12yo Girl sued by RIAA

[LordJezo]

Dosent this case prove that they are suing every day users and not just the distributers?

 

[tokamak]

Originally posted by: Soybomb

Originally posted by: Kaervak
Man this makes me hate the RIAA even more. If I buy any more CD's it's going to be used CD's only. Screw them.

Not all record labels are part of the RIAA, feel free to buy from them and support them. I'll be going out today to buy the new pennywise cd, and epitaph records, their label even puts full mp3s up on the website so you can listen.

<thread hijack> hows the new pennywise? </thread hijack>

if kazaa isnt free anymore, thats news to me....also, i still buy as many cds now as i did before mp3s became prevalent. call my crazy, but i like have the actual cd, with the liner notes, etc. so i can carry it around, listen to it in my car, etc. all these "cds going the way of vinyl" news items lately scare the hell outta me, since i have like 200+

 

[mudkiller]

same grandpa article:
"Yale University professor Timothy Davis, who was also named in the lawsuits, said he would stop sharing music files immediately."
hahaha.

 

[csf]

epitaph is part of the riaa though: http://www.totse.com/en/ego/can_you_dance_to_it/163460.html

 

It saddens me that not one member of the U.S. Congress has stood up to the heavy-handed and somewhat invasive tactics of the RIAA. Sure, the RIAA lobbies heavily in the halls of the Capitol, but I can guarantee that if one, SINGLE member of Congress took it upon him or herself to defend the targets of the lawsuit, they wouldn't need the money. The love from their constituents would keep them in office for years to come.

 

Originally posted by: tokamak

Originally posted by: Soybomb

Originally posted by: Kaervak
Man this makes me hate the RIAA even more. If I buy any more CD's it's going to be used CD's only. Screw them.

Not all record labels are part of the RIAA, feel free to buy from them and support them. I'll be going out today to buy the new pennywise cd, and epitaph records, their label even puts full mp3s up on the website so you can listen.

<thread hijack> hows the new pennywise? </thread hijack>

if kazaa isnt free anymore, thats news to me....also, i still buy as many cds now as i did before mp3s became prevalent. call my crazy, but i like have the actual cd, with the liner notes, etc. so i can carry it around, listen to it in my car, etc. all these "cds going the way of vinyl" news items lately scare the hell outta me, since i have like 200+

Exactly. I still buy CDs...but I buy used ones from Half.com. I usually rip them in lossless format to my computer, and burn a copy for the car. I hardly ever listen to the actual CD.

 

[bandana163]

Originally posted by: LordJezo
Dosent this case prove that they are suing every day users and not just the distributers?

They couldn't sue more if they did.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: jumpr
It saddens me that not one member of the U.S. Congress has stood up to the heavy-handed and somewhat invasive tactics of the RIAA. Sure, the RIAA lobbies heavily in the halls of the Capitol, but I can guarantee that if one, SINGLE member of Congress took it upon him or herself to defend the targets of the lawsuit, they wouldn't need the money. The love from their constituents would keep them in office for years to come.

Considering that many people, LIKE ME, think that companies and people have a right to protect their property your theory just doen't fly.

 

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: jumpr
It saddens me that not one member of the U.S. Congress has stood up to the heavy-handed and somewhat invasive tactics of the RIAA. Sure, the RIAA lobbies heavily in the halls of the Capitol, but I can guarantee that if one, SINGLE member of Congress took it upon him or herself to defend the targets of the lawsuit, they wouldn't need the money. The love from their constituents would keep them in office for years to come.

Considering that many people, LIKE ME, think that companies and people have a right to protect their property your theory just doen't fly.

I definitely think that companies have a right to protect their property. But just as NBC and CBS adapted to the release of VHS tapes and DVD recorders, the RIAA should adapt to the advent of P2P file sharing.

I'm not saying the RIAA is wrong. I'm saying that they're literally spiraling down into a depthless pit of failure. The quality of their music has decreased over the last 5 years, their sales have gone the same direction, and they're currently suing people who, while they are guilty of breaking the law, are also some of the RIAA's biggest potential customers. And judging by the people I know, talk to, and see on a daily basis, the RIAA isn't too popular around college campuses...and college students are usually some of music's biggest consumers.

 

[Ranger X]

RIAA doesn't even consider the state of the economy. I'm sure that 12 year old and others single-handedly brought down the sales of overpriced CDs.

 

[jlee]

As the saying goes..don't bite the hand that feeds you. The RIAA seems like it's trying to take it off..heh

 

[BooGiMaN]

when i buy a music CD and find out only two songs are good and the rest of it is crap i should be able to return it..reason being that its crap and i dont like it...

i want to know what the RIAA is gonna do about this..they should pressure, the artist to make better music and not pad their cds and the retailers to take it back and return it to the music company.

why should i be out 15, 16, 20 bucks cuz the rest of the cd sucks?

