digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

New York teen sues record Industry

theinquirer.net — A New York teen, dubbed a pirate by the Record Industry, is counter suing them for defamation, violating anti-trust laws, conspiring to defraud the courts and making extortionate threats.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -6/+544I actually never understood why courts accept lawsuits by the RIAA. After all the ONLY evidence they can show are log-files which they created themselves, or even better: logfiles they paid a third party to create for them. How can anyone be convicted due to evidence fully created by the prosecution??
    • dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+136Thats a good point... why don't people fight it more... I guess the "fee" is cheap enough to keep you from fighting
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+300You can sue anyone for anything. Evidence isn't important.

      Granted, you need evidence ONCE IN COURT, but you can get anyone to that point prior to having evidence.

      And that's expensive.

      And the RIAA knows this.

      It's a fault in our current legal system, for sure.
    • blueluck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+103Counter suit for court costs, slander, etc. are supposed to be the remedy for that. I'm not going to claim that it always works, but hopefully it does for my new hero Robert!
    • sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -10/+350His lawyer, a ninja, could not be found to comment.
    • lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+71Courts don't really accept the lawsuits without the RIAA exploiting the system. They first find someone who is allegedly file sharing, get his IP address, and sue him as a John Doe based on that. Since he obviously does not show up to defend himself, courts have to grant the RIAA the right to subpeona the ISP to get his identification. If the ISP complies, then they have your identification. They can sue you under your real name. Many people settle at that point. Some get lawyers and go to court. To see what happens after that, here is some court records:

      http://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm
    • silverfire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20FTA: "Nothing in a filing full of recycled charges that have gone nowhere in the past changes that fact.''

      Oh, the irony.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+49But the RIAA is wrong, and everyone knows it's wrong. One simple legal loophole is this: If you have an open (or even closed) wireless network, you aren't necessarily liable for everything that goes up or down on that stream. This is why coffee shops aren't brought to court for pedophiles who use their connection.

      People are afraid of racking up tens of thousands in legal fees, because no one ever tells them that they can fight this, and WHEN they win, they can turn around and countersue for a variety of legitimate reasons that will probably pay off in dividends.
    • borgtec, on 10/12/2007, -79/+0Man this guys a legend man right on...obviousloy if he was like me (brown and pakistani) obviously would sed NO M8 YOUR LYING...YOU OBVIOUSLY STOLE IT.....but still some revolutionary *****
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+111I wish this guy luck. The RIAA has made no friends with their constant witch hunting.

      I don't care what you are selling: by targeting your consumers with legal action is like taking careful aim and shooting yourself in the foot.
    • eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5What do you mean "accept"?

      Every Amercan ctizen has access to the Courts, and the court Cannot and does not prevent people from filing suts based ont her status, rank, position or anything else.

      Whether the suit can withstand a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is another issue. I won't pretend to try and teach you what those are; Law schools spend months trying to teach that subject and lawyers still dont get it.
    • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -64/+9"I actually never understood why courts accept lawsuits by the RIAA. "

      i actually never understood why people thought they could get away with stealing music
    • natmaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52"Oh no, we were forced to lay off workers who mean nothing to us because we wanted to keep our 'diamond studded swimming pools' - like every other industry. But we are a monopoly! We are not supposed to be subject to the same economic forces as other industry's that do business in a free market!"
    • breakaway, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35@joeyjojo

      "You can sue anyone for anything in the US. Evidence isn't important."

      Fixed, for great justice.
    • Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5What, your courts require evidence before the lawsuit even starts? Or is reading comprehension the problem here?
    • metlin, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24> i actually never understood why people thought they could get away with stealing music

      Maybe because copyright infringement isn't theft? You aren't "taking" anything away from the artist -- if you do wish to pay for something you enjoyed, you can always do so at a later date by buying their CD. And by restricting your freedom to do what you please with something -you- paid for, they pretty much do not leave you with very little alternative.
    • popularme, on 10/12/2007, -44/+4i hope the RIAA wins.
    • elamr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@Cyberdork:
      "I actually never understood why courts accept lawsuits by the RIAA. After all the ONLY evidence they can show are log-files which they created themselves, or even better: logfiles they paid a third party to create for them. How can anyone be convicted due to evidence fully created by the prosecution??"

