digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

RIAA loses in file sharing case

arstechnica.com — The RIAA suffered a legal setback today, as a file-sharing case was dismissed and the defendant awarded attorneys fees.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Anth741, on 10/12/2007, -298/+13In other news the defendants family are being brought on charges next month.
    • omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -7/+163Did you RTFA? The judge stated that the RIAA can't press charges against them again.
    • Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -10/+93Apparently you're not very familiar with the american court system, Anth.
    • jpwhitmore, on 10/12/2007, -10/+100@anth741
      Double jeopardy is more then just part of a game show
    • all2hectic, on 10/12/2007, -109/+16hey man...i thought it was funny
      apparently a "sense of humor" will get you buried
    • 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.
    • zeptobyte, on 10/12/2007, -50/+9@jpwhitmore
      Duh, it's also a movie. >_>
    • Sakumi, on 10/12/2007, -41/+24He was just making a joke; quit being so serious.

      Once again, good for the mom/family!
    • kehvin, on 10/12/2007, -44/+14I thought it was funny too. C'mon people, don't take things so seriously...
    • Poco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Hmm, since they didn't disclose the evidence, assuming they had none, then there were no dates or files given. Wouldn't this suggest that, if they did find a date and file that she "shared", they could sue and claim it is a different incident?
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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
    • 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.
    • GuyHitByTruck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I thought Diggers would be first to realize that just because it's illegal doens't mean it can't be done...
    • reed311, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12The RIAA is cannot press charges as it is not a law enforcement agency. Though it likes to pretend it is, thanks to our rubber-stamp justice system for certain "crimes".
    • djjoemex, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I really wish I was rich and could buy compact Discs in retail stores, however I am not. In my country 70% of the people won't pay more than $1.0 bux for a CD, that's why in the subways, outside the markets, in the streets, everywhere the people buy mp3 albums for $1 bux. Unfortunately I am not poor and I can afford more than $1 bux for a CD but a shop called Mix Up sells the CD's in $35 bux the double ones, really this pisses me off. If I could only get a single song for 25 cents of dollars that could be the excelent price. But i guess that when piracy increases, the established shops like Mix Up, raise their CD's too. This is unexplainable by the law of the supply and demand of Economics. So I challenge any economiyst expert to explain me this behavior of the price of the CD's. I guess all the RIAA folks are also interested in solving this mistery.
    • JDines, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1... actually you all seem to have missed a key point here. Anth doesn't say that charges will be brought against the Mother/Daughter again next month. He said the defendants *FAMILY* Closing the matter with prejudice means the Mother and Daughter cannot be charged again. It does not mean that a relative or relatives are immune from prosecution. A childs mother is not immune from prosecution in that childs death just because the father is acquitted of killing his child.

      .... hundreds of people laid into Anth in one way or another (mostly through 'thumbs down', and they were *ALL* wrong! Phenomenal .....
    • untoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1he personally cant be charged for the infraction..... twice.. but cant somebody else who maybe culpable for that specific infraction be charged ...i mean sued.. this is a civil case
  • Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+134Perhaps a countersuit for extortion and racketeering is in order?
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+54I fully agree, but it's going to take a ballsy DA to pursue that case.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Countersuit is not enough after this insanity of theirs. These thugs ought to be flogged, then imprisoned.
    • Aiwanei, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8This was not an act of extortion, for one the RIAA never got any money, and even if they did, it would have been in the form of a settlement, which is well within the scope of the law. The only thing that she could file a countersuit with would be for Frivolous lawsuit, since they sued with her apparently no evidence other than her name.

      For a definition of extortion check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion
      For a definition of frivolous lawsuit check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_lawsuit
    • Genma, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3pffffft, names and dates? who needs evidence like that in a court case. why should the riaa need to provide extraneous information like that? they have numbers, all kinds of consumer surveys and profit loss. cash money, that's all that matters.
  • crawf061, on 10/12/2007, -5/+200dugg just because it say "RIAA loses"
    • DrSkrud, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30ditto :D
    • anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+70I'm in agreement. Dugg simply because it shows the RIAA isn't unstoppable.
    • JWood, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Totally. I didn't believe it at first but then I read the article.
    • LowenSoDium, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26If it bleeds, we can kill it!
    • utkwes, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14ditto. Dugg. Bury the RIAA.
    • Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"If it bleeds, we can kill it!"

