What is Digg?212 Comments
- crawf061, on 10/12/2007, -5/+203dugg just because it say "RIAA loses"
- omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -7/+163Did you RTFA? The judge stated that the RIAA can't press charges against them again.
- Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+134Perhaps a countersuit for extortion and racketeering is in order?
- jpwhitmore, on 10/12/2007, -10/+100@anth741
Double jeopardy is more then just part of a game show - zeptobyte, on 10/12/2007, -9/+96Mom: I want to see your evidence.
RIAA: Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence!
Mom: Oh yes you do! MOM POWERS, ACTIVATE!
*12 seconds later*
Judge: Flawless victory. Mom wins. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+93Apparently you're not very familiar with the american court system, Anth.
- omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -2/+85Pirate? Ahem!
I prefer Buccaneer-American, thank you very much! ;) - espek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+89RIAA = Reckless Ignorant Attorneys Association
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+82They brought charges against the mother to start with, and then later amended to add the daughter as a defendant. Eventually, they couldn't produce the evidence and made a motion to dismiss with prejudice. The "with prejudice" part here is key, since that means that the matter was finished and settled and that they would not be able to go after her again for the same thing.
What's unique in this one is the determination of the court that she was the 'prevailing party' for the purposes of the Copyright Act, and thus was eligible to be awarded attorney's fees. This is a bit unusual, but sound reasoning, since the dismissal was with prejudice and that constitutes a "material alteration in the legal relationship" between her and the RIAA.
Which is just great. It means they can't bring suits like this and then just say "oh well, no harm no foul". They'll have to pay for the suits they bring in the future, if they're not willing to see them through to the end. Note that she hasn't actually been awarded those fees yet (I think), but it's just that she is eligible to receive them. - jakatak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+79hey, let's all download Queen - "We are the champions"
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+75Racketeering Idiot ***** of America
- krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+75Don't touch me.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+79See, why can't people be more realistic when they're talking about this? Most articles and people will refer to this as something along the lines of "RIAA loses in PIRACY case". Piracy sounds so evil. It reminds people of theft and rape and plundering and pillaging. Burning things down, destroying lives and towns and countrysides.
It's just SHARING. And sharing is the first thing you're taught in kindergarten. Sharing is a GOOD thing and how DARE the RIAA want to put a stop to SHARING. Those dicks. - anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+70I'm in agreement. Dugg simply because it shows the RIAA isn't unstoppable.
- omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -3/+55Retarded Ignorant Ass Apples
Regurgitated Intestinal Anal Aroma
Really Into Anal Assault
Raving, Insane, And Asinine
...and the most apt:
Running Into Another Adjudication
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+54I fully agree, but it's going to take a ballsy DA to pursue that case.
- locojones, on 10/12/2007, -3/+49Double jeopardy only applies in criminal cases. This is a civil case. The only reason it can't be refiled is because it was dismissed with prejudice.
- Anth741, on 10/12/2007, -10/+53Sorry guys, it was a joke. I hope i never get dugg that far into oblivion again..
To be honest, reading that after the cup of coffee, i deserved it. :-P - locojones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40What I would've liked to see if the mother counterclaim for abuse of process in the filing of a frivolous lawsuit. There should be evidentiary support underlying each allegation in the complaint. Here, where the mother demanded discovery on which songs she had downloaded, when, and from where, the RIAA couldn't produce anything. The court should slap the RIAA and its attorney with Rule 11 sanctions, and proceed against the attorney in discipline for persisting with a baseless lawsuit.
- zeptobyte, on 10/12/2007, -7/+45Yes, but paying $0 for a $1 song isn't as bad as suing for thousands of dollars for that same $1 song. It's a lesser of two evils thing. They're both wrong, but one is more wrong, so it gets all the hate.
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42Of course. I mean, God Forbid that members of the global community should come together to share works of art and entertainment to spread and enrich culture! It is, after all, against the law, so it _must_ be morally wrong. These people (all the millions of them) are obviously just dirty pirates, and trade groups absolutely have every right to reach into our personal lives to stop us from sharing files among ourselves. It MUST be stopped.
- aurath, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42But... but... but... Pirates are COOL!
- electromagnetic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39I'd probably say hefty fines for frivolous lawsuits would be more in order, which would also hamper the RIAA's efforts in all future trials until they are abolished/brutally murdered in their sleep, whichever happens first. I personally would enjoy the last one much, much better but that's because I'm a horrible, horrible human being, but despite me being said horrible human being it would be incredibly funny to hear them being systematically being killed by outraged music critics.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38The only reason these jackasses like to sensationalize file SHARING by calling it PIRACY is because the RIAA and MPAA are both run by a bunch of ***** NINJAS.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34Got it:
http://www.venelca.com/Romulo/Queen%20We%20Are%20The%20Champions.mp3 - Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38The RIAA likes to call it "piracy" or "theft" which is really inaccurate. On the other hand, it isn't really sharing in the tradional sense since you are giving it to thousands of strangers at no cost to you. I think the fairest, most neutral term is "copyright infringment".
