page: 1 · 2  |
 
53059959
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone | so arent they imploding at a healthy rate anyways? | |
|  | 
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA | Re: so Not fast enough. | |
| | | 
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC
 ·Windstream
 ·Charter Pipeline
| Re: so I totally agree with you. It is only a matter of time before the recording industry becomes so bloated and heavy, that it will have to fall. As more bands and artists realize that there are other channels out there besides what the RIAA sells them, then the industry will be back to the way it belongs...with only the artists and the fans.
If more sites like the one in my sig start taking hold, then the RIAA has no chance.
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.»www.ind-music.com | |
| | | | | | | | | 
AbBaZaBbA
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Wildomar, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: so what you guys are missing is that out of that many cases, SOMEONE will have tried to fight back. At least some of the people sued had to be lawyers... my guess is that if it looks like they are going to take it far engough, they basically make them sign a non-disclosure agreement and drop the case.
Remember, this isn't about making back money from piracy. it'a about terrorism. It's about scaring the public into purchasing their product. | |
| | | | | | mr_cool
join:2003-10-14
USA | Re: so Yeah, I know one of my nebighors is a lawyer and settled for a lot less money. He did something where the music guys from CA would have to come here (Chicago) for the case.
Good for her fighting back | |
| | | | | | madcowusa
join:2005-03-09
Port Orchard, WA
1 edit | Reminds me of a stat I read a while back. In the US 1 out every 400 ppl is a lawyer. In Europe its 1 lawyer per 1,000 people. So they could have sued 32.5 lawyers by now. | |
| | | | | | | 
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| Re: so said by madcowusa  :In the US 1 out every 400 ppl is a lawyer. That's probably "1 out of every 400 people think they are a lawyer." But then again, 1 out of 12 stats are made up.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
| | | | | | | | 
Tsume
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN | Re: so Haha, the logic there is great 
We all know for a fact who the real winners are here no matter what. Hint: Starts with an "L" and ends with a "awyers". | |
| | | | | | 
cao1964
join:2000-08-09
Danville, PA
| >>Remember, this isn't about making back money from piracy. it'a about terrorism. It's about scaring the public into purchasing their product.
Well said. That is what its about. And any way who has the capital to go for the long run agains the RIAA. | |
| | | | | 
Boricua65
join:2002-01-26
Puerto Rico
| How are all these aspiring musicians marketing their product? The Internet has been a huge boon, because it allows cheap, direct distribution of music to -- and communication with -- fans. Practically every artist now has an official Web site, most offering free MP3 downloads, and they maintain e-mail lists to promote upcoming shows and releases. Beautiful article, SRFireside . The major record labels need to get their heads out of their arse. Apparently, they don't get what they are really and truly missing. | |
| | | | | | | NoOneButMe
join:2001-08-24
TX | the DMCA has in it a nice part that says if you fight and win you lose court costs fees... that DMCA was only made for the Sue Happy Corps .. thats why thay keep on doin it and will not stop | |
| primal98
join:2004-08-27
| Iunno As much as I bid her the best in a fight vs RIAA.... I don't think a suburban mom has the money to actually fight them :/ RIAA has bajillions, and in this world you could have the best defence but the person with more money might be able to weazle out :/
~prime | |
| | joshpo
join:2002-09-24
Philadelphia, PA
| Re: Iunno Eventually someone will fight them and the case will get thrown out and that will pave the way for every lawyer in the country to fight these junk suits. They are abusing the legal system and using our tax payer dollars to do it. I am not defending file sharing etc but racketeering and extortion of a divorced mother of 5 is not going to make Kazaa go away... | |
| | | |
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA
| I don't think that for her case to be successful she'll have to prove that no one in her household ever engaged in online file-sharing. Really all she has to prove is that their "evidence" is not sound enough to prove that she was engaged in it, beyond a reasonable doubt. Really I don't even think that will be terribly difficult provided the RIAA wasn't sitting outside her window video taping her downloading these songs (of course that would open a whole new back of trouble for the RIAA  )
Justin
--
My fiancé calls me the high-priest of Macdom. Wish Apple would open an Apple Store in Savannah so I'd have somewhere cool to work before Med-School. | |
| | | 
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
|  Re: Iunno
said by jwsmiths4 :I don't think that for her case to be successful she'll have to prove that no one in her household ever engaged in online file-sharing. Really all she has to prove is that their "evidence" is not sound enough to prove that she was engaged in it, beyond a reasonable doubt. I think you have it confused with a criminal case. If this was a criminal case, then indeed she would presumed innocent until RIAA can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty. However, this is a civil case, and it's all a matter of whose evidence looks better to a judge or jury. So you are not off the hook that easy in civil court, if you are going to take on RIAA, you better come prepared.
On the other hand, if I happen to be on a jury on RIAA vs. someone case, my vote goes against RIAA no matter what evidence they present.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... | |
| | | |
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA
| Re: Iunno True, I was thinking though that the RIAA still has to accuse them of stealing specific information so it really is just a matter of making the RIAAs claims seem weaker than they already are. It isn't a crime to use KaZaa (legally at least) so it still becomes a matter of just down-playing their evidence.
