tell the RIAA to bend over and take it cold and deep!! - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12While not pertinent to *this* case, I'd like to point out that Federal Judges are not elected, they are appointed. And those that appoint are easily swayed with large sums of cash (or equivalent).
- emotecontrol, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I'm not exactly sure, but it seems that in the U.S. it's much harder to throw out frivolous cases than in many other places, because of the guaranteed right to "due process". This seems to contribute to the huge amount of litigation that goes on in America. Up here in Canada, judges can throw out cases that they think are wasting the court's time, and can declare someone to be a "quarrelous litigant", which essentially means that the person or party cannot file suit against anyone without first being granted permission by a judge. I'm not sure whether that sort of thing is possible in the U.S.
- hypnotoad32, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9...but paper covers rock.. and scissors cut paper.... Kif! We have a conundrum.
- Plotinus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
so fight, and keep on fighting - NoMercyGTP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think he meant the tuning keys, stop being a sarcastic prick, you know what he meant...
- jstevewhite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6ebfoxbat - I think this is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one, so she can't be found 'guilty'. In the past, copyright holders were required to show real losses, but the current DMCA-fueled idiocy does not require that particular rational response. Historically, only actuall losses could constitute real infringement - anything else was subject only to 'cease-and-desist' orders. Due to the huge bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H campaign contributions from the "IP Industries" (think Disney and Universal and the like), the law has been changed to protect the old systems in the face of obviating technology. These laws are very similar to, say, requiring Ford to buy a buggy whip and supply it with every new car to keep the buggy whip industry healthy.
- coditza, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10RIAA in a lawsuit against an 16years old that wanted to listen to music, bish that wants to lawsuit Archive.org and the whole freaking internet... wtf is wrong with this world?
Someone should sue Digg.com because he got digged down and we will have a full picture of this beautiful world. - PeteLP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I feel most diggers are expressing an unreasonable position here. Here's what I believe (on both sides of this issue)
1) The RIAA generally sucks big time.
2) Every holder of ALL legally obtained copyrighted material should have unfettered rights to make copies for personal use.
3) I'm happy for the defendant in this particular case (it's a gut feeling, not a legal position)
OTOH:
4) Unfettered digital distribution over the net (ie P2P) of another's copyrighted material is truly unfair to the creator, if he chooses to sell the fruits of his labor, rather than give it away. In those kinds of situations I do believe the RIAA has a legitimate position, and that artists' rights deserve some protection. I really do believe that mass P2P downloads of copyrighted stuff is like stealing.
I know I'll be dugg down, but I think this point deserves some airtime. I can be a democrat, and still believe in the rights of an artist to own his work. - MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What are CDs?
- schoate09, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6***** the RIAA.
- revjustin2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6With all the talk about downloading as a moral issue, it is not surprising to me that an 11 year old would do that. From his/her perspective, they are being told that downloading music is akin to high treason and that people who do this are criminals. 11 year olds tend to see these complex social issues in one of two ways - black or white. If that kid's friend was a babykiller, we would applaud them turning their pal in. The difference is that WE can tell the difference between a dude who doesn't want to pay for the new Jay-Z single and a babykiller. An 11 year old can't really sort that out when the media is telling him that dl'ing media is a crime.
- Modizzle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I love the smell of justice in the morning.
- ubuwalker31, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Check this out: http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/learning/reference/booklets/web/frcp02.htm#11
Very few judges and attorneys believe that "frivolous litigation" is a problem or that it has grown. In fact, most judges and attorneys believe that this 'problem' either never existed or is the same or smaller than it was before: http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/rule11.pdf/$file/rule11.pdf
Furthermore, bringing a Rule 11 action against the opposing parties attorney's is fraught with danger for the attorney bring the action himself, since he will really piss off the other lawyer and possibly be subject to Rule 11 action himself. Not to mention that making Rule 11 sanction stick is fairly hard: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/04-1334-01A.pdf .
What seems frivolous to a layperson, is not necessarily frivolous under the law. - mdmadph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Welcome to the message board phenomenon known as self-induced censorship. I've been noticing it for years on the net, and I've never really figured it out. The people that do this never even realize that trying to translate the word into "leetspeak" doesn't really change anything, since the meaning is still there.
I for one make sure and ***** curse and much as I ***** can just to make up for all the ***** who censor themselves. There. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The RIAA really seems to have unlimited funds, and it is all because of us. If only we could stop everyone from buying music for just a week, I think the RIAA would get the message
- torokun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4First, the suits probably aren't 'frivolous', because the RIAA probably has some evidence based on IP addresses to back them up, at least partially.
Second, the DOJ has nothing to do with civil suits, which are between two people, not between people and the government. (people including corporations).
But regarding the broader question of meritless suits being filed, there is a lot of controversy about this. Most cases never go to trial, but settle. Something like over 90% settle. So many would argue it's not a problem.
But there is something about the U.S. (federal) legal system that most people don't know. The U.S. switched to what's called 'notice pleading' when the federal rules of civil procedure were made. I think this was in the '30's or so, but don't recall exactly. Before that, one would generally have to have some evidence in their initial pleading to back up their claims. Now, one only needs the claim (alleging the other party did xyz), and can go through the discovery process to get their evidence if need be. Thus, in the old days, courts could throw out cases that had insufficient evidence in their pleadings, while now, they often have to wait until discovery.
The plus is that suits against e.g. big corporations can go forward even though people don't initially have access to their records. The minus is that many more suits are filed and waste money in discovery before getting thrown out on summary judgment motions.
Some people think Rule 11 has teeth, others don't. It provides sanctions for bad lawyers, basically. But the fines are small, and the lawyers are always given time to fix the problem. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Come on, this is the RIAA. They're impervious to defeat, as they keep getting funded no matter what ***** they pull.
They'll settle the case, then sue the next underage kid and/or single mom, after first making sure she doesn't have as good insurance as this one had. - tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"that independent band's song on Itunes"
You realize there's lots of them, right? There's lots of them *not*on iTunes, too, that would love if you downloaded their music for free ... AND shared it with your friends. - jacobsor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3One other thing... this means that it's *possible* that the plaintiff will get reimbursed for her attorneys' fees. It's optional for the judge, and that will be determined at a later date. However, it's not automatic.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000505----000-.html
It's pretty rare to have attorneys' fees awarded in a copyright case, but it can happen if the judge thinks the RIAA was way out of bounds. It has happened in one other RIAA case.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070207-8786.html - Doriath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@revjustin2
Bear in mind that his rat of a friend was also nailed by the RIAA. -
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is