What is Digg?71 Comments
- marc2242, on 11/05/2007, -1/+35No models?
- sesstreets, on 11/02/2007, -2/+27"Continue to defend our rights"
As the RIAA, you don't have rights, so shut up. - noahhoward, on 11/02/2007, -2/+24"The [RIAA] told Ars that it wanted to resolve the case in a "fair and reasonable" manner and accused Thomas of ducking her legal obligations."
Okay, she stole music, we all understand that, however, there is nothing fair or reasonable about a $222k fine. To think that the RIAA lost anything more than $60 from lost sales off of this one person is absolutely stupid. - MrSarcasm, on 11/05/2007, -1/+21Umm, diss-a-*****-pointing. Was I the only one expecting it to have "RIAA" or something similar written on the part which goes into the ass?
- SilentJay74, on 11/05/2007, -0/+16I agree something like "Get RIAA out of my ass".
- AmateurX, on 11/05/2007, -1/+10At least give me more than one design to choose from. Maybe something along the lines of "RIAA can kiss my A$$!"
- FuzzplugJones, on 11/01/2007, -2/+11Show your feelings towards the RIAA by NOT PURCHASING OR EVEN STEALING THEIR STUFF. Most of the stuff isn't worth LISTENING to much less going to jail for.
- jeremyduffy, on 11/02/2007, -5/+13Damn it. Jury selection is destroying our court system. All it would have taken was ONE person who knew what scum the RIAA is to hang that jury and avoid the sentence in the first place.
- t0nguet1ed, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7Who the hell buys a white thong? That's just asking for skid marks..
- PA42, on 11/02/2007, -3/+101) sentence? They didn't send her to jail.
2) you want someone bias against a party on a jury? That would be like if someone sued you and the jury contained someone who thought "what scum" you were.
3) Civil proceedings typically don't need a unanimous verdict, therefore 1 person could not cause a hung jury. - hurtsdonut, on 11/02/2007, -4/+11that's what bankruptcy is for....This lady's never going to pay 22k let alone 220k. Plus, she wasn't the right test case to go to trail anyway. Her case and arguments were weak, she had no wireless router, and wiped her hard-drive mysteriously. Basically, she ***** up. I want to see a better case go to trail .
- strictnein, on 11/02/2007, -1/+7Being on a jury isn't about you deciding what's right and wrong based on your own personal feelings about those involved in the case. It's about deciding what is right and wrong based on the laws of the country you live in.
- zeromancer, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6to which i respond, perhaps you aren't as heterosexual as you think you are. by not clicking said link, you admit to not being comfortable enough with your sexuality to see something that may have something to do with a member of the same sex in a thong.
- specko, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5It is legal to download however it is ILLEGAL to host and/or provide copyrighted content.
http://www.news.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html - inactive, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5We all should just go nude till this is resolved and our rights are returned!
- Ratteler, on 11/02/2007, -1/+6Don't buy panties to protest... HUNT Judge Michael J. Davis down like a ***** dog. If he so much as spits on the sidewalk... have a picture and hold his traitorous, criminal ass to account.
Better to pay for an Investigator that can dig up the dirt on this corrupt judge who allowed the introduction of evidence obtained through the commission of criminal eavesdropping by a private corporation, without any due process, into his court.
Further more, he instructed the Jury that the RIAA needed to provide NO evidence that any file sharing took place, or that the songs were in fact the ones they claimed.
He's OBVIOUSLY taken a payoff in some form. If not cash, certainly political favor, and doesn't deserve the right to vote, never mind sit on a bench of law.
We are legion. If we put one fingers worth of effort into hunting down these ***** that we do into whining about it... there would be no RIAA terrorism, or sympathizers! - TheAngryMob, on 11/02/2007, -1/+6No thanks. I think I've taken it up the @$$ long enough from those characters.
- localzuk, on 11/02/2007, -0/+5Last I checked, the RIAA doesn't own copyrights - they represent other organisations who do. So they aren't defending anything of their own - just that of their puppet masters
- hexydes, on 11/02/2007, -1/+6Maintain? I think the phrase you're looking for is "infinitely expand".
- Chicken, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4How can it possibly be not calculated? they know how much they pay for each and every little thing.