      They sue normal people who will get a lame ass public defender that is either incompetent or bought out by the RIAA.
    • humperdeath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Good luck, Robert Santangelo. I hope you make those ****ers pay! Can you beleive the record companies statement that ' The record industry has suffered enormously due to piracy. That includes thousands of layoffs. We must protect our rights. ' Blah blah blah, I fell so sorry for all those execs in limos and recording artists with pivate jets. Fans still buy CD's and iTunes.
    • kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Not to mention the fact that pretty much all of the U.S. is now NAT/DHCP. In essence, all you have to do is unplug your broadband device for a day and then plug it back in. More likely than not you'll receive a new IP address.

      Add to that the fact that even dialup users get different IP addresses every time they dial in.

      The RIAA is using thug tactics and I'm not happy about it at all. They need to be reigned in. Maybe if they'd stop selling crap as music we'd buy more of it.

    • fucknut, on 10/12/2007, -7/+31Who said you need "evidence." When you get a speeding ticket and you try to fight it, what evidence does the cop have?
      - Uh, your honor, that dude was speeding 3 months ago, on a Tue morning. Honest!
      - OK, Guilty!

      There you have it.
    • jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6No evidence = reason for a "motion to dismiss" ... This is the remedy. If there is "no evidence" and it making it past this motion, then it is the judges fault, not the legal systems.
    • sublimer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3a majority of the time the case is dropped due to lack of evidence. usually when someone is convicted, they have confiscated their hard drive.
    • ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"How can anyone be convicted due to evidence fully created by the prosecution??"

      It's called subpoenaing the defendant's ISP.

      And PS "*****," police are officers of the court. They are trusted unless the court is presented with strong evidence that they should not be trusted. As much as they would like to think so, **AA are not a government agency.
    • ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15ImTheDarkcyde: "i actually never understood why people thought they could get away with stealing music"

      How about because MILLIONS DO, you blithering moron.

      Let me guess: you also never understood why people think they can get away with jaywalking?
    • diggumjonez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@elamr - dugg you down for misinformation, though I know you were probably joking. These are not being brought in Criminal Court, but Civil Court. You do not receive a public defender for civil suits.
    • Lou3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is my understanding that most people settle with the RIAA for a lot less than it would cost to fully adjudicate this crap.
    • mbthompson, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4dupe, don't submit stuff that's already there!

      http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Teen_Accuses_Record_Companies_of_Collusion
    • GuitaristTom, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2dude, the RIAA is totally a respectable institution...
    • mv10, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Get a website going to pay his legal costs...
    • reed311, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Just to clarify things for the poster who mentioned normal folks getting the "public defender". Public defenders are only for criminal cases and not for civil cases, which are what lawsuits are. This is why most people don't even bother to fight because they will have to pay lawyer fees outright, rather than the lawyer taking a cut or doing it for free through the public defenders office.
    • prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why isn't there a class-action suit against the RIAA? It seems that there is such an incredibly HUGE list of people like this that there should be enough of them to get a lawyer and create a single counter-suit that is large enough to really slap the RIAA around some.
    • dark1587, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Give 'em Hell, kid.
    • neeyo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"I actually never understood why courts accept lawsuits by the RIAA. After all the ONLY evidence they can show are log-files which they created themselves, or even better: logfiles they paid a third party to create for them. How can anyone be convicted due to evidence fully created by the prosecution??"

      I think you're hearing "get convicted" when you hear "go to trial." I'm not defending the RIAA's actions in any way, but look. Imagine you had a firewall on your pc that logged port scans, and you logged someone trying to break into your system - so you find out the IP, ISP, subpoena the ISP to get the identity of the individual and take them to court.

      That's not to say they'll get convicted, but there's definitely evidence to warrant a TRIAL. Nothing more. I apologize in advance if this sounds snotty as that was not my intention. It's just a trial to see if a crime actually was committed.
    • soupy1406, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think it would be plaintiff not prosecutor ... since it is a civil suit and not a criminal case
    • combatchuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@*****:

      Society puts their trust in police officers to enforce the law. Generally, they do a good job at it. Considering the ***** they put up with, I'd say they do an amazing job. Besides, the burden of proof changes in a moving violation. Since driving is such an inherently dangerous activity, with so many participants, the laws have been written to favor the enforcement part. Simply put, if the burden of proof were on the accusing officer, then there would be a police cruiser on every mile of highway in the US. You think the police are inefficient now? Just imagine the cost of hiring 10 times as many officers and buying 10 times as much equipment!

