What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
116 Comments
- bryano, on 10/10/2007, -4/+181Erm, ***** the RIAA ?
- realdeal83, on 10/10/2007, -5/+56Picking on college kids isn't enough for the RIAA any more, they've moved on to the brave men and women of the military that fight for the very freedom that allows the RIAA to file these criminal lawsuits against good people. Congrats on doing what everyone thought impossible and be hated even more. I dont download mp3s often but Im going to download for spite now!
- SLSSNAKE, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33Regardless of whether file sharing is proper or not, the RIAA's tactics have been especially brutal. It's good to see that those who have the capacity to fight back do so, because not every little girl that gets slammed with a lawsuit can.
- shadowspawn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31I was singing in the shower.
Now I'm a-scared. - MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -7/+36ter·ror·ist (tĕr'ər-ĭst) n. An individual and/or organization who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result. Sound familiar? The RIAA are a bunch of terrorists.
- dcsr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+28They're just a bunch of ***** who do absolutely nothing but inconvenience other people and blow all of their money on lawsuits that they LOSE
- Devrdander, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22well he was anonymous until they hunted him down by bully the ISP for user information... then publicly publishing the list of porn he had which was irrelevant to the case...
- OKeric, on 05/12/2008, -1/+22Oh my gosh, I've had subversive thoughts: http://24fans.net/warning.jpg I better give them a call and tell them what I've thought and downloaded and then hopefully they can give me some counseling.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20Hi I am a dinosaur and I am going to fight you using tools known to me when I existed.
- cl0n3x, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20I don't care who you are. If you use Kazaa, you deserve to be sued.
- mrswirl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14This month Lars was hoping to have a gold-plated shark tank bar installed right next to the pool, but thanks to people downloading his music for free, he must now wait a few months before he can afford it.
Come. There's more. Here's Britney Spears' private jet. Notice anything?
Britney used to have a Gulfstream IV. Now she's had to sell it and get a Gulfstream III because people like you chose to download her music for free. The Gulfstream III doesn't even have a remote control for its surround-sound DVD system.
Still think downloading music for free is no big deal? - ftcram, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I found the following more interesting than the p0rn they found:
ANSWER AND COUNTER-COMPLAINT
Case 3:07-cv-00264 Document 17 Filed 07/09/2007
http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/0718paternosterresponse.pdf
COMES NOW Defendant, Sgt. Nicholas Paternoster, to answer the Complaint filed against him by Plaintiffs Warner Bros. Records, Inc., Virgin Records America, Inc. UMG Recordings, Inc., Arista Records LLC, and BMG Music, and answer as follows:
3. This action should be dismissed on the ground that it is not being prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, which is the Recording Industry Association of America.
10. The Counter-Defendants and their attorneys have engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to defraud the Courts of the United States and to violate the privacy rights of Counter-Plaintiff Paternoster.
11. The Counter-Defendants, ostensibly competitors in the recording industry, are a cartel acting together in violation of the antitrust laws and public policy, by litigating and settling all cases similar to this one together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in an identical manner and through common lawyers.
16. In addition to the oppressive tactics aimed against Counter-Plaintiff Sgt. Paternoster under the guise of protecting their copyrighted materials, the Counter-Defendants have conspired together on other activities in furtherance of their conspiracy including:
(1) bringing, without investigation sufficient to establish that the allegations and factual contention therein have evidentiary support, lawsuits against persons who are not specifically known to have infringed copyrights, including persons who are deceased, disabled or who lack knowledge of how to use computers or download files from the internet;
(2) making false and unsupported allegations that the defendants in these actions, including Counter-Plaintiff Paternoster, have infringed copyrights, by making the unwarranted and technologically erroneous assumption that an Internet Protocol address is a unique identifier of a computer or an individual;
(3) using a corporation as their agent to make extortionate threats to take criminal action and to defame defendants’ names and credit, in order to force defendants to pay sums which have no relation to plaintiffs’ actual damages, if any, and by delivering releases to settling defendants (few of whom are represented by counsel) which are fraudulent, in that they do not constitute true releases of all claims by putative plaintiffs, thereby misleading settling defendants into erroneously believing that they cannot be sued again;
(4) jointly agreeing upon exorbitant settlement amounts which are non-negotiable and are arbitrarily increased at set intervals thereby depriving the defendants in these actions of any reasonable opportunity to negotiate a settlement;
(5) commencing ex parte “John Doe” lawsuits which they have no intention of pursuing, but by means of which they are able to communicate with District Judges, Magistrate Judges, and other judicial officials on a daily basis, without providing defendants with notice or opportunity to be heard, in violation of attorneys’ ethical obligations as officers of the Courts; (6) invading the privacy of these “John Doe” defendants by then serving subpoenas on Internet Service Providers without notice to the putative defendants;
(7)withdrawing such actions upon being challenged and thereby preventing defendants from obtaining relief for having to defend them; and (8) engaging in other unconscionable conduct. - JFitzpatrick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13After explaining the RIAA to an elderly relative of mine awhile back, his response was "I never thought I'd run across a group that made the IRS look reputable."
- airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Unfortunately the damage is already done. If somebody Googles his name in the future, they will find articles like this one. (In fact, this article is third on Google.)
- hooksie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13The RIAA is seriously suing or _troops_ ?