--
My fiancé calls me the high-priest of Macdom. Wish Apple would open an Apple Store in Savannah so I'd have somewhere cool to work before Med-School. | |
| | | | | | |
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA
| Re: Iunno No these aren't criminal cases (yet, thank God). I still thought that the RIAA had a lot more to prove in that they must show that they have direct evidence that the defendants had in fact downloaded the files they are being charged with downloading. I mean it would be easy for the RIAA to just list everyone in the world as being guilty of using file-sharing networks at one time or another, but in these cases I think they have to show that such and such person downloaded this file and we can prove that by.... type of reasoning.
Sorry I'm probably way off but regardless the RIAA still sucks for the way in which they treat this. I mean sure its wrong to illegally download music and I don't do that anymore. But if you want to stop the younger people from doing it you need to make affordable legal online music selection available. Why should I have to buy the whole Trapt CD when I only want 3 songs off it. iTunes is a great start but now they're under pressure to raise their song prices and we still can't get every song label to allow distribution via iTunes so its still not the perfect solution.
WAKE UP RIAA/MPAA
--
My fiancé calls me the high-priest of Macdom. Wish Apple would open an Apple Store in Savannah so I'd have somewhere cool to work before Med-School. | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Iunno Yes, in a civil case, the curden is on the claimant. The defendant still has to answer the complaint, but in a case like this, I doubt much will need to be done by the defendant.
I have a feeling, in this case, the "my wireless access point" was the culprit. This does break away from my normal feeling that you should secure your AP, however, the case is against the person for the action of the downloads.
One other thing, though the courts are there to hear cases, judges and some court districts get pissy about certain cases. If they start to see a bunch of these RIAA cases entering their courts, judges and magestrates are probably likely to start ruling against the RIAA or force people into arbitration as a message to these yo-yos to knock off the petty cases and/or take it to congress, or even other routes. I say this in example of another area I am familiar with. Abusive debt collectors. There was a time where these cases flew through court rooms and debt collectors were pounded and paid alot of money to debtors because of their abusive actions. However, because there were so many, you are now seeing courts changing their ways and they are now no longer giving out big judgements. They are still ruling in favor of the debtor, but the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow isn't there any more. This is to try and curb the suites and have this type of case handled outside the courts. I think judges will get tired of hearing these cases, if they start making it to court, and make it so that it's not favorable for the suites to be filed.
Just my opinion. | |
| | | | |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| She's not being sued for downloading, she is being sued for uploading (sharing). They have a list of songs that were shared from the IP that her ISP claims she was using at the time. That is their direct evidence.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
| | | | | 
Just The Facts
@bls.com
| The RIAA and MPAA have NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER FILED A CASE OVER DOWNLOADING music or movies. They are filing against people offering/serving/allowing downloads. They have all the evidence neccessary to prove the transaction. It is the RIAA that is downloading the copyrighted material. They have the IP of the account serving the material, a time/date stamp of the transfer (to the RIAA), and the complete file. The only thing they can't prove is the actual person who allowed the serving. They do have the account owner and they are legally responsible for want is on/served from their computer so it is usually a slam dunk.
| |
| | | | | | Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC
| Re: Iunno While they may have the complete file, they didn't download any of the file from the person being sued. They're matching the hash from a verified source and then just look to see if you have a file with the same hash.
For P2P networks that don't hash files, they're just looking at the name of the file being shared.
This came up last year when a woman in California tried to argue that since they didn't download the file from her, she technically was not distributing copyright material (only offering to distribute). I never heard what happened with that case, so she must have settled. | |
| | | | | | |
Just The Facts
@bls.com
| Re: Iunno said by Cyron :While they may have the complete file, they didn't download any of the file from the person being sued. They're matching the hash from a verified source and then just look to see if you have a file with the same hash. For P2P networks that don't hash files, they're just looking at the name of the file being shared. Not any more. They actually download the file as proof. She probably settled because she was going to lose that argument. | |
| | | | | | taar
join:2000-11-21
·Charter Pipeline
| said by Just The Facts:
The RIAA and MPAA have NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER FILED A CASE OVER DOWNLOADING music or movies. They are filing against people offering/serving/allowing downloads. They have all the evidence neccessary to prove the transaction. It is the RIAA that is downloading the copyrighted material. They have the IP of the account serving the material, a time/date stamp of the transfer (to the RIAA), and the complete file. The only thing they can't prove is the actual person who allowed the serving. They do have the account owner and they are legally responsible for want is on/served from their computer so it is usually a slam dunk.
But if i remember correctly, there is no way to completely stop sharing with these file sharing programs. You can limit your upload to 1K with readily available software but there is still a trickle from your computer going out. Therefore, potentially, everyone can be sued because uploads cannot be stopped. Someone correct me if i am wrong. | |
| | | | | | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Iunno You can stop uploading by moving the files from the default download folder of the program into something else. Most P2P programs give you the option of picking which drives, folders, files you want shared to the world. The program also creates its own folder to store the files you downloaded. While you can tell the program not to share any of your own files or folders it will always share what you download. So all you need to do is move the files from that download folder.
