What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Tips to be first in line without camping out in the cold! view!
newegg.com - The Pre-Black Friday Sale. No Lines, No Crowds; Click and Save in the comfort of your own home.
172 Comments
- halleyscomet, on 10/11/2007, -4/+72@7of7
If the the RIAA were accurate in who they sued, I'd agree. The problem is, the RIAA has a history of filing lawsuits with little to no evidence, even having gone so far as to demand payments from people who didn't even own computers.
The "proof" of guilt is often shaky at best, and the lawsuits that have resulted often find the RIAA claims thrown out of court.
The bottom line is, innocent people are being sued and forced to pay settlements. THAT'S the problem. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+50The whole point of RIAAs campaign is to attack people who can't defend themselves. When confronted they usually drop charges, but most of the time they rely on expensive lawyers and the threat of fines and court costs to get people to settle. And of course they select people who are poor and therefore unlikely to have the means to defend themselves or be willing to risk losing a long & costly trial.
Yeah, RIAA is a piece of work.
And of course it doesn't do ***** to stop piracy. But then again, piracy is what they make their money off, so they're not really interested in stopping it. The RIAA business idea is based on widespread piracy, that's why they trump it up every opportunity they get.
The ideal situation for RIAA is continued high level of piracy so they get continued support from record companies, and so they can continue to show "progress" through show-trials against students, single moms, retired people, and underage kids. - jer2eydevil88, on 10/11/2007, -5/+43They might be breaking the law but the laws are stupid, when was the last time you went 5 over the speedlimit? That's breaking the law! What if your ticket was $3,000? Same damn thing, the RIAA is ***** peoples lives over for downloading music, if thats not cruel and unusual punishment I don't know what is.
- vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -2/+39Unfortunately, even if she is innocent it is cheaper to pay the $3,000 than to hire a lawyer and fight it in court.
- skyeflye, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22She may have broken the law, but her /extreme/ penalty far, far outweighs the harm done by "the crime." Seriously, so she downloads a song and then some record company exec needs to "save up" for another two months before he can buy that private island for his kid? This is literally how unfair the whole situation is.
I can think of another harmless, victimless "crime." What if the penalty for speeding 5-miles above the speed limit was a $3000 fine and one night in the county lockup? Would that be a reasonable punishment? Of course not and people would be protesting such ludicrous B.S. Well this alleged harm done to the record companies is even more victimless than me letting my speedometer cross over the limit by a few MPH yet that would only cost me about $45 IF a cop would even bother issuing a ticket for such a small infraction.
F**k the RIAA, the record companies that endorse their actions, and all the horses they rode in on. - RichPowers, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23The problem is that most people, let alone students, can't afford to argue their case. Is this a a failing of the entire justice system? I'll let you decide. What if the RIAA illegally obtained info on you? What if you actually didn't download anything? Even if you're innocent, it's still cheaper to pay off the RIAA thugs and move on. Some justice. If anything, the RIAA's tactics should make people want to boycott music even MORE.
Ya, I know, there are people out there who have hundreds or thousands of pirated tracks on their PC. Focus on them. - cr4ft, on 10/11/2007, -9/+29And you idiots never downloaded anything illegal before?
If it happened to you, even for that "one time you downloaded that song", then maybe you would sympathize. - lcmatt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18"and minimum damages of $750 for each copyrighted recording shared if they lose"
Walk into a shop and steal a couple of albums - A court appearance and maybe a small fine
Steal an album via the internet - $750 a song or $3000 settlement.
I'm so glad I live in England. - mikelieman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16The RIAA has *SERIOUS* credibility problems once you enter the Discovery phase.
Looks like their "Expert" isn't really an "Expert" and the most casual cross-examination will defuse the RIAA's case in pretty much every instance.
As long as people will just roll over... Well, the RIAA works very much like Tony Soprano.
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ - skyeflye, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16Those RIAA sons of bitches are going to get what's coming to them eventually... You just can't do wrong by as many people as they have without eventually crossing some perceived line one way or the other. The end of the RIAA may be slow or it may come suddenly some day. But the long-term reality is that they are destroying themselves, bit by bit, with every abusive suit they create.
