Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
RIAA: Pay as we say, not as we do
theregister.co.uk — Despite the judge's ruling, laid down a month ago, Deborah Foster, who is waiting to receive $68,585.23 for attorney fees and costs, has yet heard back from the inglorious RIAA, much less received any money.
webtechgeek- 1882 diggs
- digg it
- osc1882, on 10/10/2007, -3/+189Maybe she can sue for not getting the money, pain and suffering, add a $30,000 more to that total.
But really, the RIAA are dicks from hell. It's not like they don't have money coming out of their asses.
BTW, anyone else think it is wrong for any one group to own the rights to all the world's music? Music is such a part of us, it helps us express our selfs and the old ones have almost become a part of us as we relate to them more and more. Yet the RIAA owns it all. At first public domain was set for 15 years, and that was the perfect amount of time. But... the USA has gone to hell.- VeganG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I don't think you can sue someone for pain and suffering. At least, that's what Judge Judy tells me.
- therightclique, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8you can sue someone for anything. you might not win.
- sotopheavy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Companies like Sony own it... If you download a song you have not stolen it. it just commercially devalues the song slightly. If something was making the value of pharmaceutical drugs go down should the government step in and prevent it so that we pay more for something that we can get for less? If people want to share music then others have no right to stop them. Artists will just have to do what they used to do to make money... actually perform. Who knows. maybe good music will be more prevalent for once. Record companies need not exist.
- psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4good grief, you want the earth to revolve around the sun i suppose, too, hmmmmm???
- dacheetah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Heliocentric model? People still believe this? I could have sworn that most people realised that the entire universe revolved around the RIAA. Everything works once you use the right epicycles, which make so much more sense than silly over-simplified near-eliptical oribits.
- pdbailey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You asked, "If something was making the value of pharmaceutical drugs go down should the government step in and prevent it so that we pay more for something that we can get for less." The answer is yes. If there isn't the promise of the possibility of making loads of money off making new drugs, then manufacturers won't make them. As such, were a generic company to try to make a still patent protected drug, the USG would prevent it. I also disagree with the claim that, "If people want to share music then others have no right to stop them" In fact, lawenforcement officials have that right.
- psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4good grief, you want the earth to revolve around the sun i suppose, too, hmmmmm???
- matador3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15I say sue them for $63 quadrillion and accuse them of pledging allegiance to al Qaeda and buying missiles from Iran.
- prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It is an utter travesty of justice that when pharmaceutical companies can spend millions of dollars to develop a life-saving drug they get exclusive protection on for about 7 years and these RIAA/MPAA guys think a song by some gansta rapper deserves to be giving them royalties until their grandkids retire.
I wish these lawyers would go do some real work to improve society somehow instead of trying to figure out how to keep this pathetic royalty gravy train on the rails.- frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I don't think the pharmaceutical companies need you championing for them... they're doing quite well for themselves as it is.
The lawyers, however, can go straight to hell. I'm not sure which is worse - helping the RIAA steal from people, or profiting from it.- prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting the drug companies should have longer patents. I think the currently lengths are pretty much right. (Long enough to incentivize, short enough to make sure they can't just rest on last decade's work...)
So really my comment is not "lengthen drug patents" but rather "RADICALLY shorten copyrights." - frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think we agree on that point.
- prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting the drug companies should have longer patents. I think the currently lengths are pretty much right. (Long enough to incentivize, short enough to make sure they can't just rest on last decade's work...)
- frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I don't think the pharmaceutical companies need you championing for them... they're doing quite well for themselves as it is.
- meldroc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Not too far off. If the RIAA fails to pay the judgement, Deborah's lawyer can start filing motions with the court to attach bank accounts, issue liens on the RIAA's property, etc. Effectively, the court can seize RIAA assets to force them to pay the judgment.
- projectstartrek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Actually, the RIAA has a magical amulet that makes them immune to court judgements.
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Magical RIAA Amulet
+1 Asshattery
+1 Extortion
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Magical RIAA Amulet
- projectstartrek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Actually, the RIAA has a magical amulet that makes them immune to court judgements.
