What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
236 Comments
- YouAreDead, on 06/25/2009, -6/+429***** the riaa
- Antiman1337, on 06/25/2009, -1/+394My god, their greed never ceases to amaze me.
- YouAreDead, on 06/25/2009, -5/+329***** the mpaa
- chadsmith729, on 06/25/2009, -1/+199You know the worst part about those lawsuit happy RIAA ***** is that we the taxpayers are the ones who have to pay.
I'll explain:
1.) Every lawsuit that the RIAA files it has to go through the court system. The court system in turn is paid by us, the taxpayers of whatever state that they are in.
2.) When the RIAA files a lawsuit against you, you will need to hire a lawyer to fight back. Even though you did nothing wrong you still need a lawyer or the RIAA will win hands down.
3.) When the RIAA files a fictitious lawsuit with the name of "John Doe" it undermines the whole point of privacy. They know your IP, but have no idea who you are. The ISP says "no get the ***** out of here I'm not telling you who that is" so the RIAA gets a judge to force the ISP to hand over the information. Thus leading back to #2.
4.) If the RIAA deems that #3 produced no valid issues, they drop the lawsuit, which eats more time and leads back to #1
So, therefore ***** THE RIAA is quite appropriate. - krispykreams, on 06/25/2009, -0/+148Does the RIAA actually DO anything? ...like, you know, aside from just getting lawyers and suing everyone.
- FoxFaction, on 06/25/2009, -0/+102Next RIAA will be suing people for having songs stuck in their head. "It's not part of the licensing agreement to duplicate the song in any fashion!" *rolleyes*
- MrOsis, on 06/25/2009, -0/+100it looks like they dropped it
probably to avoid further embarrassment - HurricaneDC, on 06/25/2009, -21/+111Can somebody pay al-Qaeda to 'take care' of the RIAA headquarters?
- Khast, on 06/25/2009, -2/+81Harvesting IP addresses will tell you absolutely nothing. What is stopping me from reporting a bogus IP address when I do P2P? You know, like a proxy?
However, how in the ***** do you get an IP address from someone who doesn't even have a computer??? Do the ISPs issue an IP address to everyone, hoping that they will sign up for service later down the road?
Written from 127.0.0.1 ....come get me. >:) - UKeTommyV, on 06/25/2009, -6/+84!............/ /) ..........................(\ '\
.........,/...../ / ............................ \\.....\
........./... / / ..................................\\....\
......./...../' '/......(.`.... ...............' )...,;'\.....\'.
./'/.../..../ .....:^. /....\ ............./..."`\\''...\....\..'\`\
('(............ ... _/'...'/ ............\`..`\_....`...`. ...)')
\............ .....'...../ ...............\......................./
.'\'...\ .... ...... _.... .................`;._........./...'/
...\........ ......( .......................)............../
....\.... ..........\ ..................../................/
***** you RIAA - Zippo, on 06/25/2009, -0/+70Not any more... that's pretty much their business model now.
- tofagerl, on 06/25/2009, -2/+68Wait, so did they settle, or drop the case?
- Kuci06, on 06/25/2009, -1/+64***** THE RIAA
- sb66, on 06/25/2009, -1/+63I'd like to see the names and addresses of all RIAA employees publicized on the web. Its actually surprising that it hasn't happened yet. Then hassle the ***** out of them until no one is willing to work there.
- Frankttank, on 06/25/2009, -7/+64"Written from 127.0.0.1 ....come get me."
win. - Fhwqhgads, on 06/25/2009, -4/+53am I too late to post "***** the riaa"?
- Zippo, on 06/25/2009, -0/+47***** MediaSentry.
- enri, on 06/25/2009, -0/+44The court should charge the RIAA $1.92 million dollars each time they do this for wasting the people's judicial resources. Maybe that will encourage them to at least verify their info before suing.
- inactive, on 06/25/2009, -0/+43it's never to late to ***** the riaa.
- TheUngod, on 06/25/2009, -1/+43She could live in an apartment building or multi family unit. Or someone could have lived there who had a computer, but not her. There are reasons this could happen.
- kevinsmb, on 06/25/2009, -1/+40riaa case= epic fail
- caramba421, on 06/25/2009, -0/+38Let's just trick O'Reilly into telling the whackjobs that the RIAA is performing abortions.
Problem solved! - alexkim804, on 06/25/2009, -0/+38Anonymous needs to target the RIAA as well as scientology
- Frankttank, on 06/25/2009, -1/+35you forgot all caps
- ProjectGSX, on 06/25/2009, -0/+32Good news would be the RIAA LOSING. They settled. Not the same, no legal precedent set. Not good news.
- hulahoophugs, on 06/25/2009, -0/+30who doesn't have a computer?
- inactive, on 06/25/2009, -0/+28Need to counter-sue for $20 billion in lost time from a fraudulent case. If they can put ridiculous arbitrary numbers on their product's value then so should we.
- hymneforthedead, on 06/25/2009, -1/+28on it.
