What is Digg?33 Comments
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5FWIW, an "ex parte order" is an order issued by a judge who has heard only one side of the case. Basically, the RIAA is trying to get ex parte orders to attempt to prevent people from removing infringing material when they find out they're being sued. Basically, the RIAA files a request with the judge for such an order, which he can then either accept and make the order or deny and not make the order.
This guy stands a decent chance at getting these requests denied. Ex parte orders for this sort of thing are normally used in fairly extreme cases only, when the plantiff can show that there is a substantial chance that the defendant will actually destroy evidence when they find out that they are being sued. In the case of a John Doe plantiff, that would be extremely difficult to prove. While it's certainly possible that a defendant would remove the infringing materials, that's really not good enough for an ex parte order. They'd have to actually show positive evidence that that specific person would likely do such a thing. Since these lawsuits the RIAA is making never actually go to trial, it's been sort of a moot point, but by doing this, he can likely set precedent that wipes the actual cases out and gives a solid defensive strategy for those being sued. Which, of course, eliminates their ability to sue people and have it actually work to any significant degree. - geekologist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The RIAA must be fought. They must be stoped.
- Phoenixfury, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not to argue with Kfan here, but I recall as far back as the 80's when CD's came out that compact disc's would be even cheaper to produce and manufacture than tape cassettes. That promise was dashed when they sold CD's at a high price to the early adopters and never lowered the price since. However back then you could still get the equivalent tape cassette in the neighborhood of $8. Now if it's truly the content and not the physical cost of the medium that determines the price, why did tapes remain so cheap when cd's stayed so expensive? Music was awesome when it was on vinyl and it didn't cost $16 for a record. There were even more talented artists from my youth growing up than there seems to be now. I really think the argument of gouging the customer to take more chances is a weak one. The record industry in my opinion forgot how to take chances. I think Bo Bice is a good example of this. Just listen to his stuff at Garageband.com, then listen to his new album and you tell me which is better. I don't feel they charge more to take chances, they charge more and keep using the same cookie cutter.
- ashanks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All these things about the RIAA lately, wow.
They are really getting knocked from every direction.
Hmm ... my position on it is that I don't like some of their practices, especially suing "John Doe"(S) [... if you're going to collect thousands of dollars from someone, at least have the investigation last long enough to get their first name].
I think that (even though I don't agree with the term "pirating", -- http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy -- "Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as "piracy." In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them.") ...copyright infringement is well, wrong, but there should be ways to prevent such acts of infringements without resorting to suing hundreds of "John Doe"(s) to make an attempt at teaching them a lesson.
No, I would say that the RIAA could help make things better for everyone, artists included, if they collaborated with the world on new ways to entice the consumer to buy the copyrighted material instead of suing them.
However, the RIAA unfortunately seems to be in sort of a close minded position, and it appears they're getting "payback" from the angry consumers who are fed up with this and now are getting the justice system thrown back in their face.
I love it when the good guys win.
~ Life is Good. - matsiescruff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jkfan...
wow. you are a jerk, for one. for two, cds only cost so much because the record companies and the RIAA drive up the price. they could still make a profit by dropping the price by 5 or 6 dollars but instead, want to get more money and faster. it's all greed. that's the drive of the record companies. i buy an album for the artist. if the artist actually got most of the money, i'd pay 15 bucks for the album, but they don't get diddily squat of what we pay for the album. the record company gets the majority of it. record companies are just trying to get a fast buck when they don't really DO anything. wow. a nice polished sounding cd. i'd take a rough cut album over a record company album if it meant the artist got the money. cds cost too much, plain and simple. it's silly to pay so much when the person(s) doing all the REAL work get so little of it. - kevbryant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1nice, and well documented. got my digg, and i'm a b*#ch, so it counts double!
- Chris_F, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Show those fascist bastards a thing or two.
- TidusX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I support you, good job on having the guts to take them on for us little guys.
- theonlybigboss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think if everyone stood up to the RIAA, we all could kick there collective, Nazi like ass's.
- TidusX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It wouldn't occur to them that if they weren't greedy and dropped the price of Cd's about six dollars they would actually sell allot more and not have to worry so much about pirating? Some businesses have become so blind in understanding their customers because of those quick dollars standing in front of them. It is sickening
- appdx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great article, definite digg!
- trialofmiles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is the first time I've run across this blog. I'm impressed that lawyers involved with the cases are taking the time to provide information. Good stuff.
- mikeyG9x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0When are these ***** (RIAA, MPAA, and all the stupid, corporate asshats) going to realize that the only people they are hurting are the PAYING customers? To hell with paying some idiot CEO's salary. You want the music, download it. You like it? make a donation directly to the artist. RIAA's time has passed. They are dieing and are trying to take as many down with them as possible...
- Nanaki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If there is the slightest chance that he could set a precedent, you can bet the RIAA will throw a lot of dollars at it. I don't hold much hope for him.
- compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Now if only the court system worked at a decent pace.
