What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
114 Comments
- ScrewedThePooch, on 06/12/2009, -6/+82***** THE RIAA!
- Waiting2awake, on 06/12/2009, -3/+58Help me out if I am wrong, but doesn't media sentry use, for lack of a better term, spying to get the information they are looking for? Did this just say that doing that isn't illegal?
IF that is the case, then maybe that Judge should be made to realize how spying on the net can used against anyone.
Who knew that a judge, may, have some midget porn proclivities. If it isn't against the law finding that out... - JackSchittt, on 06/12/2009, -4/+43I really don't see what the problem here is.
I do somewhat question their tossing of the "private investigator" issue. Since Thomas was a resident of Minnesota at the time of Media Sentry's recording of her activities, doesn't that alone mean that they actually *were* "conducting activities in Minnesota"?
The judge made the correct ruling regarding the rest of it.
And the "fair use" argument got thrown out on a technicality. There was a window where she could have used the "fair use" defense. That window has long since been closed. It sucks to be her, but if that's the argument she wanted to use, she should have done so when the window of opportunity was open.
I do agree with the Judge's opinion that the damages were way overblown. $220,000+ for the equivalent of 3 CDs? CEOs have robbed millions from stockholders and walked away with less than that in fines. The amount of money that the RIAA/MPAA wants from those caught illegally downloaded is utterly ridiculous and blown way out of proportion. Hopefully, at the very least, the judgement against her will be brought down to a more realistic level this time around. - kfcurley, on 06/11/2009, -11/+48One word describes this - unbelievable!
- uknowwhoibe, on 06/12/2009, -25/+60Honorable Michael J Davis
300 S 4th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
(612) 664-5070
You know what to do. - PlusTheBear, on 06/11/2009, -10/+37Hopefully a judge that knows about human rights can overturn this.
- CaptainPanda, on 06/12/2009, -4/+31Doesn't the penalty violate the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution with the cruel and unusual punishment of $222,000 for 24 songs?
- spanky6256000, on 06/11/2009, -4/+27I still don't understand why she didn't claim fair use in the first trial.
- Suzilla, on 06/12/2009, -3/+23By the judge's logic, setting up and using a packet-sniffer on a network located in the US, by someone in another country, does not constitute spying since that person "engages in no activities in the US".
Sometimes the law is a ass. - inactive, on 06/12/2009, -12/+32So it's ok for me to hack the judges computer and for that matter any network I like as long as I am looking for evidence of piracy? Me thinks this will mean we will have to set all the convicted hackers free!
- Zippo, on 06/12/2009, -6/+25Ugh... disgusting.
***** big corporations telling me how I can and cannot use media. The legal consumers are restricted and treated like criminals... meanwhile, pirates are able to enjoy their media in any way they like. - maz2331, on 06/12/2009, -2/+20These are side issues anyway. The biggie is the amount of statutory damages.
- johnnall, on 06/12/2009, -2/+20Because sharing ripped songs is not fair use. Ripping CD for your own MP3 collection...yes. Sharing your collection with the world.....no.
- WinZiggy, on 06/12/2009, -2/+18That would be for the supreme court to decide.
- tyme, on 06/12/2009, -5/+21All of the points the Judge makes are valid and true, if you follow the law.
Stop whining just because a Judge is following the law as it's laid down.
You don't have any expectation of privacy while on a P2P network, unless you've setup a proxy or other method of concealing your IP/source. Only if MediaSentry bypassed such measures would they have violated and privacy laws.
Please read the law and understand the arguments made before passing judgement. While we don't want ***** judges making bad rulings, we shouldn't be jumping on judges who are being fair and impartial just because we don't like what they're saying.
In other words: grow up and start understanding that the law doesn't always pan out in your favor. Whiny *****. - maz2331, on 06/12/2009, -2/+17Attempting to influence a Federal judge in any way is a major felony.
- deema1, on 06/12/2009, -3/+18Ha! Officials stopped looking at that document a long time ago.