      If you're just bitter about a speeding ticket, here's some advice: Take it to court. 9 times out of 10, the officer won't show up. If he does show up, you can challenge the calibration of his radar gun. If that fails, I bet you won't speed next time!

      >Who said you need "evidence." When you get a speeding ticket and you try to fight it, what evidence does the cop have?
      >- Uh, your honor, that dude was speeding 3 months ago, on a Tue morning. Honest!
      >- OK, Guilty!
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jakebarnes
      "If there is "no evidence" and it making it past this motion, then it is the judges fault, not the legal systems."

      But the judges are an integral part of the legal system, and the way judges are free to decide things based on their own subjectivity and lack of real understanding of the issues.
      You can't claim that the 'legal system' exists independently of the way judges react and define it.

      To do so becomes the same kind of ridiculously illogical abstraction that the RIAA is guilty of, when they claim that music can be 'stolen. '
      Music is an intangible thing, like the color blue, or like happiness.

      'Stealing'...is an act that refers to physical objects or commodities, not to theoretical things or assumptions about possible future sales of things.

      What the RIAA is bitching about is not that people are going into stores and stealing CDs.
      THAT would be stealing.
      It should be a simple matter for anyone with half a brain, even a judge, to see that music itself can't be 'stolen.' ...especially when the record companies are permitting the same songs to be broadcast, for free, on radio stations, for all to hear.
      Listening to that music is certainly not stealing...it is simply perception, a natural and integral part of the human experience.

      If you listen via the internet, via a download, or if you walk past someone who is singing a song...in either case, like radio, you are simply experiencing an art form....which is all that any true artist wants -- that you should experience their art, and get their message.

      The RIAA must be disbanded, by antitrust laws!
  • scooterbaga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+120This would set a great precedent. Maybe all the victims of the RIAA can start a class action suit.
    • MadN, on 10/12/2007, -7/+39Don't sue the RIAA, sue it's members!
      Sue the Artists and companies in class action, it would be sweet revenge on Sony, Metallica and their ilk.
      Since they are members of the RIAA, they are responsible for the slander of the RIAA.
    • Tenement, on 10/12/2007, -1/+81Whether we have been sued or not, we are ALL victims of the RIAA.
    • Nekko17, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2I want to know how the case ended, the teens lawsuit. Did he drop it after they dropped theirs?
    • jordanrobbins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Too bad Johnny Cochran died!
    • Goner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3maybe the RIAA had something to do with it?
  • zpchrish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+69gotta love the Santangelo family.. single handedly crushing the RIAA!! I can digg it.

    http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8323/Teen+accuses+record+companies+of+collusion
  • mynameistim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7on the 1010wins story linked in the orignal article, the riaa said that there have been similar cases brought up before that have gone nowhere. anyone know anything about those?
    • benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4several people have countersued under the RICO act and the cases were dropped. This is what that was referring to.
    • Kilroy2004, on 10/12/2007, -0/+50My understanding is that most RIAA court cases go like one of these situations:

      - RIAA sues Person A. Person A settles out of court because they are afraid of RIAA or can't deal with legal fees
      - RIAA sues Person A. Person A raises a stink because they never downloaded music or think that the RIAA can't prove they downloaded it. RIAA drops the case because the bad publicity isn't worth the small settlement they could get from the person.
      - RIAA sues Person A. Person A turns around and sues RIAA for bad practices, etc. RIAA quietly settle out of court. Person A takes the payoff because a legal battle would be messy, long, and probably doomed to fail.

      This sounds like the third situation. My only hope is that this Rob guy has a good lawyer and they won't take the payoff, but keep pressing. The RIAA needs to be pinned up against a wall... and it won't happen decisively until the Supreme Court rules against the RIAA. And that is... very unlikely to happen. But it is good to try.
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"several people have countersued under the RICO act and the cases were dropped. This is what that was referring to."