- ScottieB, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35It's not up to the government to legislate morals.
Besides, isn't it morally wrong to intimidate old ladies into settling for thousands of dollars in order to avoid legal fees and being hassled by the RIAA? - wusupdoe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34More like legally wrong. It is not against my morals to listen to something for free instead of paying some millionaire to listen to it. However, it is morally and legally wrong to sue a dead person for downloading music. The RIAA has issues.
- ExtremeRyno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28I was contacted by Macromedia and the RIAA a while back for file sharing. Apparently having a legal CD of Duke Nukem 3D in your CD-ROM for 30 minutes (and a case of eDonkey/Mule sharing my CD-ROM for some reason) is the same as sharing "Macromedia Flash 5.0" AND some random music album (I think it was something by Beck). How Duke3D could be confused as either of those is beyond me...So beware what you have in your CD drive and whether or not said drive is on auto-share. At least Macromedia and my ISP apologized. This isn't a joke, either.
- mrmidgetman, on 10/12/2007, -12/+35"Sorry guys, it was a joke. I hope i never get dugg that far into oblivion again..
To be honest, reading that after the cup of coffee, i deserved it. :-P"
the first 2 comments always get really far down or really far up. Only a few people read them and mod them in one direction then every1 else just copies without thinking until they get bored and stop after the next comment. - Darth_tater, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25hopefully this will give more people the courage to fight thees bastards in court, instead of just taking the easy way out and settling out of court.
- JakeMcMahon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28*bangs head on desk*
- LowenSoDium, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26If it bleeds, we can kill it!
- rkuchiki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22"Oh crap.. they want evidence that we aren't suing random people... Withdraw!!!"
- catscradle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22"Really Into Anal Assault"
I think I've seen that movie ... - neonplankton, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25Aww, my heart bleeds for the RIAA. Group hug, everyone.
- DrSkrud, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30ditto :D
- DevilsFan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Intellectual property is property in any sense of the word. In the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson:
"He who receives an idea from me receives it without lessening me,
as he who lights his candle at mine receives light without darkening me." - spling, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20"Really Interested In Attorneys"
RIIA? - aurath, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18I love the google ads that this story creates "free Music Downloads", "Download Music & Movies" and "File Sharing Lawsuit? Lawyer offers free info & advice".
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Do you realize that bribing elected officials to extend copyright from the original 13 years total to 75 years past death is wrong and denies, based solely on economic standing, generations of Americans access their cultural heritage and the database THEY contributed to the creation of as part of the society that in which said artwork was created?
When you do, I'll CONSIDER weather downloading copyrighted material is right or wrong.
Until then...
FUI87. (Fair Use for Article I, Section 8, Line 7 of the U.S. Constitution.)
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; - JWood, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Totally. I didn't believe it at first but then I read the article.
- ScottieB, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17I got your question, but it wasn't a question. It was rhetorical and I disagree with what you said.
I don't feel it's morally wrong to download music.
I also don't think it's legally wrong to download music.
This is spin the RIAA has put out and you've bought in. No one is being sued/arrested/charged with downloading music. They are being sued for "sharing" music. That's RIAA attempt to make downloading and uploading music the same thing. You've bought in.
It is not the same.
If you found $20 on the street is that legally/morally wrong?
If you stole $20 and left it on the street is that legally/morally wrong?
Downloading is not the same as "sharing" (uploading).
- bairy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Yet.
One mother had the balls to take it into court knowing she'd probably lose based on past stories. It's then exposed that the RIAA had nothing / couldn't be arsed to see it through.
Imagine the signal this sends to all the other victims: Don't settle out of court and you might win, hell you might even get your legal fees back.
If enough people do it, people might start seeing the RIAA for what they really are. - kaden, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I love how RIAA thinks they're god.. then gets denied of the fact. Go Go Single Mothers against the RIAA!
- teckjunkie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Was it the case where the old lady didn't own a computer, or the case where they were going to sue the campus LAN, or did someone diabolically rip a CD onto their iPod?
- Nightfall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Personally, I wouldn't press my luck unless I was 100% sure I was innocent. If I had never fired up a P2P application, then I would go after the RIAA with an Extortion case. Either that or putting value upon the time she spent defending herself. Otherwise, I would just leave happy.
This was probably the best possible ending for the defendant. The only thing she can't get back her the time she spent in court. So, while she won in court, the precious hours she spent she can't get back. Its a shame she still lost something. - ohstoopid1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Moms of America unite!
- pidge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Going to make this page my home page because I like seeing the words "RIAA loses".
- scsnoballs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14With most ISPs unwilling to give out the info, I doubt they have enough info for half of the lawsuits they file.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 209 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is