What is Digg?106 Comments
- truspector, on 10/12/2007, -6/+115ha ha ha ha ***** ha ha
- plamoni, on 10/12/2007, -2/+84As well articulated as that was, doesn't this bother you guys? I mean, I now know there are 3 outcomes if the RIAA brings a case against you:
1: You pay their $2500 extortion fee... COST: $2500 -- verdict: Win for the RIAA
2: You fight them and lose... COST: Potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars -- verdict: Big win for the RIAA
3: You fight them and they drop the case... COST: Thousands of dollars in legal fees -- verdict: Minor setback, but the RIAA comes off clean because "they did the right thing in dropping the case"
It seems to me that once you become a target of their legal dart toss you are totally screwed... it is just a matter of how much you are willing to pay and how good you want the RIAA to look in the end... - plamoni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+40I would like to note the reason I did not put "4. you fight the RIAA and win" is because as soon as you show you have a legal foothold, they will just drop the case against you...
- IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30From TFA:
"The assumption being made is that the use of an IP address as evidence against file sharers is not enough to prove that the person being charged committed copyright infringement.
Others, as in this report, are now suggesting that the best way to defend yourself against the RIAA is to open up your WiFi network to your neighbours. Essentially, the more people who are using the internet through a shared IP address the weaker the evidence the RIAA can summon against you."
Holy crap, so they weren't joking after all about the open wifi defense. - AXNJAXN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27@plamoni: Reminds me of the witch-hunt scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, actually.
- kikibun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25About time thr RIAA lost a case. ***** pricks...
- AICkieran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24I hope you paid for that dylan record!
- mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Or you can buy that insurance that is $20 dollars a year and will pay all of your fines if the RIAA/MPAA sues you. I don't know the site though, so someone please post it.
- Hurricane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Actuall dude, if you go with number 1 you still have to pay legal fees along with the $2500 extortion fee.
In fact in a recent case the RIAA was ordered to pay the legal fees because they dismissed the case with "prejudice". - Smarterdanu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20the same way Nixon didn't get kicked out of office, he just resigned.
- Langford, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Until those jerks invent a new law prohibiting Internet sharing.
- luuneetoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Just saw Miami Vice and the line about "pirated software from China" caught my attention. I was thinking "don't the vice squad have anything more important to take care off, like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, ecstacy, money laundering, Ritalin, OxyContin, prostitution, corrupt government officials... and THEN maybe pirated software."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Comcast already threatens to turn off your service if you have an open wifi access point. You sure don't want them EVIL TERRISTSSSS using your internet connection, now do you?
- plamoni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Hurricane: Thanks for the info...
So apparently the best case scenario is you have a very small chance of coming out of it with no money lost... (but a lot of worrying and a TON of time lost)
As great as it sounds, while I don't download music, I wouldn't stand a snowflakes chance in hell in that sort of case. The reason, pathetically enough, is that I am a computer expert. I can't claim I don't know what filesharing is, I can't claim I don't use computers, I can't claim any sort of ignorance. Therefore, I would be assumed guilty.
It is ironic that we preach that our children should be techo-wizards, but in doing so, we open them up to frivolous extortionistic lawsuits brought on by large corporations that are going under and can't figure out their own product sucks. - plamoni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16They can't outlaw stupid (unfortunately).
Most people don't realize they are sharing their Internet connection with the whole block. They buy a wireless router from Best Buy (pay a couple hundred bucks for the GoonSquad to hook it up for them) and then they think they are set. They didn't feel like paying extra for a "secure" network when all they are doing is surfing the interweb, and all the sudden, Pete the Geek from next door is using their network to download 2Pac.
Your average person doesn't have the slightest clue about WiFi security. They see it as a nuisance at best, as it makes adding computers to the network more difficult. - Eeqmcsq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@mc7winkie
Here ya go: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/28/p2p_insurer_will_pay.html - skubiszm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15The war on drugs is almost as ludicrous as the war on piracy. But I do agree with you.
- skubiszm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Ok, my wifi router is open.
Now what do I do with my 500 GB of music, movies, tv shows and pr0n? - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Even if you are computer expert you can plausibly argue that your wife's laptop wireless card was having problems accessing the network with WEP security so you had to disable it temporarily. If you don't have a wife you can claim that you were sharing your network with your neighbor and they had a similar problem. Being an expert does not mean your wireless network is expected to be secured and impenetrable at all times.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13if they drop the case you can them file a motion to force them to pay the legal fees--or counter sue them for a ***** load of money
- venir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I agree it is about time, but they didn't actually lose, they dropped the case.