      But Robert's not countersuing under the RICO statute...he's going anti-trust...which is a whole different ball of wax. I'm interested to see how this turns out.
    • giroguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0ya, never thought about anti-trust as a way to get em... they are a single business entity.. they are all the record industry minus independent labels. but generally they have no competition other than p2p... now, as a business can you sue your competitor... if sony sued apple for comping up with the ipod which cut into their diskman profits since everyone upgraded technologies... ya, dont see that flying....(just a generalization)
  • gameface247, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25paying for music/movies is so last millenium
    • marnaq, on 10/12/2007, -28/+21Yeah!
      1000-1999 - buying
      2000-2999 - pirating
      3000-3999 - ????
      4000-4999 - profit
    • invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8no.. paying suits for musicians' efforts is so last millennium.

      - Pirate/Boycott RIAA products
      - Purchase Indie products

      The morality of the above -- although seemingly diabolical -- is actually rather altruistic.
    • NightRush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@marnaq


      I don't think they saw the connection with the underpant gnomes...
  • robotsongs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34Exact words out of my mouth:

    "Wow! ***** yeah!"
  • fatbas202, on 10/12/2007, -25/+18I think I speak for a lot of people when I say

    ***** THE RIAA!
  • daball99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+49Good luck to him. I hope the courts find in his favour and make the RIAA pay for all his legal costs with nice big punitive charge to boot.
  • Squints, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19We need some rich folks who hate the RIAA to finance this kid's and other RIAA vitcims' lawyer bills, and we'll be all set.
    • finkployd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Interesting idea, but the RIAA and MPAA don't go after those with money.

      They don't go after the people who release their "for your consideration DVDs" or CDs that get out from radio stations before release. They go after the people who get things aftermarket, after they have already sold their stake in it and made the money they were rightly due (first sale).

      You can't go after the people ripping you off if they are your own people.
    • snapfisher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I'd throw in $100 if he promised never to settle and to go all the way through the jury trial
  • clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+76The RIAA claimed that piracy has caused thousands of layoffs...did anyone else see this?
    Sales went up...who the ***** did they turn to and go "Sorry, I know you answer the phones here but people are downloading our music. We sold more records but we lost millions of dollars we wouldn't have got anyway, you need to leave because we have no money."

    Come the ***** on
    • blueluck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19I wish I could remember where I read this so that I could cite it, but I've seen more than one source that says record sales have been increasing every year for the last 6-7 years, and that the rate of increase is on the rise.

      What I'd really like to see is musicians getting together to distribute their work through some more reasonable means.
    • c6mjohn, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Absolutely incorrect.
      "Album sales dropped for a seventh consecutive year, but a dramatic increase in the sale of digital tracks helped keep the music industry afloat in 2006."

      http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117956655.html?categoryid=16&cs=1
    • bobartig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Also relevant is that in the past few years, the recording industry has reduced the number of albums its been producing by 20-25% compared to past years. I'd assume this would result in significant job loss as a profit maximizing effort. This trend started before massive P2P downloads. Despite this reduction in albums released, the recording industry has seen a relative increase in sales per title, indicating that sales/demand are still strong and that their profit to cost ratio has improved.
    • Darthmalt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well if people are buying online of course the physical sales are going to go down. If I want a song i'm either going to buy it online or on cd there's no way i'm going to do both. If I buy online then yes they just lost a cd sale but they stand to make more from the online sale because of the lesser cost of distribution
    • redawgts, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3CD sales have been dropping for the last few years but what they don't tell you is that prior to that CD sales were at all time highs. You see, people had been converting the tape and record collections over to CDs artificially inflating their sales. Sales are just returning to their normal level. Only with the rise of iTunes and other online stores are CD sales starting to slip, just like tapes before it and records before that.
  • srudes2, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2lol good luck... not sure if he'll win tho
  • Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22This kid is my hero
  • ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Definitely worth a digg.

    If only more people harrased by the RIAA would do the same and come forward if only to voice out how the RIAA is really a racketeering syndicate.
    The only reason, besides having corrupt polititians in thier pocket, why they can do what they do is because we let them do it to us.
    Stop buying crapolla CDs by crapolla "artists", stop buying "albums" which are really singles with "fillers" and stop paying the RIAA extortion money.
    • Snowspot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Yeah.....because everyone has $100,000 to spend on legal fees.