      And it's past time it bled!
    • techmonkey4u, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's about time someone put a chink in the (percieved) armor.

      He's cut! - The RIAA's cut!
      You see? He's not a machine! He's a man!
  • NJMtwtd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12I'm glad to hear of something like this.
    • dopi1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'm glad to hear it as well. The RIAA is like the big bully when you were at school. He'd beat up you up, take your lunch money, etc. Then, only when someone challenged the bully to a fight and won did the big bully stop picking on you. Finally, a victory for the piraters, uhh downloaders.
    • Jimzip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It kinda gives hope doesn't it? Strange that it takes a mother to bring those pricks down a peg.
      But good for her for sticking up for herself and her daughter!
      Man I'm sick of the RIAA..

      Jimzip :D
  • espek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+87RIAA = Reckless Ignorant Attorneys Association
    • iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+75Racketeering Idiot Assholes of America
    • 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
    • JakeMcMahon, on 10/12/2007, -36/+3Really Interested In Attorneys
    • spling, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20"Really Interested In Attorneys"

      RIIA?
    • JakeMcMahon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28*bangs head on desk*
    • catscradle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22"Really Into Anal Assault"

      I think I've seen that movie ...
    • espek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I think iSEPIC has the best one yet. (It's my thread, so I can play judge.)
    • wufenshu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's also no reason to allow them to change the law to suit their purposes. In fact... it is a reason to change the system and ensure that their wealth is not an issue in deciding the law of the land.

      It is also far from "treason," what are you, Thomas Jefferson?

      Not yet. But I'm working on it. >:-D


      http://www.ppef.info
  • Seumas, 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.
    • mycatsboots, on 10/12/2007, -63/+16Sharing the HIV is awesome.
    • aurath, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42But... but... but... Pirates are COOL!
    • omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -2/+84Pirate? Ahem!
      I prefer Buccaneer-American, thank you very much! ;)
    • Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37The 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".
    • Seumas, 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.
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10I didn't go to kindergarden. Gimme!
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13"The RIAA likes to call it "piracy" or "theft" which is really inaccurate."

      But, alas, effective. Just like how the Republicans like to call gay bashing 'defense of marriage'.

      "I think the fairest, most neutral term is "copyright infringment"."

      I'd agree, with a disclaimer saying 'though much of it is fair use'



    • kuroaisu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Speaking of sharing, your comment reminds me of this mp3 promo for the now defunct Music Lovers' Union..

      http://indieish.com/sounds/musicloversunion-full.mp3

      Great samples. I think it's still on Lucas Gonze's "Total war on CPAN" playlist at Webjay
    • atroxodisse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@Seumas
      How dare you sully the good name of ninjas by comparing them to the RIAA. It's bad enough you lumped them in with Pirates.
    • optimuscrime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3First "Ass Apples" then "Buccaneer-American"

      That one two combo made me laugh, then choke, then vomit a little... and I'm at work.

      I fuggin love you Diggers!
  • pidge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Going to make this page my home page because I like seeing the words "RIAA loses".
  • jakatak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+79hey, let's all download Queen - "We are the champions"
  • baystreet7, on 10/12/2007, -26/+22***** 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?
    • infobeat234, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Which 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.
      http://qqbq.info/sitemap.htm
  • 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".
    • electromagnetic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15I wonder how long till it gets "File Sharing Lawsuit? Hire a private assassin, today!" One can dream...
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • djflow159, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Apparently they have enough to file a case and get a name. Don't count on the ISP to get your back. It is all about liability to them.
  • omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Way to go, lady! Stick it to those bastards!

    This is also good because it now sets a precedent (or counter-precedent, as the case may be). I forsee dark times ahead for the RIAA, unless they somehow develop a legal way to determine what was downloaded and when. Note, legal is the key word there...

