RIAA reaches new low?

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It probably cost tax payers $8k to process the case through the courts.

Ya no kidding...

I can understand the argument in this thread about people believing that if she broke the law then she should pay the price regardless of medical conditions or financial stability, but the price that anyone should pay for sharing 10 songs should be a hell of a lot less and the RIAA should not be able to fine for these insane amounts. It is way out of hand and eventually they are going to get regulated somehow whether it be restrictions by law or whatever. That is what happens when one abuses their rights. It is simply a matter of time.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Also, I fail to see the "crime" that took place. It was merely a civil infraction (if any took place). Crime is prosecutable only by the State and must meet a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for the State to administer punishment on the defendant. Civil actions are held to a much lower standard (where you just need more than half a jury to agree) and can be brought up by any entity against another.

Its the standard logic they use for piracy when it involves software/music/movies.
You let 10 people get a copy so those 10 people must have been people that would have bought it if you didn't let them copy it.

To them anyone who copies = lost revenue , regardless if they would have bought it anyway.

If it continues I expect the RIAA/MPAA to start lawsuits because someone bought a single DVD and showed it to their family. The DVD will probably sell with licenses for how many people you intend to let watch it.

It's certainly the "logic" that is used in these cases. My main issue in this thread is all the asshats and morons that came into this thread who have shown they couldn't think their way out of a paper bag, let along even read a simple <1 page article.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: God Mode
You dont escape the law by being in the hospital. I dont give a shit if she lost her puppies and had to get both legs amputated. If shes guilty of the charges and ignored the lawsuit then she deserves whatever comes from it.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

But what if that money is the difference between getting the medical procedures she needs. Lets pretend that if she doesn't have that money, she won't be able to afford to live.

Then she should rob a bank to pay the medical bills and keep herself alive.

Right?

I think that makes sense.

Ironically, if caught, the fine would be less.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

The RIAA must go after people like this on purpose.

Think about it. They have the capacity to prioritize the lawsuits. There isn't a lot of motivation to prosecute for 10 songs, with an $8k return over someone who has a few hundred or few thousand songs, and they must have plenty of larger cases.

What's the point of prosecuting someone with so little to gain? Just bad publicity. Sticks and stones, but if someone out there downloading sees the articles and realizes, "that could be me," the RIAA has scared someone straight.

All very conspiracy-theory-ish on my part, especially since I usually ignore this stuff, but seems somewhat plausible.

For the record, I'm not demonizing the RIAA. I don't download music and if you do the crime you're opening yourself up to do the time as prescribed by the law, however irrational that law might be.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
The RIAA must go after people like this on purpose.

Think about it. They have the capacity to prioritize the lawsuits. There isn't a lot of motivation to prosecute for 10 songs, with an $8k return over someone who has a few hundred or few thousand songs, and they must have plenty of larger cases.

What's the point of prosecuting someone with so little to gain? Just bad publicity. Sticks and stones, but if someone out there downloading sees the articles and realizes, "that could be me," the RIAA has scared someone straight.

All very conspiracy-theory-ish on my part, especially since I usually ignore this stuff, but seems somewhat plausible.

For the record, I'm not demonizing the RIAA. I don't download music and if you do the crime you're opening yourself up to do the time as prescribed by the law, however irrational that law might be.

It's no secret, that's the whole point of the RIAA's litigation campaign. It's always been a scare tactic.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
The RIAA must go after people like this on purpose.

Think about it. They have the capacity to prioritize the lawsuits. There isn't a lot of motivation to prosecute for 10 songs, with an $8k return over someone who has a few hundred or few thousand songs, and they must have plenty of larger cases.

What's the point of prosecuting someone with so little to gain? Just bad publicity. Sticks and stones, but if someone out there downloading sees the articles and realizes, "that could be me," the RIAA has scared someone straight.

All very conspiracy-theory-ish on my part, especially since I usually ignore this stuff, but seems somewhat plausible.

For the record, I'm not demonizing the RIAA. I don't download music and if you do the crime you're opening yourself up to do the time as prescribed by the law, however irrational that law might be.

It's no secret, that's the whole point of the RIAA's litigation campaign. It's always been a scare tactic.