- stubear, on 06/12/2009, -0/+14Not really, that is if you bothered to read the article. FTA:
"Defendant failed to raise the fair use defense in her Answer, at any time before the First Trial, during the First Trial, or at any time leading up to this retrial until only two weeks before retrial," said the judge. "This litigation has gone on for years, yet Plaintiffs had no inkling of this defense until the eve of trial. Because Plaintiffs had no notice of this defense, they have taken no discovery regarding Defendant’s alleged fair use defense. The record in this case, with which this Court is intimately familiar, gave no hint that a fair use defense would be forthcoming. It would be highly prejudicial to Plaintiffs to allow Defendant to assert this new affirmative defense on the eve of retrial, when they have no opportunity to conduct discovery on this issue..."
Sorry, but this just sounds like amateur hour by Kiwi. - wigren, on 06/12/2009, -4/+18Leave him the ***** alone? He is a judge, and one of the fairer ones in this whole circus. Please don't take your adolescent anger out on him.
- Avalontor, on 06/12/2009, -3/+15I'm so glad you understood the story correctly. or did you?
- Stingwolf, on 06/12/2009, -7/+18Here is your detailed explanation:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson - scriptcoder, on 06/12/2009, -0/+10They are merely observing the IPs currently downloading a file. This information is available for all and does not constitute "spying" as the user knows that their IP is being broadcast.
- Stingwolf, on 06/12/2009, -2/+12"Help me out if I am wrong, but doesn't media sentry use, for lack of a better term, spying to get the information they are looking for? Did this just say that doing that isn't illegal?"
The difference in this case is that they took no information which was not given, willingly even if not wittingly, to the public. When you connect a shared folder to Kazaa, you advertise your IP address to anyone who asks for the files you're sharing. All the "spy" has to do is, essentially, ask Kazaa for the information you're advertising.
"Who knew that a judge, may, have some midget porn proclivities. If it isn't against the law finding that out..."
The difference here is that finding that out, supposedly, requires accessing the judge's computer without permission, which is illegal. However, if the judge posted such things on a publicly accessible website, it would be well within your rights to "spy" on him. The latter case is essentially the same thing that happened with Thomas.
I always thought this defense was a long shot, and, while I hate the RIAA and their tactics, it is a good ruling. They should be defeated through actual definitive channels, not through some legal smoke and mirrors, twisting the law just to get a favorable verdict. That's what we're -against-, remember? - RealmDown, on 06/12/2009, -5/+14Hopefully a judge (unlike this one) that knows the law too.
- RealmDown, on 06/12/2009, -2/+9inconceivable !
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 06/12/2009, -1/+8Note that web radio (hell, even REAL radio) doesn't pay fees this high for an entire YEAR for broadcasting EVERYTHING to EVERYONE in EVERYWHERE.
So yeah, it's disproportionate in the extreme... - Stingwolf, on 06/12/2009, -1/+8Absolutely. That is the sort of fundamental ruling we need to see in these cases. These legal spin tactics are weakening the case. Even if the unlicensed PI argument got through, it would only be a minor setback to the RIAA legal machine. This is why they've already dropped MediaSentry; they already know what's coming in future cases. Also, there never was a Fair Use defense here, as redistributing content in its entirety has never been, and never will be, Fair Use.
We need to see a ruling that cripples their ability to even bring suit. Something along the lines of proving -actual- damages instead of statutory, or severely lessening the amount of statutory reward at stake. Another great precedent would be to award attorney's fees to prevailing defendants, especially if the RIAA withdraws the case as soon as it starts losing. The Andersen case might have provided this precedent. - aznhomig, on 06/12/2009, -0/+6Finally, sanity to this thread.
As much as I hate the RIAA for their methodology, the judge is not at fault here. - WasabiBomb, on 06/12/2009, -2/+8I don't think that word means what you think it means.
- SalmonGod, on 06/12/2009, -2/+8Such anti-capitalist sentiment from a founding father!
One of my favorite quotes :) - stubear, on 06/12/2009, -4/+10The penalty is not based on the cost of purchasing the song in a store, it's based on licensing the same song for the rights typically reserved for the copyright holder. P2P file-sharing is distribution in "web-savvy" speak, nothing more and distribution is a right under current copyright law. Now bury me because you don't like what I have to say, not that it's inaccurate or anything.