It's a little chore, but if you want to just download and not share anything that's the way to do it. | |
| | | | | | | | taar
join:2000-11-21
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Iunno said by SRFireside :You can stop uploading by moving the files from the default download folder of the program into something else. Most P2P programs give you the option of picking which drives, folders, files you want shared to the world. The program also creates its own folder to store the files you downloaded. While you can tell the program not to share any of your own files or folders it will always share what you download. So all you need to do is move the files from that download folder. It's a little chore, but if you want to just download and not share anything that's the way to do it. So technically i am correct. No matter what files you move around, you have no choice but to, at the very least, share what you are currently downloading. Therefore, since all downloaders are also temporary uploaders, RIAA could sue everyone. | |
| | | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: Iunno Not if you move the files you just downloaded off that folder. If they are not in that folder they are not automatically shared. | |
| | | | | | | | | | taar
join:2000-11-21
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Iunno said by SRFireside :Not if you move the files you just downloaded off that folder. If they are not in that folder they are not automatically shared. Ok. I am not trying to argue or prove you wrong. I am just trying to understand this thing better. You cant move the currently downloading file while its downloading. Therefore, you have no choice but to upload and share. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Iunno Now I see where you're coming from. Sorry about that. I'm not sure what P2P programs allow uploading of a file being downloaded besides Bit Torrents. I'm guessing your chances of getting caught would be rare in these instances since the window of exposure is only as long as it takes to download the file. | |
| | | | | 
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs:
·Comcast
| RIAA still has to prove, in some fashion, that the person they are accusing are in fact responsible. Where the difference occurs between criminal and civil burden of proof is how the evidence is weighed. With criminal cases, the State must prove guilt 100% for a conviction (decided by jury for the most part). With civil, the plaintiff only needs to persuade the judge by 51% for a conviction (judgement against the defendant would be more appropriate). The burden is still on the plaintiff, but the rules are more relaxed as far as evidence is concerned.
As far as fiberguy's observation of debt collectors, if the debtor has filed for bankruptcy and upon notification of filing of any creditor or collection agency, any attempt to contact the debtor will result in a fine of ~ $500. (in my state anyway).
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck | |
| | | | | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| said by jwsmiths4 : I still thought that the RIAA had a lot more to prove in that they must show that they have direct evidence that the defendants had in fact downloaded the files they are being charged with downloading. In civil court, the burden of proof is on the Defendant; not the prosecution! The Defendant has to prove that they did NOT do or cause what they are being accused of. The RIAA or any other person or agency doesn't really have to prove anything. In Civil Court the standards of evidence are very much different from Criminal Court.
While it is a little blunt; but in Civil Court it is basically GUILTY until proved NOT GUILTY. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| said by primal98 :As much as I bid her the best in a fight vs RIAA.... I don't think a suburban mom has the money to actually fight them :/ RIAA has bajillions, and in this world you could have the best defence but the person with more money might be able to weazle out :/ ~prime suburban white plains, ny=too much money to know what to do with it all. shes most likely loaded and can afford one of them fancy lawyers.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Re: Iunno said by Kearnstd :]suburban white plains, ny=too much money to know what to do with it all. shes most likely loaded and can afford one of them fancy lawyers.
Depends on what part of White Plains you are talking about. No information is given as to exactly where in White Plains she is but there are areas I wouldn't walk around in, even in the daytime. Now if by "Suburban White Plains" they mean a place like Harrison or Rye Brook, then that would be a different story. --
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | Goldman
join:2002-06-21
Maumelle, AR | They'll make an example out of her and try to crucify her for fighting back. Hopefully she will get some help and win, but I think she will end up paying a massive amount in the long run. | |
| | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: Iunno What will actually happen is the RIAA will drop the case and it will be swept under the rug like the other 9,000 suits we haven't heard from. Remember folks this sort of story is happening all the time. It's just we never hear about the outcome. | |
| 
yzerman
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Grand Rapids, MI
| It's not about right or wrong.. It works just like the (we got evidence you purchased a device that can be used to hack DTV) DTV exploiting lawsuits work..
You can either drop $1500-3000 and walk away from any sort of record on your name..
or you can fight it, stress out, spend a lot of time on your defense and court time, pay 10x more money for your lawyer to go to court if the record companies decide to push it that far and then IF you loose you pay big additional $$$
RIAA lawsuits isn't about making money.. its about striking fear into people and putting a small dent in their pocketbooks?
Do you really think people care about stealing music until they get that scary letter and a court date? Or do you think its when they or their parents who don't have a lot of money have to re-mortgage their house or dip into the small savings they might have to pay the RIAA a small fee to drop all of that trouble? | |
| | EAP
join:2000-01-15
Lafayette Hill, PA
| Re: It's not about right or wrong.. Don't hire a lawyer -- defend yourself.
It's not that hard -- and courts bend over backwards to help a "pro se" litigant.
It even makes it harder on the other side to have a non-lawyer to deal with. They actually have to communicate directly with the defendant then.
If I got sued, I would represent myself. | |
| | | mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS | Re: It's not about right or wrong.. I believe the old saying goes: A person who defends himself has a fool for a client.
That being said, I would fight these charges to the bitter end, no matter what the cost. It's the principle of the matter. | |
| | | | EAP
join:2000-01-15
Lafayette Hill, PA
| Re: It's not about right or wrong.. Maybe -- but I got sued for major dollars in Federal Court after my dad's insurance business went bust. A few years earlier I had worked there helping out my dad.
I had nothing to do with what happened when the business went under.
I defended myself (I am a lawyer though) -- and successfully had the suit dismissed as to me (actually they abandoned it as to me). I then brought an action against them for suing me -- and settled with them for $8,000.00 (the total jurisdictional amount -- since I sued in small claims court, as it was easier and faster).