- DJS2005, on 11/01/2007, -2/+6Can you show me where it is written in Canadian law that downloading copywritten music is legal? I have my doubts...
- badnewsblair, on 11/01/2007, -1/+5Also, news flash:
GIRLS WEAR THONGS, TOO! - ripstuntz, on 11/02/2007, -3/+7I'll just go ahead and "blind digg" this purely because it discourages the RIAA.
- freshgrease, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Neither of the two were accomplished. The RIAA values music like a child values his crappy "only a mother could love" drawings. To them, the value of one song stolen is the limit of f(x)= x where x approaches infinity (equaling infinity dollars). I am not discouraged , and they weren't compensated (in their own mind), so both goals failed.
Besides, if you can not determine a loss's value, the defendant shouldn't be charged by what the plaintiff pulls out of its ass. IT would be like suing a visitor to the RIAA's headquarters who refused to pay for the air they breathed. Sure, the RIAA has ownership of that building and everything within, but how do you charge for air that cost the RIAA nothing? Do you listen to a couple of dicks who claim the defendant stole their air and re-distributed it, and then they demand the retarded jury to award them $222K for their dramatic loss? I think not. - hexydes, on 11/02/2007, -2/+5And this is the problem the RIAA is up against today. Literally, it doesn't matter what they do, they are wrong from here on out. They could spend $100m helping kittens with eye goop problems, and an article would get written about the RIAA's secret kitten agendas, and everyone would hate them even more.
Good for them. It is a reputation and a situation well deserved. They forgot that in capitalism, the corporation has a lot of power, but you piss enough of the market off, and that power is literally torn from your hands and you are left with nothing.
I'd say they have about five years before they learn how that works, first-hand. - GreenAlien, on 11/02/2007, -1/+4Don't the courts and RIAA realise that by giving someone a 222k fine you're practically ***** up their life. And what for, because she shared a handful of music files by using bittorrent software who's default function is to automatically share what it downloads..She didn't go out of her way to make someone's life a misery, she didn't drown a kitten, she didnt steal from a pensioner. She didnt even develop a website and manually upload music to share/sell. This is just madness. Those that say she deserved it because she tried to stand up to the RIAA need to get a grip. I'd like to see someone put a list of serious crimes together in order of punishment, including this RIAA saga. It needs to be put into context to show just how ridiculous it is.
Here's a request to the muslim extremists out there. If you want to make a public point against capitalism turn your attention to the likes of the RIAA. You'll get just as much media attention, hit capitalism where it hurts, and you'll even have non-muslims thanking you. Never thought I'd be saying that but that's just how out of hand the RIAA have got. - VinceNoir, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2I should have been clearer. I'm not speaking about the law or the procedure. I'm speaking about ethical behavior on the part of the legal system and the business interests using it to put this woman to financial death. For the purposes of my comment, I'm not commenting on the case itself, but on the law and how it is manipulated by business for it's own gain regardless of the effects on faceless individuals. If this was done in a fair and equitable way, they would have confiscated her PC and studied it for clues as to how many people may have downloaded the file. They would have requested whatever information her ISP could have provided to aid in determining this. Then they would have limited the cost to the number of people who downloaded tracks multiplied by a generic base per/track cost. That would have given them something fair to work with in terms of real punishment for her lapse in judgment. Of course it wouldn't be as newsworthy then. And they wouldn't be able to make an example out of her. In this case, to fine her for the large sum of money they're asking is to essentially putting her to death (financially speaking) publicly. They will ruin her life if she will actually be held accountable for that sum. Regardless of her guilt in the matter, the punishment does not fit the crime.
If I idiotically lifted ten copies of ten albums from a record store totally about $2000 worth of product, should I be fined over ten times that amount? That's the problem I have with this. Sure, she should be made to feel some pain for piracy if she actually did pirate the music. No, she should not need to die. - Zero2aHero, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2What the ***** are you talking about? What you just proposed is really ***** frightening and is just as extremist as the RIAA's tactics.
- Xtracti0n, on 11/02/2007, -1/+3Firing Squad / RIAA = good watch! ;P scumbags ftw.
- AmateurX, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2good point. I was referring to all the other merch...