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: dwell
They are the ones who are the ass-lickers!

lmao

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: jumpr
It saddens me that not one member of the U.S. Congress has stood up to the heavy-handed and somewhat invasive tactics of the RIAA. Sure, the RIAA lobbies heavily in the halls of the Capitol, but I can guarantee that if one, SINGLE member of Congress took it upon him or herself to defend the targets of the lawsuit, they wouldn't need the money. The love from their constituents would keep them in office for years to come.

Considering that many people, LIKE ME, think that companies and people have a right to protect their property your theory just doen't fly.

I definitely think that companies have a right to protect their property. But just as NBC and CBS adapted to the release of VHS tapes and DVD recorders, the RIAA should adapt to the advent of P2P file sharing.

I'm not saying the RIAA is wrong. I'm saying that they're literally spiraling down into a depthless pit of failure. The quality of their music has decreased over the last 5 years, their sales have gone the same direction, and they're currently suing people who, while they are guilty of breaking the law, are also some of the RIAA's biggest potential customers. And judging by the people I know, talk to, and see on a daily basis, the RIAA isn't too popular around college campuses...and college students are usually some of music's biggest consumers.

And we all know college students are known for their good voting habits.

 

[CrazyDe1]

How can you actually prove someone downloaded those songs? If you signup on kazaa with fake info, you can't just IP track because for one I could be like yeah, I have a wireless connection...and all the songs aren't on my harddrive. So, you got the wrong person, someone must have hijacked my internet connection...

 

[Tom]

Well, you can go to court and lie under oath and maybe get away with it..

or you could end up in a lot more serious trouble.

 

[Sideswipe001]

It's stupid to sue the people who download the music. It's the same arguement against recording TV, or off the freaking radio. Is it more illegal to record a song off the radio onto a tape? Do they sue people for that?

It was the same deal with Metallica before; by shutting down sharing Metallica songs, who did they screw? Metallica fans. Argue all you want that that 12 year old could have bought the CD - you want to bet she doesn't own ANY cds? She does, I'm sure, which means, yes, she is a customer that is getting sued.

If the RIAA wanted to make it leagal, they could. I would pay a monthly fee to use KaZaa if they owned it and wanted to charge one. I still buy CDs, I still support the bands I like - downloading music is NOT costing them a dime from me.

The point is, the RIAA might be right - it's illegal - but they are going about it the wrong way. They are alienating their fans..they are attacking the people they want money from, and pissing off thousands more with every lawsuit. Not a good way to help sales.

They are idiots. They are cutting off their arm to remove a splinter.

 

[CrazyDe1]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Well, you can go to court and lie under oath and maybe get away with it..

or you could end up in a lot more serious trouble.

Well...you wouldn't necessarily have to lie. You're innocent until proven guilty. So, as a plausible scenario you say something like since you don't know who in the house downloaded the files, you can check all the computers, and they wont' have any evidence, then you can't prove I downloaded the music. Plausible scenarios are someone drove by our houes since I have a wireless router and downloaded music. While I was at it I'd replace my network card so the mac address wouldn't match.

 

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Well, you can go to court and lie under oath and maybe get away with it..

or you could end up in a lot more serious trouble.

Well...you wouldn't necessarily have to lie. You're innocent until proven guilty. So, as a plausible scenario you say something like since you don't know who in the house downloaded the files, you can check all the computers, and they wont' have any evidence, then you can't prove I downloaded the music. Plausible scenarios are someone drove by our houes since I have a wireless router and downloaded music. While I was at it I'd replace my network card so the mac address wouldn't match.

If you downloaded the music and then said you didn't...or you said, "PROVE that I downloaded them, because I'm saying I didn't," then you're lying. Stop skirting the issue.

Pleading not guilty when you're guilty as charged is lying under oath.

 

[Tom]

crazyd1-

What r u ? A criminal mastermind ?

 

[Twista]

fvckin reta*d RIAA they will pay for this!


/me: evil aS* laugh!

 

[Sideswipe001]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Well, you can go to court and lie under oath and maybe get away with it..

or you could end up in a lot more serious trouble.

Well...you wouldn't necessarily have to lie. You're innocent until proven guilty. So, as a plausible scenario you say something like since you don't know who in the house downloaded the files, you can check all the computers, and they wont' have any evidence, then you can't prove I downloaded the music. Plausible scenarios are someone drove by our houes since I have a wireless router and downloaded music. While I was at it I'd replace my network card so the mac address wouldn't match.