If I had hired a lawyer, it would have cost at least $30,000 to defend me.
Instead I harassed them endlessly, till they just realized it wasn't worth it. I then pocketed $8,000.00. | |
| | 
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| Maybe make a few public statements to provoke the RIAA into serving you.
They are probably selecting their cases, going for the largest alleged thefts that where they have the strongest proof. They are probably also avoiding going after those who they think could mount a strong defense, lawyers, judges, cops, paralegals, and *perhaps* the wealthy and the educated.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
| |
cao1964
join:2000-08-09
Danville, PA
| Do you really think people care about stealing music until they get that scary letter and a court date? Or do you think its when they or their parents who don't have a lot of money have to re-mortgage their house or dip into the small savings they might have to pay the RIAA a small fee to drop all of that trouble?
Well said its not like these people have any real capital, if they did, they would not waste their time not buying the dam thing, hey I give a friend of mine as an example, his dad puts 50 dollars a month in Apple Itune Wallet or what ever its called, hey taking out the garbage is very profitable, haha, actually he tells me his dad just takes it out of his taxes at the end of year, some deductions, not sure how it works, either way, he has money to spend. I am not sure if he really gets it every month or his dad just keeps it up to make sure he can get his fix, either way, he does not care, I mean his dad, they have $$$ MUCHo money. As for me, can't say I am that lucky, but at least I can get an album or two if I really want it and no questions asked. | |
| 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Not surprising A giant media organization with millions upon millions of dollars being sent to their teams of lawyers says that you broke the law. If you fight it in court and lose, you face hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. Even if you win, you'll still be spending hours upon hours of your own time and cash you might not have on hand for your own layer. Or you could accept the ~$4,500 settlement offer and make the whole thing go away.
If I were in that situation, I'd like to say that I'd fight against the charges because I was innocent. Except that I probably wouldn't fight it. Not because I wouldn't have been innocent, but because I wouldn't have the time or money to fight it. It would wind up being cheaper for me in the long run to pay the RIAA to go away.
This is why I oppose the RIAA's efforts. I think that they have every right to go against people who are violating their copyrights. However, I think that the state of affairs right now provides no protection against someone being wrongly charged. This means that the RIAA can charge anyone they want, railroad those people into settlements, and then add more onto their "pirates sued" press releases. Something needs to be changed in the system to protect against this happening (while still allowing the RIAA to go against the real pirates).
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
| | | | 
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| To settle is *almost* an admission of guilt. Perhaps this Mother of 5 feels that she is innocent and wants to set the record straight.
Some people actually care about their reputation.
--
Do you own/manage a barn with lesson horses? Go here! »www.otsysinc.com/EquiSense.htm | |
| | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Not surprising Actually, from what I've heard, part of the settlement is that you admit that you pirated the songs (whether you actually did or not) and you can't talk to the press (or anyone) about your experiences. Meanwhile, the RIAA can go around saying whatever they want. Unfortunately, when faced with a team of lawyers with a big-money company behind them, the threat of millions of dollars in fines, and years in court, most people would opt for the "quick and dirty" $4,500 settlement regardless of their actual guilt. In this way, the innocent will settle along with the guilty.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
| s8nlovesme
join:2003-12-26
Waukesha, WI
| dumb lawyer He is surprised that no one fights back? Its because even if you win, you lose (money). Then you have to pray you get legal costs or a class action is filed. This is kind of like what direct tv does. Sues people with no real proof, then you fight back and win, yet you lose a ton of money fighting. | |
|
getaclueyouFOOL
| YAWN... Go ahead, make my day! If you're a Pirate and you think you can win in court, let's see how smart you are when you get whacked $10,000 PER title/copy and a prison sentence. You can talk all the shit you want, but there ain't a court in the World gonna let you steal copyright protected works.
But go ahead, take your case to court and see for yourself - fool! | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Where are the free ACLU lawyers or EFF lawyers said by GOLFnSUN :The ACLU and the EFF have tons of lawyers on staff and as volunteers for all kinds of court cases. They both make a big noise about the **AA abusing people. Why haven't they volunteered to defend these people for free? Really, I'd like to know. Anyone have any theories? Because, even if they did offer to cover all costs - court fees, lawyer fees, time lost from work/lost job due to missed time, etc., they'd have to find someone willing to allow them to help. Frankly, there just aren't a lot of people out there that can afford the time or want the stress associated with going to a full trial.
What I'm waiting for is the RIAA to screw up and send a letter to a retired tort lawyer - particularly if said lawyer never engaged in file sharing. That will be when it gets fun.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| | 
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| Re: Where are the free ACLU lawyers or EFF lawyers? I think eventually, if this case or one like it, can get a mountain of press, the ACLU and the EFF will step in and offer help, but they will not if A) they are unaware of the individuals situation and B) they can't get a mountain of cheap publicity out of it. However, if the mainstream news media were to pick this case up as a torch, the ACLU would funnel thousands into the trial as a PR move. | |
| | Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
1 edit | Re: Where are the free ACLU lawyers or EFF lawyers ACLU doesn't care about you unless you're a minority or your case is really, really weird (read: get them all over the news).