  • Timjacobs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8They denied the law in the netherlands
  • ZaNkY, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I'm glad that someone finally stood up to the RIAA, and what's more, WON. This will be a landmark case IMO. THe RIAA is big, but can be beat.
  • ohstoopid1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Moms of America unite!
  • neonplankton, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25Aww, my heart bleeds for the RIAA. Group hug, everyone.
  • TheSavageNation, on 10/12/2007, -64/+13I am just curious, do you guys recognize that downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is morally wrong?
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11You mean it's morally wrong for musicians to give away their music if they choose?
    • TheSavageNation, on 10/12/2007, -25/+5ScottieB, I think you have misinterpreted my question. My question has nothing to do about the government creating morality.
    • mt066, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11@ TheSavageNation

      I hear you man, but you will probably get buried for it anyway. People on here feel the need to justify file sharing as being moral and OK to do, which is more than a little dubious. I'm not saying I've never done it, and it is fun to watch the "little guy" win in court, but I dont go around trying to convince myself it's the right thing to do.
    • 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).


    • TheSavageNation, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9@ScottieB

      Thank you. We now have clarity and know where we differ.
    • mt066, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4If you don't feel that it's wrong to download music, it's probably because your livelihood doesn't depend on it. You can call it "sharing" or whatever happy little label you feel like, but it's still the same thing.
    • JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2No. No I don't.
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"I am just curious, do you guys recognize that downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is morally wrong?"

      Well, see YOUR morals don't apply to everyone else.
    • CatalystGhost, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4@TheSavageNation

      It may be morally wrong from your standpoint, however, morals are just an opinion. In my opinion, it is morally wrong for me to have to pay idiotic amounts of money for the ability to listen to some people play a guitar/drum/bass/etc. Especially when they barely even get most of it. That's morally wrong, too.

      I don't want to pay, because it seems stupid. Especially for what amounts to an idea. However, I do enjoy the music, and having fun is one of the things my morals say I should always be doing.
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"If you don't feel that it's wrong to download music, it's probably because your livelihood doesn't depend on it."

      Right. Which is to say 'if you don't feel that it's wrong to download music, then you must not be a RIAA executive'.

      Since they are the only wants that depend on it to make a living.

      If you want to support artists, support artists. DON'T support the RIAA.

      Saying you support artists by buying RIAA products is like saying you support our soldiers but voted for Bush.

    • ErnstHot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So, what are you saying? Morals are universal?

      There's also something called respect, which tends to influence morals - and the RIAA it seems has earned very little of that lately!
    • 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."
    • DevilsFan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4That should read "Intellectual property is NOT property."
    • balloot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3ScottieB:

      So the government can't legislate morals? Would you still believe this when someone robs your house and steals your possessions?
    • 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;


    • iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11QUOTE
      I am just curious, do you guys recognize that downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is morally wrong?
      /QUOTE

      Do you also know that memorizing the lyrics to a song, and singing them in a public place is also morally wrong and illegal in most RIAA controlled countries? To be honest, I'd beg to differ and say it's only morally wrong if you SELL it or make some sort of PROFIT from giving it to someone else, w/o also including the original author in the work.
    • klacour, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8This is really what is wrong with what the RIAA/MPAA has done - they have hijacked copyrighting and made it a business model. Copyright law has been changed a number of times in the past 50 years or so, each time at the behest of the entertainment industry, in order to protect their margins and cash cows. They rob rights from artists (Metallica being one of the rare ones to own their own music - and the real reason behind their Napster-torpedo), and then project the cash stream of royalties by demanding enforcement of the copyright laws, which have gone from protecting the artist to protecting big business.
    • iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5QUOTE
      If you don't feel that it's wrong to download music, it's probably because your livelihood doesn't depend on it. You can call it "sharing" or whatever happy little label you feel like, but it's still the same thing.
      /QUOTE
      My livelihood depends on consulting, as in people who don't know how to do things, get me to do it for them. But you know what, there is GOOGLE, and a LOT of people will use Google to get things done themselves, does it put me out of business? Do I go and sue google for such acts of atrocity? No, I don' t. And the revenue they clam they are losing, is a fat lie. Don't be a sheep, stand up like this lady did or pay them $1 per song, if in fact you feel the moral need to, just don't pay them $5K for a song.
    • Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"I am just curious, do you guys recognize that downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is morally wrong?"