If you downloaded the music and then said you didn't...or you said, "PROVE that I downloaded them, because I'm saying I didn't," then you're lying. Stop skirting the issue.

Pleading not guilty when you're guilty as charged is lying under oath.

Yeah, and how many guilty crimianls confess as soon as they are caught?

They say exactly what he did..."prove it"...unless they have no chance of being found innocent. Not confessing is not lying. As the law stands...omission on the part of someone accused is not a lie.

 

Originally posted by: Sideswipe001

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Well, you can go to court and lie under oath and maybe get away with it..

or you could end up in a lot more serious trouble.

Well...you wouldn't necessarily have to lie. You're innocent until proven guilty. So, as a plausible scenario you say something like since you don't know who in the house downloaded the files, you can check all the computers, and they wont' have any evidence, then you can't prove I downloaded the music. Plausible scenarios are someone drove by our houes since I have a wireless router and downloaded music. While I was at it I'd replace my network card so the mac address wouldn't match.

If you downloaded the music and then said you didn't...or you said, "PROVE that I downloaded them, because I'm saying I didn't," then you're lying. Stop skirting the issue.

Pleading not guilty when you're guilty as charged is lying under oath.

Yeah, and how many guilty crimianls confess as soon as they are caught?

They say exactly what he did..."prove it"...unless they have no chance of being found innocent. Not confessing is not lying. As the law stands...omission on the part of someone accused is not a lie.

Let's say you're charged with distributing copyrighted works without the consent of the owner. If you plead not guilty, you're effectively stating "I did NOT distribute those works," or you're saying "I DID have the consent of the copyright owner."

If both of those claims are untrue, then you're lying. The punishment for lying under oath (when you're the party being charged) is your sentence. If they find out you've been lying, then your punishment is whatever is mandated by the law.

 

[CrazyDe1]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Well, you can go to court and lie under oath and maybe get away with it..

or you could end up in a lot more serious trouble.

Well...you wouldn't necessarily have to lie. You're innocent until proven guilty. So, as a plausible scenario you say something like since you don't know who in the house downloaded the files, you can check all the computers, and they wont' have any evidence, then you can't prove I downloaded the music. Plausible scenarios are someone drove by our houes since I have a wireless router and downloaded music. While I was at it I'd replace my network card so the mac address wouldn't match.

If you downloaded the music and then said you didn't...or you said, "PROVE that I downloaded them, because I'm saying I didn't," then you're lying. Stop skirting the issue.

Pleading not guilty when you're guilty as charged is lying under oath.

Well you don't lie under oath by pleading not guilty. You're lying, but who cares? OJ simpson got away with murder didn't he? I'm sure a 12 year old girl could get away with downloading music if she actually thought about it instead of acting scared and paying a fine. They can't prove you lied unless you're guilty and at which point you have nothing to lose anyways. You plead not guilty, you refuse to take the stand, act as your own lawyer, and as a lawyer you say well these are possible other scenarios why the RIAA could have thought she downloaded the music. Since you haven't see the files on her computer, all you have is an IP address to go by. You've effectively thrown out reasonable doubt hence not guilty in this country. You don't say that you DIDN'T download them, you just say you can't prove who did...a whole different story.

 

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Well, you can go to court and lie under oath and maybe get away with it..

or you could end up in a lot more serious trouble.

Well...you wouldn't necessarily have to lie. You're innocent until proven guilty. So, as a plausible scenario you say something like since you don't know who in the house downloaded the files, you can check all the computers, and they wont' have any evidence, then you can't prove I downloaded the music. Plausible scenarios are someone drove by our houes since I have a wireless router and downloaded music. While I was at it I'd replace my network card so the mac address wouldn't match.

If you downloaded the music and then said you didn't...or you said, "PROVE that I downloaded them, because I'm saying I didn't," then you're lying. Stop skirting the issue.

Pleading not guilty when you're guilty as charged is lying under oath.

Well you don't lie under oath by pleading not guilty. You're lying, but who cares? OJ simpson got away with murder didn't he? I'm sure a 12 year old girl could get away with downloading music if she actually thought about it instead of acting scared and paying a fine. They can't prove you lied unless you're guilty and at which point you have nothing to lose anyways. You plead not guilty, you refuse to take the stand, act as your own lawyer, and as a lawyer you say well these are possible other scenarios why the RIAA could have thought she downloaded the music. Since you haven't see the files on her computer, all you have is an IP address to go by. You've effectively thrown out reasonable doubt hence not guilty in this country. You don't say that you DIDN'T download them, you just say you can't prove who did...a whole different story.

The keyword is REASONABLE doubt. If the jury has a strong enough conviction to believe that YOU downloaded and shared that music, then you're guilty.