What is Digg?44 Comments
- Scira, on 10/30/2007, -4/+30I think all of these frivilous lawsuits are a PR stunt. If it wasn't for them i would have never heard of the RIAA
- benitojuarez, on 10/30/2007, -0/+22why dont people just use diffrent usersnames since that seems to be a big part of the riaas case, if your name is john smith, why not set your username as tiffanysmall38894@kazaa.com isnt that enough to cast reasonable doubt?
- sockpuppets, on 11/04/2007, -2/+19That would be awesome if all you had to do to beat this is not show up. Hell, if that logic extended to the rest of my life I'd be rich I tell you... rich!
- sockpuppets, on 10/30/2007, -1/+15When I write reviews on Amazon I'm Amanda Hugnkiss.
- thcobbs, on 11/04/2007, -0/+12Really Insistent Annoying Attorneys.
- ZachSka87, on 11/04/2007, -2/+14Really Ignorant & Annoying *****?
- RlAA, on 10/30/2007, -0/+9***** ME!
- ncc74656m, on 10/30/2007, -0/+8I am so using that and filling out the First and Last names as Benito Juarez now. They'll never catch me!!!
- jsd8cc, on 10/30/2007, -1/+8I like how the guy didn't even show up to court or respond to the charges at all. That man has chutzpah. Or he's deceased. The latter wouldn't surprise me.
- PA42, on 10/30/2007, -0/+6I'd agree in a criminal case, but this is a civil case. Look at the jury make up in the RIAA $220k victory. You need to be able to convince that group what you said by a "preponderance of the evidence." "preponderance of the evidence" can be thought of as more likely than not. Most people (whether they are right or wrong) will believe that the person who owns the router is likely the person who did the deed. I know it's a tough pill to swallow, but it is how the legal system works.
- SleepingOrange, on 10/30/2007, -0/+6For once reasonable doubt actually meant something?
I will definitely be following this one. - PA42, on 10/30/2007, -0/+51) the standard isn't reasonable doubt. This is not a criminal case. Reasonable doubt only applies to criminal matters.
2) this is not a victory. Finish the article. The defendant still needs to appear in court and the RIAA gets to show more evidence - ZachSka87, on 10/29/2007, -2/+5Same thing, lol
- wil2200, on 10/30/2007, -1/+4every time i see news where the RIAA gets shafted - i giggle, smile and think of nice chocolate brownies
- sockpuppets, on 10/30/2007, -2/+5I'm glad I have you here to decide what's newsworthy.
- NJank, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3but... maybe if someone sat and leeched off of their neighbor's wireless... I do it all the time when I'm in an upstairs bedroom where my wireless signal gets a little poor. If I actually used P2P in one form or the other, such a situation could arise where the neighbor gets an RIAA lawsuit due to my activities. Unless they go through MAC address logs on the wireless router, assuming they are logged and maintained, AND there are no other matching identifiers (common userID, etc.), makes for a tough case I'd think.
- onesidedsquare, on 10/29/2007, -2/+4party time?
- phybere, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3So the real question is... how many people haven't showed up and received default judgements in the last two months?
- WorkingDead, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3I've come to the realization that I've heard all these songs like a thousand times already. Its to the point that everywhere I go with music playing or whatever radio station I listen to is as repetitive as listening to the oldies station. Listening to the same thing over and over seems slightly neurotic, or even OCD. I don't even want to download this stuff, let alone pay for it. I want no part in contributing to the continued demand for this junk music. Give me something fresh, with meaning, from a band that's talented. Put that on the local radio and I might go to a local show.
- PA42, on 10/30/2007, -0/+22) is retracted ... reasonable doubt is still irrelevant to the case
- PA42, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2With a lawsuit there is not a standard set for every particular case. Both sides present there argument and the jury acts as the finder of fact to determine which side is right. If the defendant wants to argue what you are arguing they can, and the jury will determine how likely that is. If the preponderance of the evidence supports those facts, then the jury will side with the defendant.