I had an instance where an illegal search was done on my property for a case not involving me. I can't afford an attorney (well, I couldn't at the time anyways). The ACLU wasn't the least bit interested in it though, because I'm young and white and the case wasn't terribly exciting in their eyes, so therefore they weren't interested.
And the EFF doesn't care unless it's something involving either open source or sticking it to a large software company or ISP, because that's all their agenda really is.
Both are jokes. | |
| | | markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Where are the free ACLU lawyers or EFF lawyers The ACLU is to busy fighting real cases, like defending the NAMBA..if you know what that is your gonna wish ACLU would die in a fire. I give you hint its about men liking little boys..sickos.
ACLU is pretty retarded organization now, for every good thing they do they do, they do 3 bad things like defend child molesters, etc in court. If the ACLU wanted to defend me i would say no even if it was free all the way.
Anyways, the only mistake RIAA has yet to make is suing a rich person, if they sued a lawyer or rich person they would be dropped like a rock in court. Would it not be ironic if someone sued the RIAA for damages for court costs and made back the very amount the riaa has won so far? lol | |
| |
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| The ACLU fights high impact human rights cases, and if nobody directly affected by a law cares enough to make a meaningful move, then those affected obviously do not feel the case is high impact.
The first part about being in a competition is knowing you are in a competition.
Otherwise you loose by default.
One possible course of action would be for concerned individuals (those who stand to loose by the banning of free P2P file sharing) is to get the list of people served by the RIAA and contact those that live locally.
Secondly, see if some socially conscious, retired or out-of-work person who has been served is interested lending their name to fighting the RIAA.
If not, make some high profile statements yourself to get the RIAA to charge you.
Either way, the person served by the RIAA can then contact the ACLU asking for help.
Then let us all know the ACLU's response.
It isn't that much effort, the local phone calls are free, and it will end the idle speculation.
If nobody fights the RIAA, the RIAA will have changed regulations by default.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
| 
lordfly
join:2000-10-12
Homestead, FL | RIAA lawyer insurance Okay an idea...suppose a non-profit organization is started to help fund a pool of lawyers to fight in the defense of those that have been wrongly accused.
I know, it sounds dumb.... | |
| |
cao1964
join:2000-08-09
Danville, PA
| Re: RIAA lawyer insurance Okay an idea...suppose a non-profit organization is started to help fund a pool of lawyers to fight in the defense of those that have been wrongly accused.
Very dumb, I just don't see an attorney taking the time to do it, maybe if it was worth the capital, if it was then maybe, but you would have to find a way to setup the RIAA, like having music files that where empty but even that I would say would not work, as for people who get cought hey they are poor, who cares about them.
I know it sucks but hey its the USA, greed rules. | |
| JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| Feel sorry for mom. Mom is obviously in over her head. Kazaa was on her computer and she should be smacking some sense into her children's friend who opened Kazaa account on her computer. Willing to bet if this goes to trial she is going to pay a lot more than settlement amount. | |
| |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Feel sorry for mom. If anything, maybe the court case will give some bounds for when you cease to be accountable. If her daughter's friends had come over and sold drugs in her house without her knowledge should she be held accountable for those sales and arrested? What if some hacker breaks into your computer system and sets things up so that they can download songs from P2P networks via your computer? I'm all for personal responsibility, but there comes a point when a person's honest lack of knowledge of a situation occurring should mean that they aren't liable for the crime that was being committed behind their backs.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
| | | NoOneButMe
join:2001-08-24
TX | Re: Feel sorry for mom. Best Post Yet Man | |
| | 
TheHelpful1
Premium
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD | Shoulda got a RAID 1/External Dual Boot OS 
Unplug and bury it. Where's the evidence now?
--
"My weakness is that I care too much" | |
| mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | She's in the wrong here. Don't want to make all the anti-RIAA people too mad here, but she is clearly in the wrong. Even though I think the RIAA is being stupid running around suing everyone (I think it is hurting them more than helping), she is going to lose.
She ADMITS Kazaa was on her computer. She admits it was used. Her only defense is that the computer and the Internet connection that SHE is responsible for was used by a friend of her kids. I guarantee you her kids were willing accomplices in this.
The only option she has that I can see is to settle and go after the parents of her kids' friend in civil court.
I also think the paragraph used to headline this story was a bit misleading. I read it and figured Kazaa wasn't even installed. It was installed and used. | |
| |
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| Re: She's in the wrong here. I don't know how it works in the US, but if she was in Canada, her lawyer could likely choose to bring the parents of the children involved into the lawsuit against her. (Most Canadians are totally unaware of this detail of how liability cases are decided.)
That would mean that if she could show that she probably wasn't liable for the loss she would be off the hook. (This isn't a criminal case, the record company just has to show she probably is responsible for their loss.)
The judge might even award her costs to whoever looses the case.