Mm. So why the "can you believe it?" outrage? How's this different from any of their other lawsuits?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: BlackTigers

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
But 10 songs? Bit whoopie do. Give me a break.

RIAA: Bring it on bitches. I'm healthy, I have some money, I know multiple lawyers. Stop picking on people who can't defend themselves.

No different than going into a store and stealing a CD.

Jacking a CD from a store would result in a few hours of community service, maybe a few hundred dollar fine and an apology to the store owner. Not an $8k fine for ten songs.

I've never understood how the RIAA works. 10 songs equals $8k how? If they're adding in the number of times it was downloaded from her, it's not her fault that other people double clicked the song in Limewire to downlaod it.

um, she put it there to share it...did she think no one would click on it?

Wouldn't you need to prove how many people grabbed the mp3?

See t hats the problem with the RIAA. they don't even need any proof. They just have the ability to sue.

100+ dead people by the hand of a murderer. They still want proof.

10 songs downloaded from a certain IP, Trace it to the DSLAM, pick a random house connected to that CO, sue their asses. 0 proof but they still get away with it. Even if they call the ISP. That's not proof. That could be someone stealing wireless, or a trojan. There is no proof whatsoever that a person is physically at their PC generating whatever traffic they saw. In fact, what even gives them the right to tap into people's internet? If anyone else were to do that they'd get charged.

Also stealing from a store is not the same as piracy.

Stealing causes physical damage to the building, and causes a physical object to be missing. This costs time and money to replace/fix.

Piracy just makes a copy without any damage.

Artists WANT their music to be known. Music is art and should be treated as such. it's retarded how it's being treated like a product. Concerts and merchandise is where their money is made.

Personally if I was a musician I'd say fuck the RIAA I'd make my own MP3s and share them out. Sue me.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
The RIAA must go after people like this on purpose.

There is no way for RIAA to know anyone's personal medical history and health status from their ISP subscriber data. You don't understand how this whole thing works.

RIAA subpeonas the ISP for the person's identity. The ISP gives them the subscriber's name, home address, contact info, and relevant activity logs. RIAA files suit against that person, period. It doesn't contact the person and ask "How's your personal health? Do you have any children that use your internet service? Do you have any retarded relatives who come over and use your internet service? Are you a senior citizen? Do you have both legs? Are you rich?"

Because its all irrelevant. The person on the account is ultimately responsible for whoever is permitted to use that service and whatever they have been using it for, unless there is unauthorized access. RIAA has no clue whether the person is a wealthy attorney or disabled trash collector waiting for a multi-organ transplant.

We only hear about the pathetic cases because "RIAA sues wealthy doctor" is akin to "Dog bites man", while "RIAA sues woman with no arms and legs" is akin to "Man bites dog" insofar as what is newsworthy.

Personally if I was a musician I'd say fuck the RIAA I'd make my own MP3s and share them out. Sue me.

Sue you for what? RIAA wouldn't care what you did, since it wouldn't have spent a half-million dollars on you.

Personally, if I was an artist, I'd probably do the exact same thing that 98% of professional artists do - let RIAA represent their interests. That is, 98% of artists who have anything of value for which anyone would want to pay. There are lot of "artists" who probably couldn't trick anyone into paying a flat nickel for anything they put-out, and would tell RIAA to go f-ck themselves (since they are never going to get a recording contract, anyway - sour grapes).

 

[MotF Bane]

Fuck the RIAA.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: dNor

Originally posted by: RichardE
I hope they fry her. Break the law, pay the price.

:laugh::thumbsup:

No, no, no. The electric chair is far too merciful. She deserves to have acid dripped in her eyes like that guy in Iran, and her cancer treatment needs to stop. Come to think of it, is it possible to accelerate cancer?

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: dNor

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I want you to take a step back, and LITERALLY FUCK YOURSELF IN THE FACE!!!

Dude...if I could...........

Seriously, I'd have like ~200 posts here.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
The RIAA must go after people like this on purpose.

Think about it. They have the capacity to prioritize the lawsuits. There isn't a lot of motivation to prosecute for 10 songs, with an $8k return over someone who has a few hundred or few thousand songs, and they must have plenty of larger cases.