- Giga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Terror and intimidation, perhaps, but I haven't seen a single case of violence. The definition used the word "and" implying that all 3 criteria needs to be met.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12No saying that he doesn't want the files to be shown in relation to him doesn't mean he acknowledges that they are his. Ever heard of something called bad publicity? Even if the files aren't his the sheep in this country will be more than happy to accept that they are simply cause they saw it on TV. Also the military as a rule is smart enough to know that if this was to become a big case it could be bad publicity for them. If it does go south it could hurt his military career.
- toomuchpete, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Why, because it's against the law to have MP3s? Or porn?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Sure, just as soon as the RIAA starts using the words "pirate" and "steal" in their proper context.
- weebit, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12sheesh! now they are going after our troops!
*Weebit hits the RIAA with a rolled up newspaper. ... Bad Dog!" - shitton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You were singing, you say? Could anyone else hear it? If so, you may just want to settle with the RIAA even before you get the letter. Just sayin', man...watch out. I wouldn't hum a tune either.
- surasshu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yeah... You know, I'm not a fan of the RIAA or their behaviour, but I haven't seen them kill dozens of people every day yet.
Let's keep the word "terrorist" reserved for actual terrorists. - Winston84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The headline is inaccurate :
The correct spelling is : " MAFIAA "
not " riaa " - mx3Taggert, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9wow you have no idea how it all really works do you?
- vrillco, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Maybe he just isn't a goddamned pussy and isn't afraid to stand up to the RIAA and their idiotic theatrics. Even when a man holds a gun to your head, you're free to grow some hair and tell him off. After you've done that, a lawyer or ten isn't going to scare you.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Your failing to note that his identity WASN'T publicly available. Even if some one could see the files they couldn't know who's they where. If they could the RIAA vs John Doe law suits wouldn't be necessary. Even with a whois on the ip address the best any one can hope for is to know what city the local branch of his isp is located in.
- Randinn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Honestly I think we need to get personal info of these jackasses so we can show them what harassment's all about...
- cyberoidx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Awesome! They claim losing loads of money due to illegal downloads, and then lose more on stupid Law suits. Thats the smartest organisation ever.
- noctem314, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Don't worry, after a little time in room 101 you'll be fine.
- lowbot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4THis idealization of the military is off-putting. Uniform or not, they are subject to the same laws as anyone else.
- jgzman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4His argument is not that they aren't his files, he argues that they invaded his privacy. In the same way, if a police officer finds stolen goods in your house, but did not have a warrant, the evidence can be thrown out.
- tbaum101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I love it when these morons look worse than they already do. If someone would bother to put out a CD with more than one good song on it, people may actually buy the thing. Don't blame others for your ineptitudes RIAA
- trax4321, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Sounds like the RIAA are vexatious litigant's maybe if they can legally be labeled as such, then their activities would become more limited or even stopped. Now that would be true justice.
- Midtowner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Reading over the counterclaim, while I do believe that the defendant's heart is in the right place, I also think the counterclaim is pretty weak. As far as it goes, paragraph 3 is just silly. Clearly, the plaintiffs have a property right in keeping folks from illegally distributing their copyrighted materials. As to 10, I think it's a silly notion that the Defendant's rights were violated. What privacy right do you have to information you make available to the public on the internet? I know of no law which says it's illegal to track down someone's IP/identity on the internet. It'll be interesting to see where exactly the defendant is going with that claim as far as case law is concerned. The rest of the counterclaim is interesting, but I don't think it's legally supportable. It looks like a good legal tactic in that it is inviting the possibility of a court invalidating the RIAA's method of bringing and settling claims. Again, I just don't see how the defendant's counterclaims are legally supportable, but we'll see what happens if Motions for Summary Judgment get filed.
I'd personally love a world where we could distribute copyrighted works freely. I'm not really sure what sets this defendant apart from any of the others successfully prosecuted by the RIAA. Aside from the huge porn collection, I just don't know why this story is even all that newsworthy. - oriondarkwood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Today the RIAA/MPAA, tomorrow the government. WAKE UP SHEEP GRAB YER GRANDPAPPY'S BALLS AND YOUR GUN
- wil2200, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4isnt there a way to disband the RIAA and MPAA
what a bunch of douchebags - GeForce8800GTX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I have yet to see a comment from anyone praising the RIAA. Obviously, everyone hates them.
- drmangrum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2didn't kazaa fold like two years ago?
- TheGreger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3[sarcasm]Yeah, the artists represented by the RIAA are really hurting for money.[/sarcasm]
- Devrdander, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3actually most law firms aren't paid by the RIAA, they take the cases under the merit they'll get a payout if they win (and most settle for ~$3000) and the lawyers walk away. In fact in most cases its just a matter of the law firm sending out a letter to the defendant, so its alot of intern work...
- Dog_Paddle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2*Weebit does this in every post*
- AgarwaenUmarth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Is it atheistically immoral to agree? If so, digg me down.
- LoopyChew, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'd love to see the RIAA vs. a dinosaur. Preferably a swarm of Jurassic Park-style velociraptors.
- LethalAmbition, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The guys at the RIAA office probably jacked it a few times to his files and then dare to sue him for it. They must prefer gay porn or something.
- psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2lovely, i just spent like 20 minutes writing a response to this article and because DIGG'S COMMENT SECTION SUCKS *****, it is gone.
digg, why is it you are so good at some things but completely ***** retarded with others? - masgrada, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Especially when the damn thing cost 50 cents to make and the actual artists see about the same meanwhile the cd cost dang near $20.
- joshuastarr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Your site blows. There's nothing there.
- intothebin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Lesson?
Include some pr0n in your illegal music stash! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Paternoster -- ***** me, the RIAA are suing God!?!?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 