      I'm well aware that it's morally wrong. Do YOU recognize that suing people with little or no evidence that they actually committed the crime you're accusing them of is also morally wrong?
    • SpyDerMann, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7File Sharer's manifesto (by moi)
      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165859&cid=13837340
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1y---
    • mt066, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6I'd love to respond to all of this but the 1-tier comment system of digg will make that near impossible. However, I still feel that you can dance around the facts as much as you want, but basically this is all just a bunch of self-serving logic so you can get your CDs for free. It's the elephant in the room that everyone is afraid to talk about. You stand to benefit from the free sharing of mp3's and anything else, so you are attempting to justify it morally by any means necessary. If someone was providing YOUR job for free in a legally sketchy way, you would sure as hell be upset about it, and you would most definitely be using the law to back you up, as it would be your best resource. The RIAA (which, contrary to popular belief, represets lots of people that are NOT rich old men) has certianly done this in a clumsy way, but that is an entirely different discussion. The point is: share your files if you want, I don't care. But don't act like you're vigilanties fighting for the common man here.


    • Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!! Wrong... but thanks for playing mt066.

      "However, I still feel that you can dance around the facts as much as you want, but basically this is all just a bunch of self-serving logic so you can get your CDs for free. It's the elephant in the room that everyone is afraid to talk about. You stand to benefit from the free sharing of mp3's and anything else, so you are attempting to justify it morally by any means necessary."

      Q: How is that any different that the RIAA/MPAA serving their own interests?
      A: Democracy Vs. PLUTOCRACY. In a democracy the vast majority decides what the law is. In PLUTOCRACY only the rich elite have a vote that counts. If the vast majority engages in file file sharing, and or supports the right to share files, IT IS THE LAW under Democracy, and it is the responsibility of our elected officials to support the will of that vast majority. The manipulation of republic of elected officials who are SWORN to serve our DEMOCRACY is an attack on our political system. No matter what "self-serving logic" they employ... that is TREASON on the part of the elected official and those bribing them.
      Yes Virginia, "We the People..." can put any industry "out of business" we choose to. If we couldn't I could make a lucrative business out selling nukes to Arab countries out of my Jersey apartment. But I can't because the vast majority says that's a bad idea with the Government.

      "If someone was providing YOUR job for free in a legally sketchy way, you would sure as hell be upset about it, and you would most definitely be using the law to back you up, as it would be your best resource."

      As I've already pointed out, the PLUTOCRACY has done an end run around our legal system and committed TREASON! (Which is also an Immoral act) It is therefor our right and responsibility to fight this enemy and protect more than our lively hood, but our freedoms and way of life.

      "The point is: share your files if you want, I don't care. But don't act like you're vigilanties fighting for the common man here. "

      We are more than that. We are Citizens fighting for our democracy against an economic coo for power.
    • kaidadragonfly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I believe that downloading music (like from the link in the thread above to Queen's "We Are the Champions") would fall under the label of "victim-less crime". Meaning, nobody gets hurt from it.

      And before you argue that the music industry and artists get hurt due to illegal downloading, I believe CD sales have actually gone *UP* as file sharing has increased.
    • mt066, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think you are gravitating a bit towards the grandiose. If you knew anything about a COUP, you would probably know how to spell it right. Your speech is very inspiring, but is essentialy just a rant about how some people are rich. Just because people are rich is not a reson to prosecute them. It is also far from "treason,"
      what are you, Thomas Jefferson? I could go on about this, but...
    • meepus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3America was never intended to be a DEMOCRACY. It was intended to be a REPUBLIC. Have you ever listened to yourself as you recited the pledge of allegiance? Pure democracy is chaotic. The founding fathers wrote a lot about how the common man couldn't make decisions about the direction of our government without representation from someone more well-informed representing his interests. Hence institutions like the senate and the electoral college. There's a reason why we have a president instead of an all-call to the public voting polls. Learn a little bit about what you're bandying about on the internet before you start spouting off the definition of some term (aka PLUTOCRACY) because it makes you sound intellectual for hating 'the man.'