- DRCross, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The times, they are a-changin'
- ThndrShk2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Why bother with legal aid? why not just give them and their lawyer a call and say
"An IP Address is not a person, your evidence cannot hold up in court. Lets just do both us a favor and drop this before it costs you your own legal fees along with mine, and you losing another case"
Sounds simple enough to me. Too simple... - mickmcmac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8In 10 years there will be no more RIAA. There will be no one left to sue, and because their business model is rapidly becoming a dinosaur, they will be done. Can't wait for the day they close the shop. ***** idiots!
- perkonis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think the important line is right before that. "...the RIAA has decided to discontinue the case." IANAL, but it seems to me that by opting to drop the case, there isn't a precedent establishing the IP argument either way. Yet.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Here in Canada if you sue someone and lose, you must pay the legal costs for the person that you sued.
I dont get it why this is not the case in the US - xrisnothing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Faced with evidence that numerous other people had access to the Internet connection and/or the computer and that any of those people could have engaged in the allegedly infringing conduct."
what the hell is that supposed to mean? it is not a f'ing sentence. - sacratus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7No, because the argument is that you bought the insurance because you were afraid of their suing sprees.
- staticxcc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7protect yourself from teh RIAA. become a wardriver target. w00T!
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6skubiszm,
You don't have to leave it open. You just have to claim that it was open for some time. They have no way to disprove such a claim that I know of. - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6No, we call them evil because they are suing people when they clearly do not have sufficient evidence to convict the parties. The pirating community understands that in order for the RIAA and MPAA to collect enough evidence against a specific user they must break internet privacy laws and use computer intrusion. This kind of evidence is not admissable in court because it was obtained through illegal search. They didn't find a loophole they are defending their rights as citizens to be innocent until proven without a shadow of a doubt....guilty.
- ricree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"This is what's surprising me, the government states that if you can not afford an attorny the state will appoint you one. Ok, so why not take the free ride on the government?"
I'm pretty sure that this only applies to criminal cases. All of the RIAA's actions are civil. - staticxcc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5IANAL, but I believe the defendent has to counter-sure for stuff like slandar, pain and suffering, lost wages, and legal fee's or else it all goes down the toilet. could somebody clarify this issue that is a lawer and not a normal digg person that is also IANAL?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If the RIAA drops the case can you counter claim for your legal fees, damages, time off work, reputation, etc?
- Switch22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"The best way to defend yourself against the RIAA is to open up your WiFi network to your neighbours"
I'm going out to buy one of those access point gadgets. - N00bicals4543, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"How many people are going to download Miami Vice out of curiousity because of the comments on this site?"
good point, the more media attention the more backfire they get. its amazing how that works isnt it? - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Next lobbying task for the RIAA/MPAA:
"The Secure Networks Responsibility Act"
In other words, they will try to pass laws making users responsible for their dynamic and static IP ranges. I would be (and you should be) against this of course, but how much do you want to bet that's their next move? - tjl2015, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't see why file-sharing insurance would be illegal. Insurance isn't just for things like death, health, and the protection of property.
The model here is malpractice insurance. I know they have malpractice insurance for medical professionals, certain types of engineers, and probably several other professions. The idea is if the structural engineer screws up, and the building collapses, and he is sued, the insurance will pay the fines. Malpractice, like copyright infringement, is a civil offense. When a doctor takes out malpractice insurance, he is not admitting to malpractice. When a person takes out copyright infringement insurance, he is not admitting to copyright infringement. - ricree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Well, imagine that some large company screws you over, and you decide to sue them. They could get together a large and expensive legal team which would be difficult to beat even if you were in the right on this issue. If you didn't win, not only would you be out your own legal fees, but you'd also be owe a ton of money that the company spent defeating you.
In principle, I'd love to see some type of loser pays situation, but it would have to be carefully constructed in order to not be as big a problem as the alternative. - j519638, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4all i know is more people that are being sued need to sue back when they drop the case because the only time the RIAA drops is when there is a significant chance they will lose.
- kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No. Copyright infringement is not criminal, it's copyright infringement.