Also I'd be curious to learn how many students in law school get sued by the RIAA. - Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15It's sometimes better to get caught drunk driving in a car that killed a person than get caught pirating music.
It's often better to get caught doing drugs than get caught downloading music.
I think something's wrong with that. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? This girl couldn't have afforded to go to a full trial, where the RIAA often has difficulty finding definitive evidence for their case. This is nothing but blatant extortion, best evidenced by the RIAA's website which conveniently has a "case settlement hotline" with "settlement operators" ready to quickly settle your case, all paid for by Visa and Mastercard. Don't confuse paying a settlement because of limited funds with an admission of guilt.
- mikelieman, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15"Look, she didn't just get a "couple" of songs. She got nearly 400... and I'll bet anything that she was seeding these files as well. That's why they nailed her. Whether she knew it or not, she was becoming a large distributor via the university's high speed network."
PROVE IT. Show all work.
Unless I see NOTARIZED LOGS *proving* the allegation, then it's all just a fishing expedition. - gharding, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8The great thing is, $3,000 would actually be a good bargain for how much music I have.
- frisbeeman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11your grammar hurts my brain
- webmasterjoe, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9The RIAA has been bullying students for a while now. It's part of their plan to combat a widely broken law, at the expense of PR. They threaten people who can't come close to affording the legal fees necessary to fight their team of lawyers, and those people spread their horror stories. The RIAA's goal is to only have to do this to a small percentage of the available population (those who they can accuse of copyrighted infringement) and let the response to that frighten everyone else.
We don't know how it will end exactly, but I'd wager that it will decrease piracy and show little or no effect in overall sales for the RIAA. - Kinjiru, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9I already did exactly that years ago.. I have not purchased even a single CD now in over 3 years.
- zombiedictator, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10This isn't stealing; it's copyright infringement.
Stealing indicates a transfer of ownership. This is duplication of media without the right to do so. Semantics, I know, but calling this stealing is like saying photocopying parts of a book from a library when you don't have a library card is robbery. - skeeve, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I just want to say how hilarious it is that the only people that get caught are the retards who don't know what they're doing. They always say, "I knew it was illegal but..." or something like that. Smart people realize a few things:
1) Pretty much the only people who have been targeted by the RIAA are college students. Now obviously they don't care if you're a college student or a 80 year old senile person, so why is this? Because college networks are easy to monitor. Many colleges cooperate openly with the RIAA, loggin their users bandwidth usage, and in some cases their browsing history. So the smart people realize, if you're going to download music/movies/whatever, probably don't do it at College. Or at least don't do it enough to be caught. If you download one album a month or something on your school network, you're going to be ok. Do you heavy downloading at home/libraries/coffee shops. Massive downloading at school (without knowing some pretty heavy duty security techniques) is like wearing an, "I pirate music," shirt and walking into the RIAA.
2) Never, ever, ever, ever say you know you're guilty. If you want to settle that's fine, it's probably cheaper then court. But admitting you're guilty (especially to newspapers where it will be in writing) gives your accuser the option to revoke their offer of settlement and screw you into the wall. You are innocent until proven guilty in this country, don't throw that right away.
3) If you really really really have to download at school, be smart about it. Learn how to bypass the monitoring techniques your school uses. Make sure that your school isn't one of those super cooperative ones that actually calls the RIAA on you if they find out what you're doing. If you know friends that got screwed and you're downloading, try and figure out how they got discovered, and make damn sure you aren't doing the same thing.
Don't be an idiot. Realize that there are possible consequences to what you're doing.
As to the whole "theft"/"copyright infringement"/"information should be free man" arguments... who the hell cares? Seriously guys this is the internets. I'm pretty sure almost every one of you has some ideas about what should and should not be legal. The simple fact is, their are laws out there, and they have consequences. If you think the laws are right, obey them. If you think they're bad, be careful. :) - tempusrob, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8"The net profit is effectively nil compared to the money the artist makes from CD and other music sales."