      Now, this is not to say that our republic hasn't morphed into a plutocracy over time... just that we've got a little bit of sensationalized jibba-jabba going on if people are actually talking about (and believing) this country's democratic purpose.
    • Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2mt066.
      "I think you are gravitating a bit towards the grandiose. If you knew anything about a COUP, you would probably know how to spell it right."

      I love the idiots who think spelling errors in off the cuff message board responses are a sign of intelligence.

      "Your speech is very inspiring, but is essentialy (SIC) just a rant about how some people are rich. Just because people are rich is not a reson(SIC) to prosecute them."

      It's also no reason to allow them to change the law to suit their purposes. In fact... it is a reason to change the system and ensure that their wealth is not an issue in deciding the law of the land.

      It is also far from "treason," what are you, Thomas Jefferson?

      Not yet. But I'm working on it. >:-D

      meepus

      "America was never intended to be a DEMOCRACY. It was intended to be a REPUBLIC. Have you ever listened to yourself as you recited the pledge of allegiance?"..."The founding fathers wrote a lot about how the common man couldn't make decisions about the direction of our government without representation from someone more well-informed representing his interests."
      "Hence institutions like the senate and the electoral college. There's a reason why we have a president instead of an all-call to the public voting polls. "

      That's not entirely accurate. Our "Republic" was a compromise because at the time it was functionally impossible for the common man to have the kind of "one person, one vote" Democracy they wanted. True Democracy was fictional problem when sending a letter from Florida to New York took a minimum of three days, and there was no telegraph, telephone, E-mail, or IM!!!

      Today we have the means to communicate our will instantly across the entire globe. Instead of that being the true democracy our founding fathers would have used it for it is being used to eliminate our privacy and support a class system where only those with enough money may have access information. Effective censorship by economics.

      The issue with people being well informed was not brought up to limit the power of the common man by diluting it through a "representational democracy" but in recognition of the need to inform him with a free press and educational system. It was also WHY there was a 13 year limit on Copyright and Patents before such information was considered Public Domain. So the public could have that information to inform itself after a reasonable period of rewarding it's "Author or Inventor".

      "Pure democracy is chaotic."

      200 years ago definitely. Today... probably, but far less so. Far less in comparison to a Republic that no longer represent the will of the people, but that has been hijacked by a Plutocracy.

      If, "Taxation without representation is tyranny, than what would you call legislation, AND taxation without representation?"

      "Learn a little bit about what you're bandying about on the Internet before you start spouting off the definition of some term (aka PLUTOCRACY) because it makes you sound intellectual for hating 'the man.'"

      I don't hate people with money. I want to BE a person with money at one point. I hate people who abuse the government to prevent me from competing or to change the rules so they can protect an extinct business model rather than innovate. People need a wake up call to let them know that we don't HAVE to let them get away with this.

      "Now, this is not to say that our republic hasn't morphed into a plutocracy over time... just that we've got a little bit of sensationalized jibba-jabba going on if people are actually talking about (and believing) this country's democratic purpose."

      If it WAS democratic, I wouldn't be "jibba-Jabbaring" about how it's not. Accept that the system is ***** up should never be the same accept that it MUST be.

      We now have the technology to create a true direct democracy, but instead we are allowing it to be used to eliminate our privacy and charge us for every idle thought.

      I will rail against that until I am dead. Maybe even a little Longer. >:)

      "Don't Tread on Me!"
  • abcohen, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5YaHHH!!! We have them on the ropes... oh wait no we dont :(
    • 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.
  • iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Printed, framed, and hung on my wall. (for reference to my case if I ever get accused).
  • chelios7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I wonder how many times the RIAA has taken people to court without any proof? To bad some of those people have already settled.
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Their game plan is to NOT take people to court. It's to strong arm them and threaten them to settle OUT of court.