- VeganG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I don't think you can sue someone for pain and suffering. At least, that's what Judge Judy tells me.
- Senn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+93As a musician, I live in hope that the RIAA and groups like it around the world will simply not be needed in the near future. And not just for music, the whole entertainment industry needs shaking up, and don't get me started on how they hold back technology and innovation...
- JD52, on 10/10/2007, -1/+51They aren't needed now. They just insist they are.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Much like the Mafia
- FearlessFreep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24In times past the labels served a purpose of fronting the high cost of production of material and promotion. Technology has largely leveled the field to where with a much smaller budget you can put together some pretty good material and get the word out.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -33/+1As a musician, you are clueless about how a free market works. I don't expect to hear anything you've written on the radio any time soon with that attitude.
- expat001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20What is your expertise kid? Where do YOU get off saying this? Who the ***** are you? Who are YOU?!
- a6n28f, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Son, if you think radio play is the mark of a musical success then there's not much point in listening to your opinions on music. Top 40 is, with few exceptions, to music talent what "hooked on phonics" is to literature. Further, the fact that the RIAA can exist is proof positive that the market for music is not a free market. Now back to school with ya!
- Senn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I don't want my music on the radio if these people are behind it, so shut the ***** up. But thanks for making me laugh anyway!
- yodaj007, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Rather than attack Senn, why don't you point out the problems in what he said? You want people to listen to what you have to say, stop using ad hominem attacks.
- projectstartrek, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1No.
- meamog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I didn't know people still listened to corporate radio, much less relied on it to deliver any music of quality. Huh, I learn something new every day...
- therightclique, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2yeah, i had no idea it even existed anymore until this argument. must be where people are hearing all the ***** like modest mouse and deathcab for cutie. ugh. corporate rock ***** sucks.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3How 1ee7 of you. All music is music. You may not like some but it doesn't mean it has no value. Get over yourself. I dislike most country music. Does that mean all country music sux ass? Nope. Just means I don't like it. Basing music worth on who backs it is stupid.
- therightclique, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2yeah, i had no idea it even existed anymore until this argument. must be where people are hearing all the ***** like modest mouse and deathcab for cutie. ugh. corporate rock ***** sucks.
- JD52, on 10/10/2007, -1/+51They aren't needed now. They just insist they are.
- Andy.D, on 10/10/2007, -37/+3http://digg.com/tech_news/Battle_over_attorneys_fees_brewing_between_RIAA_ex_defendant
Dupe.- tdhurst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good catch, Sherlock. Go back to playing with your shadow puppets.
- VtmnR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's a different url/article.
- Lyk4n, on 10/10/2007, -7/+83***** RIAA
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -20/+2your comment is getting boring
- aposter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I would say from the number of diggs at the moment the readership is finding you boring. TTFN.
- psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2i find it amusing again and again.
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -20/+2your comment is getting boring
- Slovenian6474, on 10/10/2007, -2/+80The RIAA seems to act like a overly spoiled little kid. I can see them putting on a pouty-face, crossing their arms, and stomping the ground while muttering, "...I don't WANNA pay!"
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2I'm no fan of the RIAA, but I'm also no fan of copyright infringers. To me both sides sound like little spoiled brats. The RIAA for the reasons you noted. While most (not all) of the anti-RIAA people believe it is there right to have free music. Had Napster not gone out of control, the RIAA wouldn't be freaking out and treating people so poorly. Every time someone steals music, breaks DRM, forms a new torrent or a similar act the RIAA becomes more unreasonable, more extreme and tries to do more of their *****. The answer to getting the RIAA away is to boycott mainstream music and force them to change their policies. Going on a torrent and downloading free music just makes them angrier and gives them fuel to take to Congress and whine some more.
- hexydes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That's ok because someday soon, the ones that are getting sued by the RIAA will BE the new congress, and most of them aren't likely to forget what the RIAA has done to them, their family, or their friends.
- chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, shafting them from "their money" is the way to get rid of them. Sooner or later, maybe they will run out of money to fuel their crusade to ignorantly steal money from other's pockets by claiming to represent those that created the product.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The people angry about this enough to do anything are a very small minority. The RIAA is making money hand over fist.
- zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hopefully that will change over time .. Sooner than later.
- zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Makes them angrier? They don't get angry. All they care about is money.
Napster? *****. They've made file sharing to be a far more severe crime than it ever ought to be.
The real issue was that their corporate model was slowly eroding. They can't control internet music the way they did radio music.- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You are right, all they care about is money and they view pirating music as taking their money. By Angrier I meant that they will come down on pirates with more force.
What is ***** about what I said about Napster?
They didn't make file sharing a crime, but you are right that they demand too much in return for file sharing. The problem is how to handle them ... you don't handle them by stealing, handle them through a boycott.- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Would be nice if they could actually proove those who's financial lives they try to ruin are actually guilty of something. Most of the time they can't proopve jack. All they usually have is an IP address. The few times I am aware of them having MAC addresses the addresses did not match the computers of those they are hauling to court. It's an old fasioned shakedown. They are no better than the Mafia. Well I guiess they are since they ave the government backing them.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I agree 100%, my entire point in all of my posts on this thread is that stealing music is also bad. I know this comment will get dugg down (if anyone is still reading this thread), but stealing music is wrong!!!
- zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't see them as emotional, nonetheless. I don't think any individual activity will make them angrier. They know that they have no proper way to link perceived revenue losses to piracy. But this was all about an overly-litigious organization suddenly getting cold feet about the prospect of paying up in a lost suit. It's an important precedent for making sure that they heavy-handed tactics are toned down to the level they actually warrant.
I'm all for a boycott, too. - Segadora, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"They've made file sharing to be a far more severe crime than it ever ought to be"
Why in your right mind should file sharing be a crime to start with?
That line of thinking makes the whole internet a "crime" as it it nothing more than a constant swap of
data!
Please... think about what you are saying before trying to express your thoughts zengonzo.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You are right, all they care about is money and they view pirating music as taking their money. By Angrier I meant that they will come down on pirates with more force.
- Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"While most (not all) of the anti-RIAA people believe it is there right to have free music."
This is an assertion IMO only based upon drawing a false conclusion based on SOME of what is seen in these debates.
BTW: What do you think would happen if the industry encorporated/absorbed instead of obliterated Napster? Just curious. - SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Napster was possibly the most revolutionary thing to happen to music since the adoption of optical media. The Industries lack of vision have since allowed several companies, Apple with iTunes most notably, to cut into their profits and they are extremely pissed off about it. For the record, downloading music that does not belong to you IS a violation of copyright. When you go to a store and buy a cd, you are not really paying for the plastic disc, you are paying a licensing fee that allows you to listen to the music. If you have not payed this fee for a song you have downloaded they do have the right to sue. That said, they are complete ***** idiots for actually attempting to exercise that right. There are dozens of other alternate solutions they could have attempted before resorting to such a drastic measure, and the iTunes model was one of them. They could have done as Trent Reznor has suggested in an interview, which would be to allow people to download the music for next to nothing, then sell a cd or a nice package of band-related goods to those of us who like having the physical objects. They could have supported the free press their bands were receiving with online radio instead of trying to force them all offline.
When Naptser popped up that should have been their cue to take a look at how they would have to evolve, take stock of all the potential benefits of music sharing instead of only the immediate negative aspects of it. Yes, your singles sales will take a big hit, but concerts are getting a lot more crowded lately, even with the ridiculously high prices of tickets now, and the other merchandise is flying off the shelves, much of it for bands that would never have gotten the publicity had their music not been spread through the net. My own CD collection has lately been purchased based on albums i have downloaded, and i would not have purchased them otherwise. many of the bands i had never heard of before then, and based on one album, or just several tracks, i would proceed to buy 3 or 4 CD's. Were they to give further incentive to actually BUY the cd's, perhapse to include the sort of stuff you get on DVD's... maybe a second CD with interviews, videos, outtakes, etc, people would be more willing to purchase them. That the downloads are so prevalent should be a wake-up call that people do not consider the physical package to be worth the money. In some places a CD costs almost as much as a 2-Disc DVD that contains 8 hours of behind the scenes stuff, commentaries, deleted stuff, etc. Not only is that a good idea on the part of film-makers who want their stuff to be bought rather than downloaded, but they also have the brains to include trailers for other films they're making on the discs as well... It seems the record companies could stand to learn a lot from Hollywood's approach to giving people what they want.