      I think a politician should take them on, it's a real shame no one has, ignorance is bliss I guess.
  • tumbleweed05, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4we need to fight back.
    • baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5someone should set up a blog or forum as a consulting ring for how to fight the RIAA and get them and its members a lot of bad publicity if they come after you

      im too busy laying on the couch playing wii
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Best system would be via pledge bank.
  • themoose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Good on him!
  • joshua5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Still waiting to hear wtf happened to this case that was sooo important
    http://digg.com/music/RIAA_HEARING_Vitally_important
    • ZetaVu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://www.p2punite.org/?q=node/862

      an update on what happened at the hearing, which is soooo important I don't know about you, but I would be very interested to see what legal ruling comes out.

      As I understand it, the issue is whether just having legally purchased songs in a shared folder, whether you try to share them or not, or even use a p2p software, is considered illegal distribution. I'd say that's pretty damn important, wouldn't you?
  • adragontattoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16According to the RIAA, simply downloading a single copy of a song results in what 175k in damages or some other tripe?

    Evidently the RIAA seems to have this outlandish idea that a single song is worth 8750x the cost of a cd.(assuming 20USD per CD in the store)

    Maybe they apply the same math to all of their statements? Thousands of jobs = 1 guy they fired due to him never coming to work. Thousands of lawsuits = The mom whom they are now in court with and trying to get out of the suit?

    Piracy in reality is one thing, Piracy in **AAland is some totally strange event that no one seems to have ever been to.
    • loup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Downloading is worth almost nothing to the RIAA, it's petty larceny at best, they would get maybe $1-2 per song they could prove you downloaded. It's the uploading that they go after, that's what is worth so much money to them.
    • adragontattoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You are thinking in terms of the "real" world again..

      AllofMP3’s argument has not impressed the music industry, or the RIAA. The December 21 lawsuit argues that 11 million songs were allegedly pirated, and seeks damages totaling $150,000 per violation.

      http://www.slyck.com/story1368.html

      150k per song, without even knowing how many times each song was downloaded. As regular user, they probably aren't pushing that hard but they are still pushing for 5k+ just because they said you were downloading.

      Last I checked petty larceny was anything valued at $249.99USD or less(at least here in VA). Charging 5k+ for "file sharing" is definitely Grand larceny and ludicrous at best.

      The **AA wants revenue and is fighting dirty to get it. They don't want to have to actually prove anything and use dirty court tactics to get their $$. Those that are actually willing to fight in court are suddenly a non issue and subsequently the cases is requested to be dismissed.

      I applaud this kid, and all the others that are actually standing up to the RIAA's dirty tactics and demanding proof of what they have "pirated".
  • kneecarrot, on 10/12/2007, -96/+3Another case of an underage criminal trying to manipulate the law in order to get off scott-free. This time, he's using all the "bring down the RIAA" rhetoric to aid his purpose.

    But go ahead, support him. While you are at it, why don't you join Drunk Drivers Against Mothers (DDAM). I have, and the meetings are great. Beer and mother jokes galore.
  • sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20Good for this kid. I am so sick of having to pay companies simply because they say so. The RIAA gets an IP address, and wham, you have two choices. To pay a couple grand because they want it, or to pay twice as much in legal fees to dispute it.

    It's like ID theft. Someone had registered a phone in my name years ago and never paid the bill. The phone company sold "my debt" to a collection agency, and I get a bill for 2 grand. Does this agency actually to prove it's my debt? Nope. That I ever lived in the city where the phone was? Nope. The burden of proof is laid at my feet. I am guilty until I prove myself innocent. This company can (and did) ***** my credit up for years simply because they can and they don't give a *****.

    I hate big companies, and I hate credit agencies and the whole system. Pay us because we say so or you will have years of work and probably legal fees ahead of you.
  • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Where's the donate link? I want to help them with this.
  • offwhite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Is there a website listing all labels under RIAA and all of the artists who are currently signed under those labels? I think a boycott of both buying and listening to those artists is a better way to go than resorting to law suits. Artists who are not signed should just organize themselves and sell their own music directly online. They can already use iTunes to sell their music directly and make a decent margin, much better than a record label will give them. And they can promote themselves on YouTube and their own websites. After "You" became the Time person of the year it is time for the individual artist to start flexing some muscle and make it happen.
    • seuaniu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Amen to that. I've posted before that people need to grow a spine and not only stop buying their products, but also stop listening to them. I got flamed to the seventh level of hell by people that missed the part where I said "grow a spine". You CANNOT have your cake and eat it too. If enough people decide that an artist that is signed up with a RIAA record company is not worth listening to, either legally or illegaly, then they will have no choice but to stop with all these ***** lawsuits.

