What is Digg?284 Comments
- mrn111, on 06/26/2008, -1/+496"Andersen attorney Lory Lybeck requested $300,000 and the RIAA suggested $30,000 was more appropriate."
Yet, when it comes to collecting for "stolen" music.
"the RIAA filed a lawsuit against Russian owned and operated website AllOfMP3.com in the amount of $1.65 trillion ($1,650,000,000,000). This number was derived from multiplying 11 million songs with statutory damages of $150,000 per song." -Wiki
Litigation is the new business model. - imacommi, on 06/26/2008, -15/+413***** The RIAA!!!
- btschul, on 06/26/2008, -8/+343I would say "***** the RIAA", but I really don't think I have to in this case.
- Surferess, on 06/25/2008, -3/+269Chalk on up for the little guy, or girl in this case.
- inactive, on 06/26/2008, -7/+245Why hasn't anyone from the RIAA/MPAA been found randomly dead in their home or something by now?
I think there's only so much ***** you can take before people start taking matters into their own hands. - WallnutBoy, on 06/26/2008, -5/+184It is never a bad time to say
***** THE RIAA! - StatiK69, on 06/26/2008, -3/+158So in this case can we say the RIAA got *****?
- sindex, on 06/26/2008, -0/+152The RIAA should be required to pay this out before being allowed to bring more cases to court. They overcharge people when they sue, they sue with shoddy evidence, all in an attempt to incite fear in file sharers, then turn around and say the $50-100k people spend defending themselves against their baseless accusations isn't their problem? ***** that. And ***** them.
- pigfister, on 06/26/2008, -1/+138Don't say riaa, ect, name the companies so they can't hide behind the fronts they use to keep anonymity.
***** SONY
***** UNIVERSAL
***** WARNER GROUP
***** EMI
***** DISNEY
***** PARAMOUNT
***** FOX
The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX. - Albear89, on 06/26/2008, -3/+118Stealing? > = (
Sharing... > = ) - sk11, on 06/26/2008, -2/+108Sue not lest ye be sued.
- aaronbrannt, on 06/26/2008, -8/+106You're forgetting a major difference between stealing digital content and physical content...
"Stealing" an album online doesn't deprive the owner of the original album. You merely copy the data... It's not like it went missing. And besides, there's no guarantee that a person stealing music would buy music if they couldn't steal it.
If I had to pay money for albums, even $5 a piece, I would only own my very favorites. Artists need to focus on live performances, because no amount of vigilance will stop data theft. - ut2k4king, on 06/26/2008, -1/+93The RIAA is the equivalent of an evil little Oliver Twist walking around asking for a little bit more soup, but when someone asks them about the soup kitchen they robbed the day before they'll chop your balls off and act innocent. This group thrives off of the ability to point fingers, scream that pirates are stealing from music artists, win lawsuits, and then when the money comes in run off with it. I mean, most, probably all, of the artists whose music is involved in these suits never see a cent from this *****.
- LinkGCN4, on 06/26/2008, -15/+98Stealing music kicks ass.
- megamod, on 06/26/2008, -0/+81"The RIAA dropped the case against Andersen last year after concluding her hard drive didn't contain purloined music tracks. The RIAA initially claimed a Kazaa shared directory that linked to her internet-protocol address was unlawfully distributing thousands of songs."
Now THAT is lovely. Way to shut them up:
"but she stole our music. Just look in her hard drive...errm NVM" - chicoer2001, on 06/26/2008, -3/+81They wont pay. Have they ever payed?
- dsmx, on 06/26/2008, -1/+72But your not stealing it, under no legal definition is file sharing stealing. If it was stealing you could go to jail but you can only ever be fined, the cases are civil not legal.
- serif69, on 06/26/2008, -1/+66That's nice that the RIAA is suing a Russian company for more than that entire country's GDP:
GDP (official exchange rate): $1.286 trillion (2007 est.)
(from the CIA World Factbook)
I think I'll sue Sony for $5 trillion for being a member of the RIAA, since Japan's GDP is $4.384 trillion. - Wyattx17, on 06/26/2008, -4/+60That's great news! Now excuse me while I go and download some music.
- Rainemaker, on 06/26/2008, -1/+53They will pay. Oh, they will appeal first. But in the end, they will pay. There is one thing an attorney will fight for until s/he is blue in the face, and that is court ordered "prevailing party" fees. There is no better feeling than forcing the opposing party to pay you for beating them in court. It's so gratifying on so many different levels.
- BoneheadFarker, on 06/26/2008, -0/+46Now now...they are willing to reduce the amount they want from you. You just have to admit you're guilty of whatever they claim without them having to provide any real evidence, and pay them whatever new number they decide without question. So they aren't *completely* unreasonable...
- Chan815, on 06/26/2008, -3/+48you forgot to add /sarcasm at the end of your post
- xWURMx, on 06/26/2008, -2/+47In other news.......
Terrorists attack the RIAA & MPAA headquarters today which resulted in a mass party held worldwide - feoren, on 06/26/2008, -0/+43I was going to compare stealing a $0.99 song and having to pay $150,000 in damages to stealing a loaf of bread and having to pay $375,000, but then I realized something. When you steal bread, you're taking it from someone else who no longer has it. When you "steal" music, nobody actually suffers (even the RIAA, I wouldn't spend real money on 99.9% of the music I "steal", so nobody loses anything from me downloading it). In other words, this is like deciding not to buy a textbook for a class because the textbook industry demands your leg and a second mortgage for something that's not even usually necessary anyway, then realizing you can just photocopy it in case you want to refer to it once or twice, and having to pay 2.3 million dollars in damages for this non-crime. In other words, ***** the RIAA.
- Useight, on 06/26/2008, -0/+41Well, if that's the case, is she at least hot?