- PA42, on 10/30/2007, -2/+4Why did you sign the contract which said you weren't going to get compensated for royalties?
- Wakkajawakka, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3These are hardly frivolous lawsuits. They are taking real money from real people. Right or wrong, the RIAA is for real. And it's all because the recoding industry is unable to figure out how to monetize the 21st century's way of making and sharing music.
- actorboy, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3""I've been a musician on several major recordings and have yet to see one dime of recompense. "
I've been an actor on around 25 films and I see residuals every quarter. Maybe you guys need to get your union back together. - Makisupa, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1There are plenty of reasons for not showing up to court, for example, if he knows he would lose but is planning a collateral attack for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper service of process.
- Shaman760, on 10/30/2007, -2/+3Kinda fun to watch a major corporate interest gasp for air in it's dying throes, huh? I enjoy every second of it.
The RIAA is going the way of the Musician's Union. In the old days if you didn't have a union card you couldn't work. These RIAA bosses might actually have to lift a finger and work and stop relying upon us artists for a coattail ride.
IF you like a band's music then you should procure the music however you feel fit, then send that band some sort of support directly. In other words, if you download their album, send them $10 directly. Completely bypass the system that is set up to take money from them and divert it to a broken machine that is the RIAA.
I've been a musician on several major recordings and have yet to see one dime of recompense. They are looking out for me? When and where?!? - Ogopogo, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1.. or if he doesn't think he's the person named in the paperwork. Maybe he's a 'natural person'?
- SleepingOrange, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1I did finish the article. I know its not closed and shut... Hence why I said I'd like to follow this one.
- dafragsta, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Do ISPs keep track of who had what IP when? Roadrunner gives you a new IP every time you bounce your router. How can you be liable for something that someone else downloaded with a connection they get the bill for?
- ChaosMotor, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Yeah, there's a reason I use a different handle than my real name, but it's not the RIAA.
- yingjai, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1insistence is bliss?
- SocialPoison, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Ahhhahaha winnar!
- PA42, on 11/02/2007, -2/+3Who the ***** are you to make that decision. If you want the good, pay what is asked, if you don't then don't buy it. Don't pirate music instead and then have some self righteous attitude that you know what it is worth.
- PA42, on 10/30/2007, -2/+2@claw: I'm not a musician, I just don't like people who believe that they are somehow entitled to things that they are not.
On a different note, if I were to try to make music it would likely be ***** and unoriginal. - EricTheGrey, on 10/30/2007, -2/+2It seems strange to me that the person didn't show up.
There is no valid reason for it, and a good chance you'll be found guilty by default, so why not show? Methinks there's something fishy here.
EtG - claw84, on 10/30/2007, -2/+1$10 is pretty steep for an albums worth of mp3s. I know so many people have been paying those ridiculously high album prices for the last few decades so it doesn't seem that it's too much.But I think $1-$2 dollars sounds about right, only if the music is any good.
- tony23, on 10/30/2007, -2/+1"They are taking real money from real people"
That isn't what defines whether a lawsuit is frivolous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation - PA42, on 10/30/2007, -4/+3It then becomes a jury decision. Regardless of a name, your average jury isn't likely going to believe that someone sat at your wireless router and downloaded (or uploaded) files. Remember, these are civil suits, so the RIAA just needs to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
- AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -3/+1Hahahahahahahahahaha.
*Ahem* Sorry.. I think I'm done laughing... wait no.. there's more coming.
Hahahahahahahahahaha. - claw84, on 11/02/2007, -4/+2Being an angry ***** on the internet isn't going to make anymore people buy your ***** unoriginal music.
- geekee, on 10/30/2007, -3/+1"I've been a musician on several major recordings and have yet to see one dime of recompense. "
Well, maybe you aren't very good musician. - PA42, on 10/30/2007, -7/+2I find this article to be rather insignificant. Default judgements aren't automatic, even when the defendant is a no-show. Although that's the typical outcome, but this is not newsworthy.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is