What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
143 Comments
- iissmart, on 07/01/2008, -3/+131What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -1/+68"Requiring proof of actual transfers would cripple efforts to enforce copyright owners' rights online – and would solely benefit those who seek to freeload off plaintiff's investment," RIAA attorney Timothy Reynolds wrote (.pdf) U.S. District Judge Michael Davis on Monday.
Well that should mean that artists don't have to take their label to court to prove they've been cheating them out of royalties. We know royalties were collected, therefore the label is at fault. Any further proof just cripples the royalties payment process.
Same logic, right? - MikeSetera, on 07/02/2008, -0/+48***** the RIAA and MPAA!
- pigfister, on 07/02/2008, -1/+35So then i will create a load of white noise mp3 files call them the latest crap published by the RIAA limit the speeds to slow and w8 for the suits to come knocking.
Don't say riaa, ect, name the companies so they can't hide behind the fronts they use to keep anonymity.
***** SONY
***** UNIVERSAL
***** WARNER GROUP
***** EMI
***** DISNEY
***** PARAMOUNT
***** FOX
The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX. - inactive, on 07/02/2008, -0/+32Thats funny because.
Proof is not necessary to say RIAA is a ***** of an association either. - Fairly, on 07/02/2008, -0/+30No *****. MPAA? RIAA? Go ***** yourselves. How about we ream a sequoia up there for ya?
- terrizance, on 07/02/2008, -1/+25Actually, proof isn't needed for anyone to sue for any reason. It is, however, usually helpful in winning a case.
- MCA2142, on 07/02/2008, -2/+20This is like saying, "No child needed for me to pay child support."
- rald84, on 07/02/2008, -0/+18but .. but ... i have a penis, does that mean i'm guilty of rape??
- Corrosionx, on 07/02/2008, -0/+17If you step into their corporate courts, you already admit their jurisdiction, you're as good as guilty.
- darc87, on 07/02/2008, -0/+17Perhaps next the RIAA will tell us they are able to gain access to our homes without a warrant due to homeland security issues...
- NorthStateGonzo, on 07/02/2008, -1/+17What a F#ckin Joke.. Where is the Supreme Court in this Issue??
Haven't Heard Anyone mention the United States Constitution???
Again fear tactics!! - x2wenty4x, on 07/02/2008, -0/+16To the MPAA and RIAA the constitution is irrelevant.
- Corrosionx, on 07/02/2008, -0/+13Actually, showing proof isn't as important as:
-Showing a tangible loss for the RIAA, the only way they can acquire "standing"
-Proving juridisdiction of the court (Anytime a jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven)
-Providing the court with the corpus delecti (which is the crime itself), where someone's legal rights have been violated.
It might also help to realize the DMCA is an Act, a Statute, and as such, has force of law only on the society of people who voluntarily agreed to obey it. - mykid8yours, on 07/02/2008, -2/+15It's been guilty until proven innocent for years now! It's not just the RIAA or MPAA that act like that but local law inforcement as well. They sit around trying to bust anyone for something. Even our Federal Government is that way. Trying to allow wiretapping on it's citizens for "terrorist" reasons. We do not live in a demacratic society in America, we live in a Republic.
"Under the Republic for which it stands. One Nation, under God..."
America is slowly going to s**t because we allow big corporate entities full control of our lives. MPAA, RIAA, OPEC, insurance companies. To them all, we are instantly guilty - impei, on 07/02/2008, -0/+11Civil courts only require a preponderance of evidence not proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
- TimmyGUNZ, on 07/02/2008, -0/+11The funny thing is there is already enough proof based on their actions to verify that statement.
- aimhelix, on 07/02/2008, -1/+12It's not 'available' if RIAA can't see it... oh, and ***** you RIAA.
- reed311, on 07/02/2008, -1/+11You might want to brush up on your law. A civil trial is much different that a criminal trial. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" motto. The scales merely need to be tipped slightly in favor of the plaintiff. Why is there no innocent until proven guilty? Because you can't be found guilty in a civil trial! You can only be found "liable".
Secondly, the RIAA actually said that a "higher standard" of proof isn't needed, and they are right. This is much different than the headline, which suggests that "no proof" is needed This is a CIVIL issue, not a criminal issue. They can file a lawsuit against someone and then it is up to the judge/jury to decide if they have sufficient proof to be awarded damages.
This has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. If the judge feels the suit is without merit, then he can award damages. - PabloMac, on 07/02/2008, -0/+9The tree-huggers would disapprove.