- aznhomig, on 06/12/2009, -1/+6What does human rights have to do with this? This is a civil suit in which there is no jail time or punishment involved, only monetary damages that Jammie Thomas is likely able to go bankrupt upon.
- tgc1, on 06/12/2009, -1/+6***** them up their stupid asses!
- HonoredMule, on 06/13/2009, -0/+5It has been pretty widely established in the case law of most countries that people and servers online are bound to the laws in place where they are physically located and not necessarily to most laws in non-local places where their influence/operation reaches. Ultimately, this is the best and possibly only workable way to resolve legal responsibility, as anything else would be a legal nightmare and cripple the freedom and operation of the internet.
Without such ruling, everything from thepiratebay.org (intellectual property) to public forums (needing common-carrier/safe-harbor type protection) to to online banks (encrypted communications) to sites offering services like background checks (privacy laws) would be legally responsible for the laws of other countries with which they are not compliant. In most situations where it looks like there might be a major loophole for crime, non-cyber-law often still applies according to the location of the act and not the actor. Besides which, most civilized countries mostly agree on all the real major stuff anyway. - ShadowofAres, on 06/12/2009, -1/+6Welcome to Law?
- tgc1, on 06/12/2009, -5/+9Something tells me this sort of precedent, if it goes on to signal corporations to go on a spying spree, will bring about a retaliation of epic proportions. You don't ***** with the internet. There are people out there who know how to do things that would blow your mind right out of your skull. And these delinquents, the RIAA et al, have no idea who they are dealing with.
I mean if the prospect of a 15 year old controlling 50,000 computers simultaneously and on a whim can bring down a network with a few keystrokes doesnt scare you, then you're probably just as lost in the dark as these idiot companies. I mean imagine, if you will, a group of 15 year olds with similar bot nets at their disposal. Now imagine several thousand of these people in various groups... just itching for a reason to bring down your network. I mean maybe your network can sit through a DDoS attack for a few hours. But how about a few days? How about a few weeks? How about when they start engineering random attacks? There are repercussions that will come from this type of activity, that these companies cannot even begin to fathom. And if they start spying on us, they are *****.
I'm really not worried. But i'll tell you one thing. If the Pirate Bay trial has shown us anything it is one thing. YOU DO NOT ***** WITH THE INTERNET. - greevar, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4They can't actually. The Pirate Bay has already proven that using IPs as a way of identifying a file sharer is wholly unreliable. Unrelated IPs can easily be injected and therefore skew any evidence toward proving wrongdoing of the accused party.
- laminac, on 06/12/2009, -2/+6I do somewhat question their tossing of the "private investigator" issue. Since Thomas was a resident of Minnesota at the time of Media Sentry's recording of her activities, doesn't that alone mean that they actually *were* "conducting activities in Minnesota"?
that is what makes the internet such a gray area when you refer to location. Technically they didn't have any equipment, employees, ect. in Minnesota. Since they weren't in Minnesota why would they need a permit to spy on someone, in fact they might not of even known the person was in Minnesota since they only had an ip address. Although typically you can get somewhat close just by the IP, but you can never really know for sure.
as for the rest of your comment I agree completely.
as a side note I doubt fair use would work, the test just doesn't add up. - scriptcoder, on 06/12/2009, -1/+5Why because they looked at the IP addresses currently seeding a file? Anyone can do that and all P2P users know that their address is being broadcasted. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
- JeSTeRSeVeN, on 06/12/2009, -4/+8Recording the IP address of someone who connects to YOUR system is not spying, not illegal, and should be allowed in the court of law. Think about it, you would not be able to prosecute a hacker attacking your network because you recorded their IP address unlawfully? That's ridiculous.
- locojones, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4Maybe if you guys would actually take some time to inform yourselves about the law and the Constitution, then you'd realize that the 8th Amendment has no applicability in civil disputes between private parties.
- greevar, on 06/13/2009, -0/+3***** the MAFIAA
- cubicledrone, on 06/12/2009, -4/+7"That would be for the supreme court to decide."
It's for the people to decide. A little less authority worship and a little more thinking would make that clear.