Of course the parents of the other kid (if her alleged story is true) probably wouldn't speak to her again.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
| KillingTime2
join:2001-01-03
Orlando, FL
clubs: | Interesting If the RIAA has filed 13,000 lawsuits and only 3,000 have settled, are just letting the time run out on the other 10,000 lawsuits? I know in Florida a lawsuit normally gets kicked by the court one year after filing if there is no activity. | |
| |
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
| Re: Interestingsaid by KillingTime2 :If the RIAA has filed 13,000 lawsuits and only 3,000 have settled, are just letting the time run out on the other 10,000 lawsuits? I know in Florida a lawsuit normally gets kicked by the court one year after filing if there is no activity. Probably in the identification stage. Since the DMCA provision allowing them to serve subpoenas to ISPs wholesale without judge's signature got knocked down by one of the Appeals Courts, they are filing "John Doe" lawsuits. This means that they have to make a separate case for every IP address that they track, and present it along with evidence to a judge. A judge reviews each of these cases on an individual basis and then decides whether to serve ISP with a subpoena to reveal the name behind the IP. As you can imagine, this takes time.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... | |
| | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: Interesting But there would bound to be at least a few cases ready to go by now. This has been going on for years. My bet is still on the RIAA just not moving forward with cases they can't just settle. | |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | Someone needs to stand up Someone needs to take the bullet, perhaps not this woman, but someone. This is a tired and old game of scare tactics, and inflammatory and groundless lawsuits. Someone needs to orchestrate a strong case and stop the ridiculous persecution of file traders. With the right arguments, someone could possibly render the industry's groundless lawsuits dead. How can a company threaten to sue on profits it might have made? That's almost akin to suing an individual who walked by a boombox playing a particular song from a cd he does not own, enjoyed, asked the fellow playing the boombox to play it again, but then didn't buy the cd.
Copyrights were meant to protect people from reselling intellectual property under the guise that it was their own, not to be used as an excuse to hunt down normal people and cut open their pockets (we all know my feelings on this, I've posted extensively in past forums, I won't repeat myself unless, of course, someone asks for the info or contradicts this sentiment).
The RIAA and the major labels would be better served converting the people who invent P2P servers to come work for them and create profitable P2P or advertising markets instead of ridiculously persecuting people in a long-term battle they cannot win. File sharing will not and cannot be stopped. The industry needs to adapt and enlist the P2Pers into their ranks or dissolve. Even the most hardline socialist can be bought by something. | |
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Someone needs to stand up said by broadbander :With the right arguments, someone could possibly render the industry's groundless lawsuits dead. Perhaps that's why there are still 9,000 suits that didn't go to trial and/or are never heard from again. | |
| |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
1 edit | said by broadbander :How can a company threaten to sue on profits it might have made? This is not the right argument to use.
edit: The copyright holder doesn't have to sue for actual loss in profits, they can sue for statutory damages, which can reach as high as $150,000 per infringement (minimum $200). See section 504 for title 17. (copyright law).
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
| | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Someone needs to stand up That's a pretty grey area in copyright law actually. Specifically copyright law states infringement as unauthorized sale and distribution. The RIAA separates the two and just says any distribution is infringement. However conventional thinking keeps it the combo (sales AND distribution). This is the crux of the whole argument. This is probably also one of the reasons why the lawsuits haven't gone to court. There is enough in copyright law now to sway the courts in favor of non-commercial sharing... if presented the right way. | |
| | | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Someone needs to stand up EXACTLY!!! That's the "argument" I was referring to that someone needs to make. | |
| kird
join:2004-03-04
Asheboro, NC | Reprisals if i win im gonna want a billion dollars in punitive damages on the RIAA (pinky finger to lip)
if i lose? well, back to flipping burgers. | |
| | |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| Re: ironclad evidence The evidence that the RIAA will probably have with them will be a list of songs being shared by a specific IP and documentation from the her ISP that connects that IP to her at the time in which the songs were being shared.
The questionable part of their evidence isn't going to be the list of shared songs or the IP, but rather the ISPs ability to connect that the IP to her. If their records are incorrect, then they are going after the wrong person, and it's the ISPs fault that they are. If this is the case, she may be able to file a suit against her ISP to cover any of her costs from the suit against the RIAA.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
| | |
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| Re: ironclad evidence These records are digital, they are used by responsible ISPs every day for TOS violations (for example, in tracking senders of spam), and they can be cross-verified validated by her modem's MAC address, on DSL or cable.
If the RIAA tracked the available songs and Kazaa userid on her machine over time, then the ISP would have had to have made multiple mistakes in identifying who had which IP address at what point in time.
They could even fingerprint the available songs and downloaded songs using errors/defects/inaccuracies in the recordings.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
|
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
1 edit | If she's telling the truth... If she's telling the truth then there are 3 possible scenarios.
1) One of her kids or kids' friends did it and she is unaware. In this case she would be responsible.
2) Someone is tapping into her open wireless access point, if she has one. In this case she should also be responsible because she failed to secure her wireless access point. But that's a touchy issue around here these days...
3) It's yet another case of mistaken identity. In this case, I blame the ISP for providing the wrong information. The RIAA sues an IP address, it's up to the ISP to match that IP to a person. When they screw up, the RIAA ends up going after the wrong person. If this is the case, it will probably be discovered before an actual court case, and the suit dropped.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
| | 
scrummie02
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| Re: If she's telling the truth... Well said. In all reality it is hard for the RIAA to make a case.
The I.P. address was leased to her, but the ISP is responsible for ensuring it was leased to her during said "downloading of illegal files". I am sure the ISP may have something, but that means keeping a record of DHCP leases for a period of months. Do they have records of every logical address leased to every physical address within their network? If not, is it possible that someone else could have had that I.P address and downloaded music? What is the lease time on the I.P.?