/end rant
- Ratm22, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yeah its all piracys fault. Damn them for sharing information. Poor musicians will never be able to make music again. O wait Concerts still exist and i have over twenty friends in different bands. Hmm maybe Piracy doesnt do much but support the underground and level the playing field.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Ratm ... listen very carefully: I know you have convinced yourself that stealing music is "sharing information," but it is not IT IS STEALING. The musicians entered into contracts so that they could be heard and the consequence is that the RIAA and the record companies control that music. The answer is not stealing and the attitude that the answer is stealing will only lead to the RIAA becoming bigger assholes. Stop rationalizing morality to favor stealing and pay for the music or listen to your friends bands and other indie music
- Slovenian6474, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Copyright infringement is NOT stealing as it is not a criminal offense where theft is. That being said, it is still illegal. The problem with the RIAA is that the times have changed. File sharing has entered the scene offering an illegal, hard to track, but free way to listen to music. The RIAA had a choice to either stop it out and continue their current business plan or make create a new business plan that adopted to the new technology. As with Napster, it worked....for a little bit. At this point in time, there is no hope to stomping out file-sharing, but yet they are STILL holding onto their over-priced business plan. The RIAA offers very little to the consumer as incentive to buy CDs or download legal music other than the "We probably won't sue you".
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Where did I say theft? I always here this argument. Theft != stealing. Go to Law.com and look up stealing ... it is not a crime, it is not a legal word. If I alleged theft or trespass of chattels (the civil equivalent of theft) you would be correct. Here is what stealing means: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stealing. I was using definition 1: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right ... You are assuming I am using definition 8: to commit or practice theft.. Your argument was created to make people feel better about stealing music.
- Slovenian6474, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Umm, i went to Law.com like you suggested. I typed in "stealing" under the caption "Search the Definitions". This is what it came up with:
embezzlement
n. the crime of stealing the funds or property of an employer, ...
kidnapping
(also spelled kidnaping) n. the taking of a person against his/her ...
take
v. to gain or obtain possession, including the receipt of a ...
theft
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally ...
Funny that the word "theft" is there and that "crime" is the 6th word in the definition. I also looked up "copyright infringement" and they do NOT even mention the word "crime" in the definition. - PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1copyright infringement is not a crime ... it is a civil offense. and you searched the definitions, stealing comes up in the definitions, but it is not a legal crime ... it is just part of the definition of theft. Use your head for a second, just because theft is always stealing doesn't mean that stealing is always theft.
What you did in your original response to me is suggest that when I say stealing I'm suggesting some legal definition that is the crime of theft (which I wasn't). I was using the English language definition of theft which equates to stealing meaning taking something that does not belong to you.
This whole argument got started because someone stated a semantic difference between "copyright infringement" and "Stealing" and did so incorrectly. If I saying "Alex stole something," that does not mean that I am saying "Alex committed the crime of theft." But in these forums everytime someone says that copyright infringement is stealing somone jumps on there back that it's not the crime of theft ... this is an incorrect statement. - Slovenian6474, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"and you searched the definitions, stealing comes up in the definitions, but it is not a legal crime ... it is just part of the definition of theft."
Earlier you said, "Theft != stealing.". You're starting to contradict yourself here. Anyways, I get your point. You are using stealing in a very general sense of taking something you shouldn't. That being said, copyright infringement still isn't stealing. Copy and steal are two words that are close but don't mean the same thing.
btw, i don't know who is so quick on the ball to mod down every comment you make, but just wanted to state i'm not modding you down and i enjoy the conversation - PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm honestly not too concerned about who is modding me down. I tend only to enter discussions where I'm not going to be popular, because jumping on the points where the majority agrees with me is less interesting.
You are correct ... I should have said stealing != theft ... what I really meant was they are not the same thing or equivalent.