Spoken like a non-musician. Bands make *way* more from merch and touring than from CD sales. Especially when the band is getting, if they're lucky, $1/sale. Which winds up going back to the label anyway, courtesy of the industry's creative accounting techniques. - dynamojoe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Buy used CDs only. Piss 'em off even more. The selection on Amazon Marketplace rocks, and the industry has already made their money. If the seller keeps a copy after selling you the original, they're the thief, not you.
- rodeo40, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9For $50 get a Linksys Wireless G and don't turn on wireless security. Then use the "wireless security...what's that??" defense. I don't know how they could prove it was you.
- cypher303, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6You know, I used to be against the RIAA's actions too... but after reading the posts of you thoughtless little ***** I hope they crack down and throw your little bitch asses in jail. Then you can whine all you like to your cell mate who's serving 20 years for man-rape. Honestly, part of growing up is admitting when you're in the wrong. It's obvious that the majority of digg consists of immature, spoiled little brats who feel that the world owes them something.
The world doesn't owe you ***** ok? And when you start taking what you think you're owed just by existing, then we're going to throw your thieving little ass in jail where you belong. - andresthor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5This all just comes down to whether people feel like they're actually stealing or not. Any sensible person can see that artists do not have any worse off than some years ago. In fact more and more artists are actually being discovered and then making a living out of what they do, than ever before.
So what people are actually saying is that stealing 0s and 1s isn't "stealing" just because someone says it is. I wouldn't own half of my "real" music collection if I didn't already have downloaded it first to know what it was.
Shouldn't laws reflect what people feel is right and wrong? I don't think we give the masses enough credit, things would not go to hell for recording artists even if they did legalize the now "illegal downloading". - rodeo40, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4get your CDs from the library and rip 'em.
- orbit1979, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"Yeah, becuase people who aren't extrmeely rich should get to do whatever they want."
Actually, in the real world it works the other way around. The rich make the laws for us poor folks to obey under the threat of force, then they make laws to break their own laws that we have to follow. - Andy.D, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4So if you're dumb, you deserve this treatment? Shouldn't, you know, be based on a more objective stanard than one's 1337N355?
- shark72, on 10/11/2007, -8/+12"If the the RIAA were accurate in who they sued, I'd agree."
Well, she did admit in the article that she pirated the music, and that she knew that it was illegal. So, his comment is accurate: she could've just not pirated it. Not sure why you disagree. - zombiedictator, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6The solution to this is really simple: stop buying music. Period.
Close your iTunes account. Stop buying a CD once every year from your favorite artist. Want to support them? Go to their shows. Buy their t-shirt. Stop buying CDs. I know it's a lot to ask, but it'll sink the ship of the RIAA that much quicker. - kickisaacout, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I remember reading somewhere that if you use the simple defense that there's no way to prove that it was YOU who actually downloaded the songs, and not someone else who happens to be using your computer at the time, then the RIAA will back down. And in a way it makes sense, an IP address =/= a person, so there's no way possible to be 100% sure that it was the person themselves who downloaded the music.
- nevesis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Anyone here ever jaywalked? You broke the law.
If you had been given a $3,000 fine for jaywalking... how pissed would you be?
That's the problem here. $8/song, when they sell for $.99 on iTunes after SIGNIFICANT markup, is not a justifiable punishment for the crime. (needless to say, $750/song is absurd. thank your for-sale congressman for that number.)
This is what she was getting at in the article. She, a poor college student (who wouldn't have bought the CD anyway), downloaded a copyrighted song without paying the overpriced royalty fees. They bully her for $3,000. It's simply not justifiable. - smhill, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@mglukhovsky
"Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? "
This is civil court, not criminal. Besides, were that the case, she essentially pleaded guilty. So that is not applicable. She did do and admitted to it. It is not extortion by any stretch of the imagination (in her case).
Regardless of other cases and other tactics used by the RIAA, there is not much to complain about with this case. She did it, she was fully aware it was illegal. Basically she was gambling. She was banking on getting away with vs. the cost of getting caught. It may seem crappy, but she made the choice eyes wide open.