      Seriously people, stop buying this music. Stop pirating this music. Stop watching MTV and getting told by RIAA shills what constitutes good music. Reward those artists who choose to distribute their music under acceptable terms, without DRM, by buying their products and promoting them (play their music loud so everyone can hear).

      If enough people do this, there will be a change in attitude across the industry. You don't need to burn all of your old zeppelin cds, and you won't live some hollow life without their products, so put your money where your mouth is, and quit supporting these people.
    • fugazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7http://www.riaaradar.com/
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmmm...iTunes? What do you have to do to get your music sold on iTunes? Do you need a label? And does it come with DRM? I wouldn't put my customers through the DRM nightmare.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The artists have a choice of signing with the label or not. They can decide not too and with new technology try to get a name online.

      Sure, they can...and if they choose to sign with an RIAA label, then they make a deal with the devil. They become part of the RIAAA and lose our respect, not to mention they're screwed out of their rightful money by the RIAA's royalties. But more importantly, the RIAA just ***** hates its customers!
  • c6mjohn, on 10/12/2007, -24/+9I support the RIAA for their efforts to fight censorship. I also support the artists that voluntarily join the RIAA and their rights to control the distribution of their music.
    • robdiggity, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Dry humor is some of the best humor of all.
    • c6mjohn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10I simply believe in artists rights. They create the music, they should have the right to control the distribution as they see fit. Its not a popular opinion because a lot of people have a sense of entitlement towards digital products. If you do not want to pay for music, the internet has plenty of free, legal alternatives. Or you could just create your own.
    • wowbagger, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3I agree, unfortunately here you are dealing with kids that have no moral compass.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30You are both ignorant.

      If you believed in Artists rights, you'd be on the RIAA's doorstep with a handgrenade.

      Most artists don't make money off of their music, they instead rely on sponsorships and public appearances. The RIAA, an organisation originally formed to manage record standards, pockets the majority of the money from music sales after the artist is made to raise money for his recordings and initial production.

      Furthermore, the RIAA is not losing any money, standard music sales have not fallen and legally purchased downloads have skyrocketed.


      Anyone who thinks the RIAA is some knight in shining armor needs to read all of this statement by Courtney Love, while I may not like her, this is the best argument against the RIAA I have ever read and covers a lot of the falsehoods people hold dear.

      http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html

      If you can't take the time to read that, don't bother arguing.
    • c6mjohn, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2I read your link. I do not believe the RIAA is doing anything illegal. They are a big business and they use big business tactics, and neither of us like it. The artists have a choice of signing with the label or not. They can decide not too and with new technology try to get a name online. Or sign with the label and get the million dollar advance and twenty percent royalty. Yes the label makes way more money than the artist, but thats the nature of the beast and you still make good money making music.

      Also, music sales ard definitely NOT going up.
      "Album sales dropped for a seventh consecutive year, but a dramatic increase in the sale of digital tracks helped keep the music industry afloat in 2006."
      http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117956655.html?categoryid=16&cs=1
    • combatchuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If you honestly think that the RIAA is honest, you're insane. Album sales are down because there are less albums being released. Album sales are down because of legal downloading. Album sales are NOT down because of illegal downloading. Generally, the music they are "defending" isn't worth the asking price, so people aren't going to buy it if they're resorting to theft.
  • dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I'd like to see our military used for a more constructive purpose than Iraq, let them bomb RIAA headquarters.

    Seriously they're still going to have to prove actual damages, even then the award may not be enough to change RIAA's behavior. I'm sure a judgment like that would be just the cost of doing business for them.
    • ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Would be funny if the the RIAA gets a judge whose not well diposed to them and awards 100 million to the kid and family and make it clear that the money is to be forwarded up front with a set time frame so that they'd actually get the money within their lifetime.