Where the ferocity of my point comes from is the fact that most of the people making the semantic point that copyright infringement isn't stealing are doing so to make them feel less guilty about committing copyright infringement. In other words: stealing is bad, but copyright infringement is some sort of complex legalize so it's ok if I commit it.
An argument that you just made ""copy vs. steal" is better than the theft which is just wrong.
I tend to disagree with you on the copy v. steal issue. I like to think of the innocent people (i.e. not the RIAA). Let's say a private citizen writes a book and a large company takes the book without permission and publishes it. I would say this is stealing. They only took information and copied it, but I consider this stealing. Because of this I feel that anyone with a copyright deserves the same protection as the single guy. Unlike most people on Digg I don't hate big business or "the man" just because ... I hate them when they do something wrong. - Slovenian6474, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Again, i see your point. I would see it appropriate to use the word "steal" when referring to copyright infringement as long as it's used loosely like in the sentence, "OMG steve! They stole your article!" or like "Yo, B, you still stealin' music?". It would sound kinda weird saying "Yo, B, you still copyright infringin'?". If you look at it closer than the everyday speech, it is two different things that can be easy confused.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Where did I say theft? I always here this argument. Theft != stealing. Go to Law.com and look up stealing ... it is not a crime, it is not a legal word. If I alleged theft or trespass of chattels (the civil equivalent of theft) you would be correct. Here is what stealing means: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stealing. I was using definition 1: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right ... You are assuming I am using definition 8: to commit or practice theft.. Your argument was created to make people feel better about stealing music.
- Slovenian6474, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hell, and if they do wrongfully sue you and you prove them wrong, apparently they're not going to give you attorney's fees even if the court tells them too. It's easy (and almost fun) to rationalize "stealing" music when it hurts an association with such horrible practices as the RIAA.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0so 2 wrongs make a right?
People stole music long before the RIAA started suing people. The suits just made the people stealing feel justified in what they were doing.
This isn't a chicken and egg situation. People stole first and then the RIAA sued them. - PA42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Sorry, double post, I hate this comment system
- Slovenian6474, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2PA, i'm not advocating copyright infringment. I'm not saying "stealing" music is ok. I'm saying the RIAA's method of quenching the problem is NOT working but instead, seeming promoting the problem.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sorry but if the RIAA actually had a case they wouldn't be in this position. They could not prove this person did what they were accusing her of doing. Get your ***** right. Unless you have access to evidence the courtts and the RIAA didn't..... The Judge saw this for waht it was and imposed the only kind of punishment the RIAA would understand.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Norman ... did you even read what we said? our conversation had little to do with the instant case
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0so 2 wrongs make a right?
- Slovenian6474, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Copyright infringement is NOT stealing as it is not a criminal offense where theft is. That being said, it is still illegal. The problem with the RIAA is that the times have changed. File sharing has entered the scene offering an illegal, hard to track, but free way to listen to music. The RIAA had a choice to either stop it out and continue their current business plan or make create a new business plan that adopted to the new technology. As with Napster, it worked....for a little bit. At this point in time, there is no hope to stomping out file-sharing, but yet they are STILL holding onto their over-priced business plan. The RIAA offers very little to the consumer as incentive to buy CDs or download legal music other than the "We probably won't sue you".
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Ratm ... listen very carefully: I know you have convinced yourself that stealing music is "sharing information," but it is not IT IS STEALING. The musicians entered into contracts so that they could be heard and the consequence is that the RIAA and the record companies control that music. The answer is not stealing and the attitude that the answer is stealing will only lead to the RIAA becoming bigger assholes. Stop rationalizing morality to favor stealing and pay for the music or listen to your friends bands and other indie music
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2I'm no fan of the RIAA, but I'm also no fan of copyright infringers. To me both sides sound like little spoiled brats. The RIAA for the reasons you noted. While most (not all) of the anti-RIAA people believe it is there right to have free music. Had Napster not gone out of control, the RIAA wouldn't be freaking out and treating people so poorly. Every time someone steals music, breaks DRM, forms a new torrent or a similar act the RIAA becomes more unreasonable, more extreme and tries to do more of their *****. The answer to getting the RIAA away is to boycott mainstream music and force them to change their policies. Going on a torrent and downloading free music just makes them angrier and gives them fuel to take to Congress and whine some more.
- Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Now THAT is a spicy sub sandwich....
- expat001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+83I am a musician and the RIAA does not represent my best interests. They are a bunch of old suits sitting in a board room trying to find more ways to bilk people out of their hard earned money. They dont give a ***** about music, the art, the emotion, the passion. They are ***** suits that failed in their creative endeavors and now want to punish everyone else for their failures at life!
- a6n28f, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Don't ever lose that fire. Passion and talent are a powerful combination.
- chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3When is the judicial system going to realize that you can't just one day claim to represent parties that create a product, then steal money from others for misusing that product and pocket it yourself? The creators of this product are not being represented. It's no different than me claiming to represent the oil companies and asking for 50 cents off every gallon for my own pocket. The oil companies would have me in a blender. Why is the RIAA getting away with doing exactly that? I guess because record companies who claim to own the product themselves stand up and say "It's ok. They are with us."
- sgtpppr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Uh, the RIAA is actually a pseudo company made up of the heads of the major record labels. It's set up to be used as a shield for bad publicity and lobbying. It is NOT a third party claiming to represent the record companies. It IS the record companies coming together to form a large lobbying and IP protection firm. From wikipedia:
The RIAA is led by Mitch Bainwol, who has been Chairman and CEO since 2003. He is assisted by Cary Sherman, the President of the Board of Directors. There are 27 members of the board, who are drawn from a number of record companies.[2]
It's really a consortium of the big four labels: Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony BMG, and Universal Music Group. Look at the board of directors:
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=who_we_are_board - psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and, i hate to say it, but the artists who sign up with those labels know what they are getting into..
- sgtpppr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Uh, the RIAA is actually a pseudo company made up of the heads of the major record labels. It's set up to be used as a shield for bad publicity and lobbying. It is NOT a third party claiming to represent the record companies. It IS the record companies coming together to form a large lobbying and IP protection firm. From wikipedia:
- AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11You, Sir, have the attitude that makes me want to pay for your music instead of pirate it. When you're more interested in the art rather than the money, that, my dear, is what makes me want to financially support you.
- heypetray, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Sorry to be a digg dick, but you first used 'sir' and then 'my dear'
Digg me down now.
- heypetray, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Sorry to be a digg dick, but you first used 'sir' and then 'my dear'
- WayneCA, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, the RIAA is the music company corporation. They don't care about their product, their employees, or the goodwill of people in general. They just want more money so their stock can go up.
- Daedalus17, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Isn't that what a corporation is for? TO MAKE MONEY!
- jontracey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+35Not sure how the law works in the USA, but in the UK you can file to have them pay or be forced into bankruptcy, basically have the company wound up for non payment of debts.
Its time some philanthropic lawyers (there must be some) got together and taught the RIAA an lesson they wont ever forget, or be able to recover from.- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11unfortunately that's not how it works here. OJ still hasn't paid
- chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You can't pay with funds you don't have. Either way, OJ doesn't actually owe anyone any amount of money. He didn't buy a house and decide not to pay later on. He is being forced to pay, with funds he doesn't have for something that cost a family no money value, which makes no sense and is a lot different than the RIAA scenario.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The scenario is completely different, but the law on debts is the same ... my point was you can't force someone into bankruptcy.
OJ owes the Goldmans millions and has assets that can be consolidated. Because of debt law in the US he will never be forced into bankruptcy.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The scenario is completely different, but the law on debts is the same ... my point was you can't force someone into bankruptcy.
- louiedog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1OJ's book is going to be published, the money goes to the Goldmans. He is appearing in a football game that is coming out soon. The Goldmans get that money too. He didn't have the money awarded to them at the time, so as he makes more he has to give it up.
- chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You can't pay with funds you don't have. Either way, OJ doesn't actually owe anyone any amount of money. He didn't buy a house and decide not to pay later on. He is being forced to pay, with funds he doesn't have for something that cost a family no money value, which makes no sense and is a lot different than the RIAA scenario.