- inactive, on 07/02/2008, -0/+9So, basically, RIAA doesnt think they need any of this so called "evidence", the very core of our legal system? WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED TO OPERATE!
RIAA: They stole music!
Court: What is your proof?
RIAA: They just...did!
Court: How?
RIAA: ....step 3 is profit.... - Fairly, on 07/02/2008, -1/+9Uh - because he passed away last year? ;)
- protogenxl, on 07/02/2008, -2/+10You will have to remove that I-Beam first.
- SuckMyDigg, on 07/02/2008, -1/+9So can I sue the RIAA for copyright infringement of the library of songs I wrote that no one has ever heard, but pop singers have stolen?
- ATLien74, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8R.acketeering I.nnocent A.verage A.mericans
- braininabox, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8Same thing that happened to habeas corpus
and States' Rights.
The government just doesn't give a damn about what The Constitution has to say. - maceelk, on 07/02/2008, -2/+9...and by that he means it's "and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God..."
As a born again, and then unborn again, non christian, we need to ride ourselfs of the "God" part. It's clearly leaking into our laws. - pond70, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7Any bets what next month's RIAA headline grabbing news release will be - after this is shot down in court .
man...the RIAA is like that kid no one likes but keeps showing up at the front door....
oops.....got-ta go and seed over my lunch break - oxymoron69, on 07/02/2008, -1/+8Exactly, what they're asking for is for the entire continent and eventually the entire world to pay for "cartel support" because they're slowly dying and need our BILLIONS of dollars to pay for coke, hookers, BMW's, 6 homes... and that's just the executives of these companies.
- reed311, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Yes, you can sue anyone for anything; but that doesn't mean your suit will be allowed to proceed to court. Especially with such a flimsy example which you provided.
- fatdefacto, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6To take a metaphor too far.
- artfiend77, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6You, my friend, need to retake Reading Comprehension 101.
- cybrguy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6only if you "Make it avaliable"
- XISUPERMANIX, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6They changed it to "guilty until proven innoccent".
- alricsca, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5So basically if I happen to name a file the same as one of the million of song titles I am guilty? That is insane. Do people have any idea how many words in the English language have been used as song titles. Shoot you can not even use numbers. At the very least they should need to download enough of the file to be sure it is the actual content in question.
Beyond that why not switch to a service model or charge much lower fees. Most people will choose to avoid the risks, prefer the massive amount of titles, and the ease of download. It is not a hard equation, if it saves me a minute and the cost is very low I would use a service. Shoot if the service is cheap enough why pay for storage or waste the time downloading when I can have what I want the way I want on line at any time. Their mistake is in their lack of imagination and understanding of profit by scale. - inactive, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5title misleading. it's not that they think they don't need proof- they actually think seeing data logs on an isp showing torrent traffic is proof. they are mistaken because that stuff is EVIDENCE, but not solid proof. should it be enough for LAW ENFORCEMENT to look into based upon probable cause? likely. but why don't they? BECAUSE THEY HAVE BETTER ***** THINGS TO DO AND MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT. go ***** yourselves RIAA. seriously, just kill yourselves you're a disgrace to modern civilization.
- banderwocky, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Sweet! That should mean anyone could sue the RIAA for pretty much anything since proof is not needed.
- Sillywombat, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Damn that annoying thing called "PROOF"!!
- fatdefacto, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Then why do people keep dragging him out of the grave?
- oxymoron69, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Just wait until ACTA becomes law.
- CougarDavis, on 07/02/2008, -2/+7It's disheartening to me that things have got to the point where people don't even know the Pledge of Allegiance anymore
- caseycoold, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6Yeah! it should be changed to
"One nation, under RIAA, Under MPAA, mostly invisible, with bribery and persecution for all."
Well, that's what it's becoming, anyways... - Gauthic, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4If you can't beat the game, change the rules?
- bosssmiley, on 07/02/2008, -3/+7Totally valid. Why hasn't someone taken that mad old dog Jack Valenti round the back of the barn yet?
- acknotSW, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Have a penis? yes are are a rapist as far as some womens groups are concerned.
- spongya77, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4I am sure the law enforcement would be thrilled if they could work on the same premises. It'd be much easier to keep their quotas up.
- raskali, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4This doesn't have anything to do with copyright, they're just hoping that suing people will become another revenue stream for them.
- BlackTye, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Uhh. Seriously?....
I mean, really? - Screwy1138, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4only if you unzip your pants.
- flashback99, on 07/02/2008, -3/+7That would be true if there were any tree's left to ***** hug.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is