      Not likely to happen, but one can dream. :)
  • zombiedepot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I hope he wins. At what point are they going to realize downloads are here to stay?
    • wowbagger, on 10/12/2007, -22/+2PAID downloads yes. Freeloader teenages kids on pirate P2P sites no.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Shame this guy was 11 years old and wasn't pirating music huh. 32 defences against the RIAA's allegations. You're trying to defend an organisation who tries to sue dead people.
    • hexydes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ wowbagger

      Why don't you prove that he downloaded something? The "evidence" that the RIAA holds is circumstantial, at the very best. Just because they have some IP address and it turns out to point to a certain person doesn't prove one single thing.

      Maybe I should make a song, make it available to buy for $12, find an IP address that belongs to someone internal at a record company, and then claim that someone from that IP address pirated my song and take them to court. You see where I'm going with this? It would be pretty much no trouble at all to just write down an arbitrary address and claim that they were distributing your works. And even still, due to the fact that this IP address could represent literally an infinite amount of people (whoever had or (in the case of an insecure network) could have had access to your wireless network), you still can't prove that the person you are suing was the one actually distributing your creative work.

      The RIAA is irrelevant at this point, and I think they know it. They're just trying to do something to stay alive, as any organization trying to survive would do. In 15 years, I think we'll all look back and laugh at the fact that we had to have a big organization to represent the various "music studios".

      Oh, and you too, MPAA.
  • UltimaNut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9He needs a donate site. Id send him a couple of bucks.
  • kitaljevich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good on ya!
  • s6t9eve, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1This guy is my heroe. Pitty he has no chance :(
    Im praying for him.
  • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Maybe all the downloaders of the world can create their own "association" and sue the people involved in these RIAA/MPAA witch hunts personally, with REALLY expensive lawyers.
    • wowbagger, on 10/12/2007, -21/+5How about just not distributing material you don't own and have no claim to.
      Idiot.
    • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I'll dedicate my latest download to you, wowbagger.
  • IchiroBoston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Finally! I hope this goes to court!
  • stopyellingatme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0NEWT
  • wowbagger, on 10/12/2007, -25/+2This kid is going to have his life ruined by the lawyers.
    He's an idiot kid that by his own admission did user a P2P - He says he only "downloaded" stuff he already owned on CD.
    That defense is pathetic and will be ripped apart in seconds. What he actually did was participate in distributing copyrighted material via a P2P system.
    Whether the kid likes it or not he was distributing.

    He's an idiot for fighting this.
    • ohsotired, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wow! You must be very skilled to know that this kid is an idiot without actually meeting him.

      I'm wondering if you and I read the same article. The one I read said these things: "He denies sharing music using P2P technology" also "Amongst Robert's defense is the information that all the music that it was claimed he downloaded he already owned on shop bought Cd's"

      Maybe you could link me to the article you read? I like to be balanced and not jump to any conclusions.

    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You're a douche for supporting it. The RIAA should get to line their pockets because an 11 year old listened to music he legally bought.
  • PunkHop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Go New York teen, go.

    How about we all go to court with him? Thousands of Diggers outside the courtroom, backing him up?

    Granted, a few of us would be assigned to cleaning the fear-induced poop out of the RIAA's pants.
  • PurpleTentacle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12How about we stop referring to them as the RIAA and refer to them as who make them up? The RIAA has become a whipping boy that everybody can hate on while leaving the parent companies, the real meat and bones of the organization, untouched. So: RIAA = the Big Four:
    * EMI
    * Sony BMG Music Entertainment
    * Universal Music Group
    * Warner Music Group
    More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels
  • smoothlou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I wish I could digg this twice. The RIAA's lawyers are undead monsters with an undying thirst for baby's blood (and/or money).
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It just so happens you can, digg it and #1 it.
  • solarstar567, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anyone know what the punishment for being caught by the RIAA is?
    • PurpleTentacle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The firstborn in your family line becomes theirs for 7 generations. They induce 30k of credit card debt on AMEX and/or VISA. They make you swear allegiance to them and every low grade but high selling album they make (which you must pay for 7 different times). Finally, they eat your soul.

      Or I think they make your pay a few thousand dollars. But I bet it feels like those other ones.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The firstborn in your family line becomes theirs for 7 generations. They induce 30k of credit card debt on AMEX and/or VISA."