- djspade313, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0... I hope this will set a good legal precedent :) Bigg Digg!
- statik99, on 11/03/2009, -0/+0Definitely. All I've read is how the RIAA uses tactics like a collections agent to "extort" money from people. I really feel for the single mom taking them on but its nice to see others doing the same. I don't condone downloading songs but I also find it disgusting how the RIAA goes after people. Finding this was a nice read for me.
- edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nice! Their arguements are sound and unless the court system has been totally bought out by big business...this will shut down the RIAA's sue-for-profit business practices.
Good luck! - VickieDavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Try this link. http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Intimidation, threats, political payoffs and organized collusion are all just signs of a Criminal Organization. I guess the sons of the Mafia went into a "Legit" business; the RIAA or as it's commonly referred to; Protection.
- vigil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think my favorite arguement in the case is actually in the Memorandum of Law attached to the Motion.
Bottom of page ten lists the arguements that just providing an IP address and time does not necessarily confirm that illegal sharing took place. Basically he is claiming the RIAA (or its agent) took a snapshot at a certain time with the files he had shared and are trying to use that as a basis for arguement. His referenced cases state that not only can that not be used to prove sharing took place, but that even if the RIAA agent copied the messages themselves the "copyright owner cannot infringe upon himself." Infringement has to be "dissemination to the public."
Hope these guys win, and it goes up a few tiers in the court system. All we need is a precident in a higher court and this will all slowly ebb off. - fani, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0RIAA = Ridiculous Insane Assinine ***** or Rap*sts In All Asses
RIAA should be banned. Wait till someone from RIAA is caught copying music. - bsoltani, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder if people would donate to a Paypal account that accepts donations for people who fight the RIAA. That one lady seems like she's spending a good portion of her savings fighting this.
- topgigmedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wanna fight the RIAA??? STOP BUYING MUSIC PUT OUT BY MAJOR LABELS!!! That also means stop downloading illegally too. Put them out of business the old fashioned way. Seriously... they cannot sue if they don't have capital to pay for they greedy little minion lawyers.
- cvrti5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For god's sake, listen to underground techno or something, all RIAA pop music sucks.
- astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
As stated in the artical (i liked this), if the RIAA downloads evedance (mp3 files) and finds out they are the work of another company, isn't the RIAA illegally downloading?... I think so... therefore they should in turn sue themselves...
"Oh my god! the twit managed to run himself over with his car!!!" - Twit Day (Monty Python) - firebird2110, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Very interesting. It does sound like the RIAA is stepping over the line. Forget all the arguments about should they go after people they believe to be thieves, just this process through the courts.
- Cyberdactyl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"SOMEONE FIX THE F'ING TINY URL SPAM EVERY DAMN STORY HAS BEEN GETTING IN THE PAST FEW DAYS!!!"
Relax dude, that little dweeb relishes the experience when you get pissed.
The misdirected dumb ***** argues in his alias blog that he is doing it because, "The exploit needs fixing". Which is so utterly ignorant it stuns me. I could very well light his house ablase and say, "Your house is an easy exploit from fire, it's made of combustible materials." or club his dumb ass forehead and say, "Your skull is easily exploited with this baseball bat."
Every new technology has the dudes who get rock hardons because they found some little hack. This scrip kitty punk is just another in the long line. - draven_b4u, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Dug... I agree with the masses here.. High ticket and food prices and crappy remakes = ***** movie going experience. What teenager in this day and age can afford to take a date to the movies at $50+?
Honestly, if I want to see a movie, I still do go to the theater, if it is good I may download it to watch it again. If it's great, I still buy it on DVD when it is released. If it is an EXCELLENT movie, I may even by a second or third SPECIAL edition release for the extra footage when Lucas, I mean the director needs a few more bucks. (SW, Matrix, Indiana Jones, Kevin Smith movies and much more)
I like to support quality films and I am sure I am not alone here. I enjoy a good movie going experience as long as it is GOOD. that means quality screening equipment and comfortable theaters, but most of all it has to be a good movie.
How many crappy 70's and 80's TV shows and movies can they remake at a cost of 30 million plus dollars and still expect to make a buck? Look at this list of REMAKES completed or in production for the next couple years.. http://www.sequelogue.com/?tab=remakes What happened to originality?!
Just my 3 cents... - blugu64, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I wouldn't exactly call what koolaidface (or whatever his name is) a "hack" or "exploit" as much as a no crap you get a bunch of accounts to digg a story and it hits the front page....that took some brains didn't it koolaiddude
- LordJezo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0SOMEONE FIX THE F'ING TINY URL SPAM EVERY DAMN STORY HAS BEEN GETTING IN THE PAST FEW DAYS!!!
Okay, and besides that, does anyone actually think he will win? The RIAA is too strong for anyone to defeat.. - Phoenixfury, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Koolaidguy, won't don't you just die???
- Cyberdactyl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0koolaidguy, and possibly others, aren't even using their own bot.
As I said, just more punk script kiddies on the loose.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is