- ShadowFusion, on 06/25/2009, -0/+26These daily news stories inspire me to go download things i normally wouldnt.. thank you riaa
- cygnus2112, on 06/25/2009, -0/+26"In a document filed last September, Roy describes every person in her household who might have “discoverable information” relevant to her defense. From that document, we learn that the home did possess a Dell computer of some kind, but that Roy’s husband did not know how to use it. Roy herself used it but “did not use it to download or upload any music files.”
Roy does have two children living at home, one 22 and one 19. While these might seem like far more likely targets of the lawsuit, Roy claims that neither child used the family computer (which is apparently quite old) in the last four years, and that neither has a computer of their own.
Roy’s home computer actually became nonfunctional in the spring of 2007 and was removed from her home by her brother, who took it to his house to fix it. He found a machine infected with “one or more viruses” and then replaced the hard drive, recycling the original." - pigfister, on 06/25/2009, -1/+26EDUCATE YOUR CHILDREN, GET YOUR CHILDREN TO EDUCATE THEIR FRIENDS, EDUCATE YOUR FRIENDS, DO NOT PURCHASE ANYTHING FROM ANY OF THE ASS HATS THAT RUN THE RIAA/MPAA ECT.
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate hardware DRM anymore.
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the ***** capitalist corporate globalist wankers from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
====================================================================
If payola wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:
Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtm ...
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326 ... - bugeye999, on 06/25/2009, -0/+24riaa = fail
- ExplosiveNixon, on 06/25/2009, -0/+23You have to have dignity in order to be embarrassed.
- HentaiJeff, on 06/25/2009, -1/+22we'd have to view them as heros then, how about we just get a domestic group to do it?
- BigmasterJay, on 06/25/2009, -0/+21Someone should organize a world wide music boycott of all record labels connected with the RIAA.
- Akairenn, on 06/25/2009, -0/+21It involves a cattle prod, a jar of vaseline and six midgets.
- fortheworld, on 06/25/2009, -2/+20tyzorg: You've never heard of someone getting a gym membership, going a few times and then never using it again? This sounds like the same thing. The money is debited each month from the account and the user is none the wiser.
- HonoredMule, on 06/25/2009, -0/+18Um, that's all they've ever done. The RIAA is especially a combined lobbyist/legal wing of the participating labels, and its primary purpose for existing in this externalized format is to absorb all the negative PR from what the labels want done. They've actually *expanded* to this format from what would originally have been something more like a traditional special interests group that only exists to exert unified lobbying pressure on an industry or government.
The RIAA/MPAA/etc. are essentially smoke screens with spiked clubs. - pigfister, on 06/25/2009, -0/+18EDUCATE YOUR CHILDREN, GET YOUR CHILDREN TO EDUCATE THEIR FRIENDS, EDUCATE YOUR FRIENDS, DO NOT PURCHASE ANYTHING FROM ANY OF THE ASS HATS THAT RUN THE RIAA/MPAA ECT.
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate hardware DRM anymore.
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the ***** capitalist corporate globalist wankers from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
====================================================================
If payola wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:
Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtm ...
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326 ... - MrSparkle666, on 06/25/2009, -0/+18Uhh... Are you sure? I'm no network security expert, but I don't think this is possibly with deep packet inspection. The proxy is what routes the packet to the correct IP address, so the packet shouldn't contain any information about its final destination unless the proxy is not doing it's job properly. That's the whole point of using a proxy.
- MrOsis, on 06/25/2009, -0/+18not soon enough....not soon enough
- Toadette, on 06/25/2009, -0/+18You know, thats actually a really good point. I'm not sure how the legal system works, but if the average taxpayer ends up paying for this waste of time, there is a lot more to be pissed off about.
- HonoredMule, on 06/25/2009, -0/+17Oh, *****.
As ridiculous as that sounds, it is the precise conclusion of the current letter of the law, especially where the current interpretation of how digital/virtual copies is heading.
It won't apply to your own music, but it will apply to others having a chance to overhear it...that's *making available* for virtual distribution!
On the other hand, I'll finally be able to do something about my noisy neighbors' music...at least until they start blasting creative commons. - serif69, on 06/25/2009, -0/+17Lots of us on digg don't have computers, as far as MediaSentry, the RIAA, and any other curious entities are aware.
- suntzusputnik, on 06/25/2009, -0/+17how does the RIAA find these people? is it the ISPs?
possibly relevant: i hate comcast - projectstartrek, on 06/25/2009, -0/+16not right now, we're busy ***** the riaa
- damack, on 06/25/2009, -0/+16The thing that astounds me is how little the rights of the average person mean.
I mean whether you think the RIAA and MPAA are wrong or right in many instances they've gone to court with outrageous allegations or no proof at all and been successful.
It really shows you how little your vote means when these money hungry ***** can run up and down you at their leisure.
Something really needs to be done about this they are punishing people and getting away with it. - Gyga, on 06/25/2009, -3/+19don't caps me bro!
- Soleanthia, on 06/25/2009, -0/+15After reading about the woman who has to pay $80,000 per song downloaded, things like this don't surprise me anymore. That just blew my mind away.
- Gyga, on 06/25/2009, -5/+19It might have been bundled in with their other services. Have you tried hooking up a phone/cable line without paying for internet too?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 237 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