Piracy (copyright infringement followed by re-sell or profit) is.
Just because rent-a-cops with MPAA on their jackets show up at your local hacker convention doesn't make it a criminal offense to download for personal use. - joemawlma, on 10/12/2007, -18/+22I don't understand why everyone is so hard on the RIAA anyways. I mean, all they're trying to do is keep the internets working well by stopping you from clogging the tubes with all your music downloads...
- xXShadowstormXx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4FTA:
The RIAA and MPAA now appear desperate in their quest to prevent illegal downloading. The inquirer is even reporting that they are starting to slip subliminal messages about the ‘badness’ of internet piracy into modern films – Charlie Demerjian described the effort in the Hollywood blockbuster as thus:
“Now, they are slipping the message in through 'blowoff' lines, trying to infect modern culture. There was a scene in Miami Vice where they were discussing the big bad drug dealers, and how international they were. The good guys listed all the thing the bad guys were capable of bringing into the US, Cocaine, Heroin, etc, etc. They listed it as coke from Colombia, heroin from Afganistan, X from Y and A from B. Pretty normal stuff. At the end, they added 'pirated software from China'. Blink.”
That's absolutely fantastic! Not only that lines like that aren't even related to the movie anyway, but they are also trying to "affect society" by saying the usual crap: ZOMG PIRATING IS BAD! The RIAA's arguement is that the artists barely get and money from their fans. That's bullcrap, since most of their money is from tours. The RIAA just wants to make a quick buck in the process (of hammering a lawsuit), they don't care how they do it, they're out just for more money. They CLAIM to support artists/bands, but that's, undeniably, 100% BS. - Visnik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Logical defense, I have a wireless router, wep encryption can be cracked quite easily, I would never know that Johnny neighbor is hooked in, prove it was me!
- maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is what's surprising me, the government states that if you can not afford an attorny the state will appoint you one. Ok, so why not take the free ride on the government? Secondly, why not represent yourself, you're the defendent you have that right as long as you're compatent. If people took the time to seriously fight this, the RIAA could not win a single case in court, except in the instance of gross negligence or incompatence on the court's part.
- Eeqmcsq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If there's a chance of being accused of being in a car accident without having a car, then yes I would. That is, since there's a case where the RIAA has sued someone without a computer for file sharing, then it is no longer an admission of guilt for getting "RIAA insurance", but protection from inaccurate lawsuits.
Edit: sacratus beat me to it! - mcrules, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5How many people are going to download Miami Vice out of curiousity because of the comments on this site?
- Genma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4hahah, who exactly are you trying to convince?
it's completely plausible, my apartment is in range of about a dozen access points on cable at any given time with all essid on broadcast. and maybe half of them at most are secured in any way, all wep if any which is bunk. signals are strong enough so that anyone in the building with an antenna would be able to latch onto a different network every day of the week with great speeds if they wanted to, without the owners ever knowing.
these are end user gateways we're talking about, not full featured enterprise routers. even if you do have one nice enough to log changes, it means nothing. while this is a nice loophole that completely shatters their already weak cases, IMO it doesn't even matter. just look at the people they choose to prosecute. whether or not an IP address is legally binding to a particular user isn't really the point, it's been proven many times in the past that it's not. - luuneetoon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Just saw Miami Vice and the line about "pirated software from China" caught my attention. I was thinking "don't the vice squad have anything more important to take care off, like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, ecstacy, money laundering, Ritalin, OxyContin, prostitution, corrupt government officials... and THEN maybe pirated software." But then Bill Gates won't be able to purchase gold-encrusted shark tanks, must fly in Gulfstream-3 jets (instead of Gulfstream-4 jets), and can't purchase islands for his childs birthdays.
- maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Okay, how about this, the RIAA and MPAA going after youtube users etc. They say you violate copyright by singing and dancing to a song and placing this on youtube. I say nay, you do not violate copyright. Even if you aquired the song illegally, as long as you used the media for only this presentation, you have not violated copyright. Why?
Fair Use, this statue and precident has been in effect for over a decade. I used fair use precidence to perform a song in a high school concert that i transcribed by ear myself and rearraged from CD. The RIAA would yell infringement because my arranged rendition in notation and expression was precisely what was on the disk, but i was protected by fair use via my educational setting. Read up on fair use and see why the RIAA and MPAA are ignoring this.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is