What is Digg?214 Comments
- cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -6/+546I 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??
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -10/+352His lawyer, a ninja, could not be found to comment.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+302You 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. - dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+138Thats a good point... why don't people fight it more... I guess the "fee" is cheap enough to keep you from fighting
- scooterbaga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+121This would set a great precedent. Maybe all the victims of the RIAA can start a class action suit.
- jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+112I 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. - blueluck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+104Counter 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!
- Gauthic, on 07/09/2008, -1/+82Whether we have been sued or not, we are ALL victims of the RIAA.
- clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+77The 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 - lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+72Courts 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 - zpchrish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+70gotta 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 - natmaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+53"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!"
- Kilroy2004, on 10/12/2007, -0/+51My 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. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+50But 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. - daball99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+50Good 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.
- MadN, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40Don'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. - robotsongs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34Exact words out of my mouth:
"Wow! ***** yeah!" - 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. - 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. - 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. - Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22This kid is my hero
- sonar_un, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Did you read the article? RTFA.
- 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. - 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.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Where's the donate link? I want to help them with this.
- 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. - 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. - 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. - jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15What a *****-heel
- 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. - 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.
- 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 - 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. - elamr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@zpchrish,
"gotta 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"
In the words of Ice Cube (in his Jheri curl days) the RIAA found "..the wrong N!66# to F#ck with!" - 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? - gameface247, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25paying for music/movies is so last millenium
- 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. - scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I'll dedicate my latest download to you, wowbagger.
- 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. :) - 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.
- 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. - 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..." - UltimaNut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9He needs a donate site. Id send him a couple of bucks.
- Duston, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9We tend to digg down those who put sig spam in their comments.
- 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. - 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
- tboutcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Where can I donate to his legal fees?
- 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.
- 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. - fugazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7http://www.riaaradar.com/
-
Show 51 - 100 of 209 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