- PA42, on 11/02/2007, -1/+3Because her liability is for UPLOADING the files, not downloading. It is difficult, yet possible to determine how many people downloaded those files, but impossible to tell who downloaded it from the downloaders. More importantly, the damage is also effected by how the infringement hurt the value of the IP, meaning that when someone gets something for free, others are less likely to pay for it. That figure is impossible to calculate.
- PA42, on 11/01/2007, -1/+3What rights are you missing?
- hexydes, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2How cool would it be to raise enough money, such that not only is she able to pay the judgment money to the RIAA, but she actually profits? Like say $300,000 is raised. She could pay off the $222,000, and still have $78,000 left over. Not only is she in the clear legally, but she actually PROFITED by illegally downloading music and getting sued.
I think that would be a very good thing to be able to send to all the news agencies. When the RIAA sues, YOU WIN! - WorldFrontPage, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2The cover for a $222,000 CD: http://www.worldfrontpage.com/cd_cover
- VinceNoir, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2While that might be true. Don't you think her accountability should end at the level of the people who downloaded from her? The responsibility for any further downloaders would rest at the people who downloaded from her and so on. Otherwise the RIAA is double dipping should they happen to hold her and one of her downloaders responsible for all subsequent downloads.
- inactive, on 11/02/2007, -1/+3Even if you consider it stealing, in comparison, paying $222,000 restitution for stealing a stereo is nuts. She shouldn't pay more than $100 dollars for the songs. Complete idiocy on the jury's part.
- Wartz, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2in otherwords, you are really gay because you dont like seeing women in a thong
- garabito, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Show your fillings towards the RIAA, by donating money that will go to the RIAA at the end
- djdingo, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Confucius say, panties not best thing on earth, but next to it.
- edwartica, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3You're not gay enough? In other words, you are partly gay. Saying you are not gay enough is saying you are partly gay.
- hexydes, on 11/02/2007, -2/+3They should just execute her. Wouldn't that teach all those "thiefs" a lesson?!
Sorry, but punative would be something like $5,000, that hurts, but you can still get by. They literally just dropped a house on her (in the form of basically paying a mortgage for a second house). Unless enough funds are raised, she will literally be paying for this for the rest of her life. Think about that. This is excessive, and the fact that the courts let this happen shows that our system is broken, at least as far as this aspect of law is concerned. - cliffski, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1cool. lets not give any money to the artists who make the ***** music, but give it to some dumb bitch who thought she would steal it, then act all innocent when she got caught great plan!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111
- VladmirPutin, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3I have only one thing to say to you.
demonoid dot com - Interestingness, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1oh, will show you some models! http://ThunkDifferent.com
- noahhoward, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1How does that align with 'fair'?
- Zero2aHero, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1Avoiding her responsibility in the sense that she took this to court foolishly, and now rather than facing the consequences of multiple stupid actions on her part... she is trying to get others to pay her debt. I find this whole charade to be pretty ***** ridiculous and completely undignified. Everyone file shares, but do you really think it's ok? People CLAIM to do it because they aren't happy with the product, and while I agree that the RIAA needs a new business model... that doesn't change the fact that people file share because they don't want to pay for stuff. The same mindset that made her steal music in the first place, is the mindset that is still making her not want to pay the price... for anything.
- ronaldinho, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1I'm sure if someone IS wearing that thong to show that support, I don't think people are really looking at the design but thinking of ways to play with what's underneath......of course, depending on who's wearing it
- SilverRocket, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1How's about some of you ladies showing me your feelings toward the RIAA!
- PA42, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1@Vince: You are missing the point. It's not double dipping because they don't use compensatory damages. The arguments over why she should be held liable for everyone who gets a hold of a file she uploads are strong, as are the arguments against this practice. To avoid double dipping, give juries the power to determine liability and because the true loss is uncalculatable, the courts moved to statutory damages.
- cliffski, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1you have posted some of the most inane, childlike scrawl i have ever encountered in diggs history. how old are you 7? a judge rightfully upholds a jury verdict against someone who cl early and BLATANTLY was guilty of breaking copyright law on multiple occasions, lying to the court, attempting to destroy evidence, and then you want to stalk the judge because the verdict means you might be at risk of prosecution for knowingly breaking the law?
GROW UP KID. this is the real world, and people breaking the law get caught and prosecuted. DEAL WITH IT. -
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is