Sure, I download on occasion, and I definitely drive too fast. But I know the consequences of either of these actions. I and do so essentially hoping I won't get caught. But if do (and I have), I'll have to accept the consequences. I gambled and lost. If you don't want to lose, don't gamble. - RedClaw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3What bothers me the most about this, isn't the continuation of lawsuits against easy, semi-high profile targets, but rather the statements from the defendants that they are "guilty."
Last time I've heard, it was a civil issue and not a criminal one, and to date no final statement has been made on the legality of transmitting data files that may or may not contain audio. By their logic, if I rename a textfile "stolentop40.mp3" I'm guilty of a "crime" without chain of ownership evidence.
Sorry, I almost beg to get sued just so the issue can actually have case precedence instead of cheap extortion settlements. - djhworld, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The tactics used are disgusting, they know full well students have little or no cash flow, so they're easy targets.
Surely a slap on the wrist and a warning of legal action (if they're caught again) should suffice for such a heinous crime? - DivisibleByZero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"Unfortunately, even if she is innocent it is cheaper to pay the $3,000 than to hire a lawyer and fight it in court."
Do you really even need a lawyer to fight these in court nowadays? Isn't it just sufficient to say, "Can you guys prove it was me doing it? Maybe my roommate was using my computer?" - m4v1s, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4The universities are wasting their time with the anti-file sharing programs. Everyone knows its illegal, no one cares because everyone does it and its so easy. I really like the idea of a $50/year for all you can eat. If anyone can make that happen im down like a clown charlie brown.
- rlutterb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I wouldn't rely on those defenses unless they are true, or you are cool with lying.
- Kinjiru, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7In every single case so far when the RIAA was challenged they tried to drop the suit quietly.. so therefore I say challenge them.
The new American business model.. Threaten to sue and it'll generate an income....
I'm glad I'm NOT an American - Afreyt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Guilty because accused?
- Grayfox777, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Sadly people are afraid to fight back... though I wish more of them would...
- mentor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Piracy?!? Don't you mean Consumer Choice Enablement?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Glad I dont live in America. RIAA? WTF?
Go college students! There are always ways to circumvent such Industry fools!
All hail Piracy! Long live Piracy!!! - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Wonderful points skeeve.
Everyone needs to be aware. Aware of how to go about doing things without getting caught. There are ways. If you feel you might get screwed up, call up your geek friend & dig out ways. Let me tell you this, you can do whatever you want, & RIAA (or whatever the f*** that organization is) cant do a thing about it. Learn to cover your tracks. Internet is wonderful.
Btw, you know it now girls, y u oughta hav least one geek pal ;-) - dashham98, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Skeeve. Smart advice. Of course, many people don't know how to circumvent the controls of their college. That sounds like a hacker-type skill, albiet get one that could probably be picked up easily at the right web site---and maybe you could find the right web site with a Google search, I don't know.
- dashham98, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I believe in property rights and am okay with the lawsuits with one major problem. I think they should have been preceded by more effective warnings of what was coming. Perhaps they could have had a campaign like this, sending e-mails and listing amounts, but saying that "this time" no charges would be filed. Then they could have forgiven past infractions, set a deadline, and made it clear that future infractions would be punished.
I think that would've been a little more fair. - Maluka, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Just when I thought the pit bulls had been destroyed!
- michaelb1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You could replace the word "student" in the title with any demographic and it would still be true
- 1021, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4"*pick me!* :)"
Ok. send me your home address, phone number, full name, and 10 days and I will have someone knocking on your door to pick you. Or, send all the information cited above to my friend @ abuse@riaa.org - happylinuxguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Can someone help me out. I don't understand what the penalty is if you just ignore the RIAA's $3000 fee. The RIAA certainly isn't going to start putting college kids in jail?
- Afreyt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Yep, I missed it. She's a moron. Now she's admitted fault and deserves to lose. Chances are the RIAA had no idea if she actually pirated anything or not, but she had to go and tell them.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 173 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is