Spoofing I.P.s isn't hard, and neither is hacking into someones computer and "owning" it. This mother no doubt has not applied security patches or installed a firewall on her computer (if she does it's probably something easily bypassed). There isn't a way to tell if she actually did the downloading or if it was perpetrated from some other source. It is quite possible that someone couldn't have turned her computer into a music downloading zombie and come back later for the files...it could happen.
Really there is a lot of variables here, to many to go through. What if the files aren't on her computer (she downloaded false copies that aren't the files at all, but something else). She then doesn't really have any copyrighted material does she? Can one be sued to trying to obtain something copyrighted but doesn't actually have it? I don't know. Also, other than supposed network connectivity, what other proof does the RIAA have she has these files in her possession? Have they looked on her computer and actually seen that's where the files reside. If so, that is a hacking attempted and against the law that specifically forbids unauthorized people from gaining access to computer resource they aren't supposed to. In effect this would make the RIAA no better than the kids they lock up in jail for breaking into computers. Unless of course they are allowed to do that, which will set an entirely new precedence in future laws which will allow corporations and the government rights to access your files any time they choose to "protect" themselves.
It is a shady case, and a decision one way or another will certainly change the way things are looked at in these types of cases in the future. What this woman needs is a lawyer, and a highly technical person who can verify what actually happened and of course ask the right questions to which the RIAA would have to prove. I find have a big problems when either these types of cases, or just government policy towards technology as a whole is decided by people who have no clue on how the technology works or what it does. Having an 80 year old man who can barely use e-mail decide the outcome of a technical case or create policy is disgusting in my opinion and needs to stop. | |
| | |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
1 edit | Re: If she's telling the truth... said by scrummie02 :Really there is a lot of variables here, to many to go through. What if the files aren't on her computer (she downloaded false copies that aren't the files at all, but something else). She then doesn't really have any copyrighted material does she? Can one be sued to trying to obtain something copyrighted but doesn't actually have it? I don't know. Also, other than supposed network connectivity, what other proof does the RIAA have she has these files in her possession? Have they looked on her computer and actually seen that's where the files reside. If so, that is a hacking attempted and against the law that specifically forbids unauthorized people from gaining access to computer resource they aren't supposed to. In effect this would make the RIAA no better than the kids they lock up in jail for breaking into computers. Unless of course they are allowed to do that, which will set an entirely new precedence in future laws which will allow corporations and the government rights to access your files any time they choose to "protect" themselves. The thing is that they are suing her for uploading (sharing), not downloading. They were able to view a list of songs that she* was openly offering, and perhaps even downloaded them as they, being the copyright holder, have the legal right to do. This would allow them to verify that she* was sharing the real songs, not just dummy files with the song's names. No hacking is involved.
* By "she" I mean her IP address.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
| | | |
scrummie02
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| Re: If she's telling the truth... can you do that with kazaa. I thought you just loooked stuff up and it shows if it's there, not where it's coming from. Point is if they have an I.P they were downloading from, how do they know it was from her computer? Anyone could have been leased (or spoofed) that I.P.
The burden is on the RIAA to provide proof. If I was a juror I wouldn't go their way until they had proof. They have to prove to me beyond an reasonable doubt that they obtained the files from her computer. An I.P isn't good enough...like I said before, anyone could have had it. ISP records have been known to be wrong, or could have been pencil whipped because they were under pressure. Was there a network monitoring tool on that network segment sniffing traffic and showing upload traffic via Kazaa to her MAC address? How do they know for sure what's in her shared folder and what's not? How are they going to prove she setup a username, logged on and downloaded music?
I need proof such as that to be convinced, not some simple "we have her I.P. address that she might have had so we know she was downloading stuff illegally." Unless they have proof those files where in her Kazaa shared folder and coming from her box to theirs via the network ports Kaaza uses, I don't see where they have a case.
Just my humble thoughts..... | |
| | | | |
Just The Facts
@bls.com
| Re: If she's telling the truth... said by scrummie02 :can you do that with kazaa. I thought you just loooked stuff up and it shows if it's there, not where it's coming from. Point is if they have an I.P they were downloading from, how do they know it was from her computer? Anyone could have been leased (or spoofed) that I.P. The burden is on the RIAA to provide proof. If I was a juror I wouldn't go their way until they had proof. They have to prove to me beyond an reasonable doubt that they obtained the files from her computer. An I.P isn't good enough...like I said before, anyone could have had it. ISP records have been known to be wrong, or could have been pencil whipped because they were under pressure. Was there a network monitoring tool on that network segment sniffing traffic and showing upload traffic via Kazaa to her MAC address? How do they know for sure what's in her shared folder and what's not? How are they going to prove she setup a username, logged on and downloaded music? I need proof such as that to be convinced, not some simple "we have her I.P. address that she might have had so we know she was downloading stuff illegally." Unless they have proof those files where in her Kazaa shared folder and coming from her box to theirs via the network ports Kaaza uses, I don't see where they have a case. Just my humble thoughts..... Your kidding right? The RIAA did Kazaa serch for a ceratin file. That file was available on her hard drive because she was offering it. The RIAA initiated a file transfer from her computer to the RIAA computer. Now I'm sure you realize that computers use all sorts or identifying information to make file transfers (although your post would indicate otherwise). Since there was a file transfer the RIAA has the originating IP address, the time/date stamp, the folder name, the file name, the file itself, and sometimes even more than that. BTW, Internet providers actually do have records of who is assigned IPs within their network. Do you really think that the RIAA doesn't have a ton of proof? Do you think the courts would allow tens of thousands of lawsuits to be filed if they didn't meet a certain evidential criteria. The reason no one has gone to court is because the RIAA lays out all the evidence pretrial and when any (sane) lawyer sees it they know to settle because they will lose.