- frisbeeman, on 06/26/2008, -2/+42Your Troll-fu is weak
- BillGod, on 06/26/2008, -0/+36It's nice to see someone not have to shell out $$ to the RIAA. But we have to keep in mind the only true winner here is her lawyer. She still had to take time to meet with lawyers, go to court and all the other BS she was put through. She doesn't see a dime. I will cheer when the RIAA figures out that suing it's own customers is bad.
- Rijnzael, on 06/26/2008, -0/+36That $108k legal fee award goes to her lawyers, not her.
- leerayIG88, on 06/26/2008, -3/+38Now....***** will start rolling down hill for RIAA.
- xaogo, on 06/26/2008, -2/+35perhaps "***** THE RIAA" is more appropriate.
- inactive, on 06/26/2008, -16/+49is she hot
- martalli, on 06/26/2008, -0/+31They will just have to sue more people, sucker them into paying, and in that fashion "scare up" some money to pay this off.
- seriouspyscho, on 06/26/2008, -4/+34*ahem* Nelson from the simpsons.... "Ha ha"
- bullhead2007, on 06/26/2008, -4/+34Copyright infringement != Stealing
- aladrin, on 06/26/2008, -4/+34You realize that the only people 'winning' here are the lawyers, right? Her life got ***** over and she gets -nothing- for it. The attorneys get everything.
- LinkGCN4, on 06/26/2008, -2/+32Euphemisms kick ass.
- bgrah449, on 06/26/2008, -2/+27Somewhere Satan is flaying the lawyer who failed.
- dsmx, on 06/26/2008, -1/+25Even if you pay your RIAA a settlement that money doesn't go to the artist, the case against file sharing has nothing to do with rewarding the artist it has everything to do with keeping the RIAA's iron grip on music distribution. Even if you buy music legitimately almost none of that money goes to the artist in fact in most cases you'd be giving more to the artist if you went to there house and gave them a dollar bill for their album/single.
and filesharing isn't stealing, under no legal definition is it stealing. Which is why these cases are civil cases and not legal cases.
I would argue the RIAA are stealing as they deprive artist of a fair percentage of the music sales money and since any compensation they do get which is inteded to go to the artist never actually goes to the artist that is stealing as well. - PabloMac, on 06/26/2008, -1/+24And the RIAA, too.
- f4nt0m4s, on 06/26/2008, -1/+24I'd have to agree. A lot of the music I have downloaded has been recommended to me by other people who have similar taste in music. I have discovered tons of independent musicians through through the Internet, and as a result, I have given small bands money directly through their website or paypal. In a sense it is "sharing." Myspace, Pandora, and even Torrents is a way to share music. It's an outlet for small bands and artists to get heard.
Essentially, the Internet is helpful for the real musicians, and bad for the middleman. Now, if you want people to listen to your music, it has to be good. That's tough ***** for Britney Spears the RIAA, but that's how the cookie crumbles. - Rijnzael, on 06/26/2008, -1/+21Maybe your comment would be relevant if she hadn't been the prevailing party in the lawsuit the RIAA brought against her, in which they found no illegally-obtained music files on her hard drive. She was awarded $108k in legal fees because the RIAA wrongly sued her.
- Rainemaker, on 06/26/2008, -2/+21You're missing the point. She didn't suffer any damages. She has lost nothing. She is entitled to nothing. In any typical civil lawsuit, you have to pay an attorney to defend yourself, and there is no such thing as "if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you for free" in civil law.
Therefor, some attorney's, out of the goodness of their hearts (and a clear disdain for the RIAA tactics) probably took her case on principal; churned through discovery and blasted a hole in the RIAA's case. Pursuant to either the statute or some procedural fees issue, by defeating the RIAA, the defendant was allowed to recover her attorney's fees for her defense. This isn't about her "winning", this is about justice prevailing and the RIAA losing and subsequently being called to answer on their prosecution techniques. If you want to think of this in her terms, than ok; I guess you could say she won a free $300,000.00 defense. - HolyChimp, on 06/26/2008, -0/+19So ***** SONY, UNIVERSAL AND WARNER the most?
- jamer19, on 06/26/2008, -0/+17This put a HUGE smile on my face! The RIAA is going to get whats coming to them.
- jakem1, on 06/26/2008, -1/+17Are you serious? All she won was the money to pay her lawyers. She didn't win money for lost earnings. She didn't win compensation for the stress she was put through. I fail to see ho you can suggest that she has acted illegally when it has been proven that she didn't in court.
The fact that the legal system can be abused in the way the RIAA and other groups routinely do is outrageous. I can barely imagine what this poor woman must have been through and at the end of the day she doesn't get anything but the knowledge that she doesn't have to worry about paying her legal fees. That's hardly justice. - inactive, on 06/26/2008, -1/+17So only the lawyers involved are compensated while the victim gets nothing. Yeah this is an equitable system.
- peterjmag, on 06/26/2008, -0/+16What's even more ridiculous about that is the fact that a large number of the songs on that site are from artists that aren't even associated with the RIAA. Do they seriously think they can collect damages for copyright infringement on the 10-15% of music (significantly higher if you're including the rest of the world) that's not even their "property?"
- petebot, on 06/26/2008, -5/+21work it! werk it!
- andyd273, on 06/26/2008, -1/+16I wonder if she can convince the judge to up the legal fees every time the riaa appeals, since it's costing her more to defend against the appeal.
- TheInformer, on 06/26/2008, -1/+16Once the average layperson, lawmaker, and judicial officlal understands what the RIAA is all about, the RIAA is doomed. Their only weapon has been fear. All of their other contentions have been riddled with holes and are not, imho, legally defensible. Congratulations to Tanya Andersen! Now it's time for more Americans to stand up to this straw tyrant.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 286 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is