      It's extortion, for the most part. Legal extorion. Thank you Orin Hatch!
  • tECHIDNA, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14This result deserves the Snoopy Happy Dance.
    (http://www.darkharbor.com/snoopydance/ for those who don't know what the Snoopy Dance is)
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Dear GOD! It's the Snoopy version of Hamsterdance!

      *sandpapers eyeballs*
    • tECHIDNA, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1@texpundit:
      I know, I know. Sadly, it was the best one available that wasn't some part of a blog post or on Little Green Footballs...

      {{sigh}} let the burying commence...
    • MikeCampo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4If you know you'll get buried why post at all and waste server space?
    • tECHIDNA, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@MikeCampo:

      I knew it resembled HamsterDance, but I thought it wasn't nearly as bad as HamsterDance. However, some people will conflate the two; therefore I was preparing to get buried after I saw texpundit's message. If I knew at the time was going to get buried, I wouldn't have made the SnoopyDance link.

      [[cue "The More You Know" outro]]
    • ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Even better:

      http://www.devilducky.com/media/38524/
    • MikeCampo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I was just joking around :) Post whatever your heart desires.
  • doktorrocket, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Kinda makes me wonder why the plaintiff shouldn't ALWAYS have to pay the defendants' attorney fees if they lose. I'm sure there's a reason, but it seems like someone with deep pockets could sue you into bankruptcy without ever winning a case.
    • s1ipstream, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0You mean like Creative vs. Aureal? As long as the judge thinks there may be a case, it can happen.
    • DarkLaughingMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's the policy of courts in the EU I think.
  • 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!
  • rkuchiki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22"Oh crap.. they want evidence that we aren't suing random people... Withdraw!!!"
  • 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.
  • edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Excellent. Their corporate shell is weakening.
    • hplasm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5...number one, bring all guns to bear on the weakened area!
      ARRR! Cap'n!
  • Smeed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Yes they lost+ Dugg!
  • pianomahnn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sadly, this case isn't very landmark in the fact that the prosecution simply did not have sufficient evidence. It's very unlikely a case would be thrown out or, rather the RIAA lose the case, where they have evidence of a person sharing files. In this case, the RIAA clearly didn't have the means to supply the burden of proof.
    • keitho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10have they ever had any legally obtained evidence?
  • MasterDwarf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6They deserve the Nelson laugh. HA HA

    The seven foot giant showed up to play on the court that day, too bad they forgot the rules.
  • DJMac317, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4ha, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, damn RIAA finally get's what it deserves. A pie in the face fo their pointless cause.

    Long live the common sense of the common man/woman.
  • ElSizzle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2These RIAA people sound like their getting whooped up on by Moms :P
  • steve693, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5She should have made a website, I'm sure there are plenty of good hearted internet users who would be more than happy to pay all her legal fees.
    • Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I'd have donated some cash from all the money I've saved thanks to file sharing.
    • ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Did you read the article? The judge said that the RIAA has to pay her legal fees.
    • Arancaytar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0She got them paid already.
  • Sakumi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Good for the mom - she took her chances and won! Maybe this will be a turning point, then again, maybe not =/
  • rysar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Dugg for proper use of "lose" in a Digg headline :P
  • tarellel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Thank Goodness for the American legal system, this is true meaning of a Just and Fair trial. This is why the little guy has always mattered. When corporations begin extorting the world. Its always the little guy who makes a difference.
  • colonelmustard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2a victory is ours!
  • cvelusc, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1Check out the Digg count (666) after I Dugg this myself. Coincidence? Maybe. Could there be something else at play? http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/844/6660xh.jpg
    • bairy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Well since 666 is an actual number, and the digg count tends to increment, I would say that yes, it's just a coincidence [/literal]
    • chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9that happens with every story that gets at least 666 diggs..
    • zeptobyte, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It started at 1, and is (as of the posting of this comment) at 912, so the IVT tells us that it must have, at some point, been 666. So I wouldn't say it's much of a sign. But on the other hand, it's not a coincidence..
    • APretender, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4You're an idiot.
  • Johannesrexx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2None of this matters unless it makes the six O'Clock news, cnn online, and the bbc online.
  • kbastuba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It seems worth pointing out that the court hasn't actually awarded attorney's fees. In the opinion, the court only states that Foster is eligible to receive attorney's fees, not that she is entitled to fees, which basically means that if she files a suit asking for fees, then the court will look into whether she should actually be awarded fees. Also, the court goes out of its way to say that attorney fees should not be awarded routinely or as a matter of course. So yes, it's a victory, but probably not as big of a victory as the article made it sound like.
  • Crazyviolinist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4 While it is a legal victory since it actually sets a precedent for file sharing cases, the fact remains that the RIAA is still continuing on its path of litigation. You'd think they would be smart enough to give up rather than waste more money fighting precedent again and again. Guess not.
    • actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This isn't a precedent at all. Corpus delicti has been a basic principle of the US legal system for quite some time. The ruling doesn't in any way affect the laws regarding copyright infringement.
  • dengzhi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"This is hardly the first setback for the RIAA, which has previously sued grandmothers, both living and dead"
    • CatalystGhost, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Please tell me, do you really need to put quotation marks around what you're saying? This is, after all, a comment system, so we can all safely assume what you're typing is your own thoughts conveyed with words, even if it isn't actual speech.
    • MaVeRiCK42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ CatalystGhost