The Constitution is written in clear language that is very easy to understand. The Supreme Court does not rule this nation, nor are they the Constitution. The People of the United States govern this nation, and the Eighth Amendment's use of the word "unusual" also implies the word "excessive." - kukurio, on 06/12/2009, -0/+3@cubicledrone,
I know that the Supreme Court isn't the law; my point was that if the SCOTUS has already said that something is unconstitutional, lower judges may ignore the legislature when the legislature makes laws violating the Constitution. For example, if a state decided to make a law banning abortion outright, the lower courts would be forced to ignore it, because in Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS ruled that the implicit right to privacy in the Constitution protects abortions. However, lower courts cannot decide for themselves whether something is or isn't Constitutional. - NinjaBanana, on 06/12/2009, -1/+4Don't like it? Then make your own music or buy only music produced by indie labels.
- harlowsmonkeys, on 06/12/2009, -0/+3Jury nullification only applies to criminal cases.
- PopcornDave, on 06/13/2009, -0/+3And apparently doing the same outside of MN isn't illegal either as long as you don't have an entity inside MN so you'd need to be licensed. Very odd indeed.
- SalmonGod, on 06/12/2009, -3/+6"Well fun because that means the draconian laws will soon follow."
You mean they're not here already? Isn't that what this article was about?
Please define for me what you mean by criminal or *****... or "lost to" for that matter. Until you can give me definitions which aren't debatable or even wholly subjective, then I would rather face the wrath of draconian laws than submit willingly to definitions of right and wrong forced upon me by illegitimate authority.
I'll grant that internet culture is far from ideal. The ugliest sides of humanity show themselves quite prominently here, but so do the good sides. That's the thing. It's all out in the open here. Look at the very conversation we are having here and now. I'm at work right now, and if I tried to have this conversation with the person sitting next to me and somebody around me complained or a manager overheard, I would face consequences. The real world is full of forces claiming authority over me by no other right than leverage of violence or access to necessities, and they use that authority to mold me on a daily basis into someone I'm not. I spend at least 8 hours of my life every ***** day as nothing more than a robot.
On the internet I am completely myself and nobody can stop me, and I bring harm to no-one in the process. I speak my mind and if someone disagrees we can engage in meaningful discourse, trade unfriendly words, or simply practice the core anarchist principle of free association.
This is the only "place" in the world I have ever felt freedom. The day any illegitimate authoritarian ***** actually manages to take this from me is the day I have nothing left to lose. Knowing that other people feel remotely the same is one of the only things which still gives me hope.
And while DDOS attacks may sound lame, they're a great example of anarchist principles in action. An invading force tries its crap in a free realm and individuals will show them how unwelcome they are, non-violently and without any need for centralized authoritarian hierarchy - just individuals acting on their personal judgement practicing free association. Those individuals may face real-world repercussions, but they're still only individuals and a movement based on nothing but individuals cannot be destroyed. De-centralized community structures are another core anarchist principle, and the internet is doing a great job of showing just how powerful they really are. - Suricou, on 06/12/2009, -0/+3The damages were specified for copyright infringement a long time before P2P networks were ever a factor. The last time any law of significence in that field was passed was the NET act in 1997 - two years before even Napster was first released.
The NET act had two important effects. Firstly, it broadened the definition of commercial infringement to include infringement with expectation of recieving other infringing material in return - eg, if you were to hand someone a copy of movie X in exchange for a copy of movie Y, it's legally exactly the same as if you sold it for money.
The second effect was to raise the penalties - in fines, prison time, and damages.
Under the NET act, the maximum penalty for one infringement is five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and $150,000 in damages. All at once. That's per infringement - if you uploaded a thousand songs, you could in theory go to jail for five millenia, be fined $250million, and pay damages of $150million. Though in practice, very few judges would be willing to impose the maximum the law allows under those circumstances. - cubicledrone, on 06/12/2009, -3/+5"A lot of people don't realize that lower courts can't make Constitutional judgments like that unless the SCOTUS has already spelled it out for them."
The Congress of the United States disagrees, and that's why there are checks against the Supreme Court's power.
"Judges such as the one in the article are bound to follow the Supreme Court first, and the law second."
The Constitution is the law, not the Supreme Court.
"he is bound to follow the law, regardless of what he may or may not think of it."
And the law is the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. -
Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is