      Sounds like you're confusing them with the 'Federal Reserve' private banking cartel that controls the American monetary system.
  • Joel32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6my favorite part is the lawsuit against the mom...that was dropped after they found out she couldn't turn a computer on.
  • butchog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4someone should start a class action law suit on behalf of all who were sued and or being snooped on against the MPAA and RIAA. have them refund and pay for all legal fees, and final result in having them being dismantled for antitrust violations.

    btw, good luck to the kid, hope you kick some serious ass. it's bout time someone did.
  • JohnnyRad, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1that kid has the weakest defense. screwed.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Owning the music you are accused of stealing before you allegedly stole it seems pretty strong to me. Perhaps your reading glasses need a higher magnification. Alternatively you could increase the font size in your browser.
    • JohnnyRad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1SO, what you're saying is, they just pulled this kids name out of a hat, and he just happen to own every album he was getting sued for? He obviously bought them after he got a letter saying he was being sued. Sometimes you just gotta own up and bite the bullet.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Look just because he rest of us don't EVER buy CD's until after the RIAA threatens to sue doesn't mean this kid does the same.

      I want you to think back to a rash of digg stories about site claiming to show you your location based off of an IP, how many of those dead ended at a city block, or an ISP halfway across the country? Now throw into this equation that mos wireless routers are not secured by default and probably around 70% if not more of the people who buy wireless routers don't know how to secure them, leaving it open for anyone nearby.
  • omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You go, kid!
  • unruled, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4ugh, RIAA/MPAA.... just, gtfo and die... please. Do us all a favour.
    Now Im not in the US, so it doesn't even directly apply to me, yet I still hate their ***** asses.

    I know a bunch of people over in the US who are actually 'afraid' to download music or movies, with fear to get sued or arrested.
    Its rediculous.

    • aliguana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I know a bunch of people over in the US who are actually 'afraid' to download music or movies, with fear to get sued or arrested.
      Its rediculous."

      the RIAA would call that "winning"....

      well, there are groups in Europe etc too who use the RIAA model of "sue into submission". If the RIAA imploded tommorow, just hope that its in court, that it sets a legal precident that the rest of the world can use to shut down such groups.
  • bebopkid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think that the people and market have spoken and that the Big Four will just have to find other means of making money off of downloads. advertisements on P2P sites? I'm sure there are better alternatives, but downloading for free is here to stay.
  • tboutcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Where can I donate to his legal fees?
  • TheLD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good on him
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2he has my full support.

    i hope you win! :)
  • moneyries, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7go, little pirate go!
  • cp1cp2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9This is very similar to what DirecTV was doing several years ago to curb piracy. In fact, I would bet that the RIAA got the idea of suing people from DirecTV.

    DirecTV used to get the authorities of the U.S. and Canada to raid companies that sold items that were used for pirating DirecTV's signal. Then DirecTV would "sue" everyone on a customer list found during said raid. Afterward DirecTV would tell the person you can either pay $3,000 as a settlement, or we'll file suit. That is known as extortion. And as stated above, most people paid because the cost of fighting is way more than $3,000. Also, DirecTV had a habit of taking cases all the way to the court date and then dropping the suit. By this time the defendant would have spent many thousands of dollars preparing for a court date that never happened. Or if the person never showed up to court, the court would find them guilty by default and DirecTV would get pretty much whatever they wanted.

    One important note to the above, is that not all of the products that these companies sold were only good for pirating DirecTV; but DirecTV didn't care. For example, many of these companies only sold Smart Card readers. And as many of you know there are dozens of legitimate uses for smart cards and their readers (AMEX Blue is a smart card). These companies sold Smart Card readers at roughly half the cost of more "legitimate" businesses, so many innocent people were harassed by DirecTV. Not to mention that anyone who purchased such a device from a "legitimate" source was never contacted by DirecTV...because doing so would be illegal (DirecTV would be sued for interfering with the other companies business).

    Why don't you hear about this anymore? DirecTV finally sued the wrong person in Florida. A lawyer. This person was able to defend themselves for free and got his case dismissed with prejudice. This case started a precedent in the court system and DirecTV saw their money making scheme slowly disappear.
  • anthonystark, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0The RIAA sucks - but The RZA don't. Yoowww!
  • naonao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2***** the RIAA.
  • v12ogy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"His lawyer, a ninja, could not be found to comment."

    "In unrelated news, several RIAA executives were found violently murdered in their LA headquarters..."
  • SgtCrispy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Give 'em hell!!!
    • Shenaniganz08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2haha damn you sgt Crispy that was my comment :(
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.