Since this is a commmon misconception (and mentioned in your post) I would like to hear how you can spoof an IP in a two way communication. | |
| |
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB | As long as people quietly do what the RIAA asks, the RIAA doesn't need to prove anything in court. | |
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA | Only 13K? I guess their notion that its a practice done by millions of people (all in the USA no less) is unfounded, or they are extremely lazy in getting the millions minus 13K suits out. | |
| kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| RIAA needs to give users what they want not sue em I personally do not mind using p2p networks to obtain content I am after, even if it may come in a bit slower than I'd like sometimes. why? Well that digital restrictions management as I've come to call it is a huge factor. Yes I can get content legally as they like to say via Itunes and whatnot, however what's the use if I can't easily copy files I've purchased from one computer to another just as I would any other file. If I bought the content, I should be able to play it in whatever player, on whatever PC or MAC operating system or portable device I damn well please! So yes if I'm after a piece of content, I will search for it via other methods such as p2p networks or similar ways and only if I can not find it via those means will I then look for it on the greedy label approved services! It's sad to see many of the major ISPS severely throttling or not allowing altogether p2p network uploads. If I were an indy artist trying to share my work via p2p, I'd be quite upset if folks couldn't use my maximum upload potential to obtain the work I'm trying to get out there! And you better believe it , if I were to get sued simply for sharing data across a computer network, which is really all I'm doing technically, oh yes I'd not only try to fight it, I'd also give frequent updates as to my progress, I'd make sure everyone knew what was going on between me and the greedy labels! And all this could've been solved I believe if the labels didn't insist on offering content for download only with DRM (digital restrictions managed) files. If there were an Itunes like service out there, but the files were say MP3's instead of this DRM crap, don't you think folks would be much more willing to pay for the content, especially if they could get it nice and fast? It's not that we don't want to pay for music, it's that we the consumer don't want to pay for digitally restricted content! Give us a file that's no different than any other normal file, and we'd be happy to pay for it, at least that's what I believe. I'd love to see someone set up a web site where one could download content for a small fee that was both major label tracks and indy artists just to prove that if we had a file we could use like any other, we wouldn't mind paying at that point. I hope this woman fight's the RIAA, because I'm sure fed up with their tactics! | |
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: RIAA needs to give users what they want not su Three syllables...
Par - ah - graphs!
*tired of getting vertigo reading posts* | |
| |
FRIAA
@bellsouth.net | AAA MEN | |
|
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB | Start a legal defense fund You guys down there should start a legal defense fund -- to fund the precendent setting cases on this.
And if you loose, you should start lobbying your government to reign in the RIAA. | |
|
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| She wouldn't set the needed precedent If this woman takes the case to court and wins against the RIAA think about what the decision will say:
"If the plaintiff can't prove you probably caused them a loss, the plaintiff will not succeed in a suit against you."
The suit will not set any kind of a precedent about P2P or copyrights.
It would just be another lawsuit dropped or dismissed due to lack of proof.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
| | jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| Re: She wouldn't set the needed precedent said by keith2468 :If this woman takes the case to court and wins against the RIAA think about what the decision will say: "If the plaintiff can't prove you probably caused them a loss, the plaintiff will not succeed in a suit against you." The suit will not set any kind of a precedent about P2P or copyrights. It would just be another lawsuit dropped or dismissed due to lack of proof. Actually, it would make a big difference over what we have today. It would set somewhat the standard of proof needed.
Which likely would mean less (or more depending on the outcome) suites and settlements.
For instance, if it goes to court on this case, and they dismiss it due to lack of proof, I'd say it would kill the RIAA's entire sue people campaign so far.
Really, how many filesharers can't say their kid's friend did it? Or their wireless access point was used without their knowledge? If it became known (and you better believe it would) that saying "my kid's friend did it - I was at work/out/making dinner/etc" is a sufficient defense, then no one would settle.
--
Opera 8.02(Build 7680); Windows XP Pro SP2;Athlon 64 3400+; 1GB PC3200 DDR; 1M/128k DSL; NOD32(Version 2.5.25); Sygate Pro 5.5(Build 2637);Proxomitron 4.5j Grypen 7/26/05(Opera mod),GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 | |
|
RDins
@comcast.net | RIAA make a killing on this Easy money..... cost to much to fight it, so they just get checks. They already pay a staff for this anyways so their cost is the same and they get checks in return. | |
| | 
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI
·Verizon Online DSL
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: RIAA make a killing on this said by RDins:
Easy money..... cost to much to fight it, so they just get checks. They already pay a staff for this anyways so their cost is the same and they get checks in return.
No doubt. How much easier can it get for the RIAA?
--
Spread Opera. Fastest browser on Earth or in Cyberspace!! | |
| | | |
|
|
Nobody Fights the RIAA
·
·
·
Where are the free ACLU lawyers or EFF lawyers?
ironclad evidence