      Just so you know, he is quoting from the article
  • punkrockxtian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I actually smiled when I saw this article. Maybe I'm a little too passionate, but today, today is a good day.
  • bass0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sorry not to read all the comments before mine... there must be hundreds!

    There was a recent article somewhere about the present being the Golden Age of the Internet. As our lives are expanding into the digital domain, legal systems fail to adapt quickly enough and there we are, with a lot of grey areas between right and wrong, between law and crime.

    This era's easy accessibility of software and content resembles as if somebody had robbed a bank and was throwing cash all over the street from the open roof of their van. Everybody goes for it, not caring that it was stolen, not willing to see past the fact that it's being given to them.

    Until there are credit cards.

    Times will change for the Internet and P2P, too. Or the global economy system. One of them is going to give up (or give in), sooner or later.
  • richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Finally sweet justice, I hope everyone fights the RIAA just because they are a corrupt money hungry evil sue your dead mother bunch of assholes.
  • decomp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's so nice to see the right thing getting done for once. Makes you feel good, ya know? It's sad not everybody knows right from wrong.
  • DevilsFan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"If you don't feel that it's wrong to download music, it's probably because your livelihood doesn't depend on it. You can call it "sharing" or whatever happy little label you feel like, but it's still the same thing."

    No one has an inherent right to make a living doing any particular thing. Intellectual property is not real property because it is not a scarce commodity, except by legislative fiat. Only things that are scarce have a real cost associated with them (supply and demand). That's why water is essentially free even though it has infinate value to humans, because there is a virtual limitless supply of it. When a million digital copies can be made of something for no cost, that item is esssentially worthless.
    • Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That's *****, and I am one of those "Put the RIAA up against the wall holding their children and shoot the bastards!" people.
      Intelectual Property has a value and it should be rewarded. Without that reward there is no reason to share that information. BUT unless you can prove that it's creation was devoid of any other human influence, you should recognize that as a part of the human race, the cultures you come from, and the American culture (if you are American), that you have created that IP in have influenced your abilty to create, and that is very large way we all, as a society, can lay some claim to it. Further more, when you offer your IP for sale, you make a choice to requish some ownership of it for profit to those who purchase it. As with any property you sell, you also loose some control over it's use.

      It's not that this information has no value because it CAN be copied, it's that you sold a share of it's value, and it wasn't 100% yours to start of with.
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You guys are arguing about different semantics.

      You are both right. 'Value' in the sense of scarcity doesn't exist anymore with IP. The digital age is here. That's simply the way it's going ot be no matter how loud the RIAA/MPAA go kicking and screaming about it.

      Value in the sense of sellability is still there, of course. And if the RIAA/MPAA would wake up and realize that if they just sold the ***** for less money, more people would buy more ***** and everyone would be ***** happy.
  • kapitalken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Do you think they could prove any of these nuisance cases?
  • tboutcher, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3All I can say is w00t!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.