- VAXcat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14 In the States, you can't force them into bankruptcy this easy...but, if they ignore the judgement long enough, you can get a court order issued to the country sheriff for seizure of property equal in value to the judgement. Some big companies make the mistake of ignoring these small time judgements, and are shocked when the sheriff shows up to seize furniture, cars and computers to pay it off
- MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10that would be ***** awesome.
- Ephraim2007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0thankfully diggers should keep this topic alive, and hopefully that means something will happen, although seizing two CEOs tricked out hummers would cost more than 68k
- projectstartrek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe the sheriff should start downloading their music...
- EntangledPhysx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thats just too perfect, too just, too morally right to actually happen, though.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11unfortunately that's not how it works here. OJ still hasn't paid
- gridbread, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26Pay up you ***** hypocritical bastards!
After all the ***** you put average people and families through, you could spare some of your pocket change. - Bcodms, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2The RIAA is what MCA used to be. The mafia.
- LordKaT, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15What the ***** did the Mustang Club of America ever do to you?!
- chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Ok?
- LordKaT, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15What the ***** did the Mustang Club of America ever do to you?!
- lcmatt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19*****.
- ripple123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I really hope the solution to this is a police raid of the RIAA to seize assets equivalent in value to this judgment, plus some extra thrown in for making them come and get it. Prolly not, but the image of lawyers getting arrested just feels so right
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1you literally have no idea how anything works in this country, do you?
- chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Something works in this country?
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2good point
- aposter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If you are commenting about the property siezure, I can assure you it does happen. They can and will sieze property, auction it, and pay the auctioneer their fee. If the amount remaining isn't enough to pay the judgement, they can come back and get more property. If it is in excess the remainder is returned. Usually what happens is that the original owner pays up as soon as their property is siezed so as to not lose their property.
That said, the siezure can't cause an undue burden, so the y are limited as to what and how much they can sieze.- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I was commenting on the lawyers being arrested part
- chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Something works in this country?
- nicepants, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If they refuse to pay, that's actually what happens. Don't think it would get to that point, though. It would be even worse PR than suing the woman in the first place.
- maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If they blow it off, eventually the US Marshalls will show up and start siezing property from their offices to settle the judgement. Civil courts don't ***** around for long.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1you literally have no idea how anything works in this country, do you?
- rhabd0mancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Send them to collections!
- S1L3NTC, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23And they wonder why CD sales are falling?
Answer: People have gotten sick of their ***** and decided to stop feeding them. - Hubris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23They won't pay until absolutely forced by law - it's a crippling precident.
- zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And I love it.
- octophobic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They're hoping for an 11th hour reprieve from the governor before the switch is thrown.
- AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The longer they hold out, the less the judgment will actually be worth due to inflation. It's how business works. Hold onto the money as tightly as you can until it's worth a few cents less.
- Wilddigi, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2***** RIAA. ***** Microsoft
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I guess you're a bit sexually frustrated ?
- LogicBomB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wow man, edgy. What next? Praise anarchy? Get a life.
- DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Someone says ***** the RIAA and gets 19+ diggs, you say the same thing and add microsoft and get dugg down. Next time say ***** Sony instead or Vote Ron Paul and watch your diggs increase astronomically. The people on digg are a bunch of simple-minded cattle waiting to go to the slaughterhouse.
- ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The thing is, DangerMouse, where does Microsoft fit into this conversation? OK, I hated RIAA and am neutral to Microsoft, but we are not talking about Microsoft here. I think wilddigi got dugg down because of that
- ichibanjay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12This makes it all more interesting... I hope she gets cleared to seize assets. I can just imagine repo men walking into a RIAA office and begin pulling computers and office furniture from them while they are there.
- reed311, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Hmm, pay a $5000 settlement to the RIAA or pay $68,000 in lawyer fees plus time you had to take off from work. Yeah, I know it's about principle, but some things just aren't worth wasting your time over.
- DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So if I accuse you of murder and you go to trial for it are you just going to roll over and not fight? You seem to assume that all the accused are guilty and should just pay the money and face the consequences.
- Dracker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I really hate the Recording Industry Ass. of America.
- atarijedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If they do end up seizing stuff, it should be the CEO's stuff, muhahahaha
- TriTech, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I don't think extortionists want to pay out any money; they just want to collect it.
- exomni, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2RIAA needs to die, and die FAST, if the music industry is going to survive.
- Azriel7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Can't you ask the judge to add a per day charge when people fail to pay in a reasonable time frame?
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Any timeframe to force the RIAA to pay won't begin until the next hearing discussed in the article. If they don't pay at that point they are held in contempt of court. It's civil procedure: the bane of any first year law student
- maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Interest gets applied to unpaid judgements.
- blacklilyninja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2havent paid for a cd or download since i stopped working in a cd retail outlet.
mind you i dont download music online either. Unless its free music. Independant artists deserve our support by going to their concerts and buying the tshirts/cd's directly from them. Distribution via wholesale and retail cds create an industry of underpaid workers while the executives reap the rewards. Capitalism on the corporate level has become too corrupt to be realistic anymore. Where businesses' worth depends on speculation not production. Its about control. - Error601, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Okay, these same stories got boring a REALLY long time ago.
- octophobic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9So they're just going to pirate all those legal hours? Bastards.
- ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Oh I'm sure if they have the money to sue, they have the money to pay back the lady. Bunch of pricks. This isn't even about how I hate the RIAA; I hated their guts and will look forward to the day they crumble like Bush without Rove. But if you lose a lawsuit, then pay up. Note to RIAA: I AM NOT HELPING YOU IN ANY WAY AND WILL ONLY HELP TO DESTROY YOU
- nicepants, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Time for the Sheriff to collect some RIAA property.
- waterdrop, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5If they don't pay, all of us Digg users should stand behind Mrs. Foster and fight till we get her that money.
- mapkinase, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Give me a break... A month? That is like a femtosecond in jurisdiction crapiverse..
- theskyman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Rude
Ignorant
Arrogant
Assholes - wtf00, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4its funny.. how they expect us to pay up fast and when they have to pay up they stall like crazy.
- Jammerdelray, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If the Riaa keeps using the same mafia like tactics pretty soon we'll be seeing a whole Investigation in to the Riaa, either by State Lawsuits or Congress cracking them open.
- RobotCitizen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'd like to sue the RIAA for the empathy pains I'm feeling for Deborah Foster.
- zakaf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Seriously, this lady just needs to just SHUT UP. I think W should ship her off to Guantanamo or something. God, I am so sick of greedy private citizens who trample all over big business and industry like this in the name of "justice." I totally admire the RIAA and all that they do for us.
Excuse me now, I am going to eat dinner with Dick Cheney.- gr3yn3t, on 10/10/2007, -0/+110 bucks says you'll be dugg down because the 13-year-old population of digg won't get your sarcasm.
- MonkCanatella, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Excuse me now, I am going to eat Dick Cheney."
Fixed.
- smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wished there was a guild of activist attorneys who would represent everyone who gets sued as well as countersue the RIAA...all for free. Eventually the courts would be so clogged with this ***** that lawmakers would be forced to intervene.
- twitchyneko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0All the more reason to buy and use the RIAA toilet paper from Jinx.
- accordjazz, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1That's great find
http://www.nasavo.com
http://www.nasavo.com/acne
http://www.nasavo.com/forex
http://car.nasavo.com
http://www.jurugan.com
http://health.jurugan.com
http://www.vrid.net
http://laptop.vrid.net
http://projector.vrid.net
http://tire.vrid.net
http://hyip.ej.am
http://car.ej.am
http://health.bryansoft.com
http://hyipnews.freehostia.com
http://hyipnews.freehostia.com/hyip - petter999, on 04/13/2008, -0/+0desktop girls http://community.webshots.com/user/Desktop_girls/b ... virtual strippers
- jepizacar, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1nice resource....
http://topforex.co.cc
http://skincare.freehostia.com
http://acnecare.890m.com
http://acne.ej.am
http://gofinance.890m.com
http://fastcar.890m.com
http://carbeauty.co.cc
http://gadingan.com
http://gadingan.com/indexsc.php
http://gadingan.wordpress.com
http://23ltd.info
http://jeniya.info
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by