What's the point of prosecuting someone with so little to gain? Just bad publicity. Sticks and stones, but if someone out there downloading sees the articles and realizes, "that could be me," the RIAA has scared someone straight.

All very conspiracy-theory-ish on my part, especially since I usually ignore this stuff, but seems somewhat plausible.

For the record, I'm not demonizing the RIAA. I don't download music and if you do the crime you're opening yourself up to do the time as prescribed by the law, however irrational that law might be.

It's no secret, that's the whole point of the RIAA's litigation campaign. It's always been a scare tactic.

Mm. So why the "can you believe it?" outrage? How's this different from any of their other lawsuits?

They've sunk to despicable new lows. I personally would not mind seeing everyone associated with the RIAA and it's mafia-like tactics run over by a truck -- about ten times.

 

[geno]

So has anyone drawn conclusions as to which methods of sharing they're going after? It seems to me, most of the people getting busted seem to be the type to use Limewire or something like that. What about IRC? Torrents? What method is getting pinned by them?

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: geno
So has anyone drawn conclusions as to which methods of sharing they're going after? It seems to me, most of the people getting busted seem to be the type to use Limewire or something like that. What about IRC? Torrents? What method is getting pinned by them?

They go after torrents. I don't see many cases of personel users get sued. Doesn't mean they could be held accountable. Usually the torrent denies the RIAA of the private info of their customers, so the RIAA gets a court injunction to shut down the torrent until they do.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: geno
So has anyone drawn conclusions as to which methods of sharing they're going after? It seems to me, most of the people getting busted seem to be the type to use Limewire or something like that. What about IRC? Torrents? What method is getting pinned by them?

They go after torrents. I don't see many cases of personel users get sued. Doesn't mean they could be held accountable. Usually the torrent denies the RIAA of the private info of their customers, so the RIAA gets a court injunction to shut down the torrent until they do.

Makes sense to me. What about cases like the one in the OP where someone was "just sharing a few songs"? Do you think it was just a run of the mill P2P program?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: geno

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: geno
So has anyone drawn conclusions as to which methods of sharing they're going after? It seems to me, most of the people getting busted seem to be the type to use Limewire or something like that. What about IRC? Torrents? What method is getting pinned by them?

They go after torrents. I don't see many cases of personel users get sued. Doesn't mean they could be held accountable. Usually the torrent denies the RIAA of the private info of their customers, so the RIAA gets a court injunction to shut down the torrent until they do.

Makes sense to me. What about cases like the one in the OP where someone was "just sharing a few songs"? Do you think it was just a run of the mill P2P program?

Probably torrent sites like pirate bay.

I'm still old school, ftp, usenet. I challenge the RIAA to stop either.

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: geno

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: geno
So has anyone drawn conclusions as to which methods of sharing they're going after? It seems to me, most of the people getting busted seem to be the type to use Limewire or something like that. What about IRC? Torrents? What method is getting pinned by them?

They go after torrents. I don't see many cases of personel users get sued. Doesn't mean they could be held accountable. Usually the torrent denies the RIAA of the private info of their customers, so the RIAA gets a court injunction to shut down the torrent until they do.

Makes sense to me. What about cases like the one in the OP where someone was "just sharing a few songs"? Do you think it was just a run of the mill P2P program?

Probably torrent sites like pirate bay.

I'm still old school, ftp, usenet. I challenge the RIAA to stop either.

Why do you say that? Limewire users have been getting hit more often. That article even states they're charging her for 10 tracks, and it'd be really odd to download just 10 tracks via torrent.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: geno

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: geno
So has anyone drawn conclusions as to which methods of sharing they're going after? It seems to me, most of the people getting busted seem to be the type to use Limewire or something like that. What about IRC? Torrents? What method is getting pinned by them?

They go after torrents. I don't see many cases of personel users get sued. Doesn't mean they could be held accountable. Usually the torrent denies the RIAA of the private info of their customers, so the RIAA gets a court injunction to shut down the torrent until they do.

Makes sense to me. What about cases like the one in the OP where someone was "just sharing a few songs"? Do you think it was just a run of the mill P2P program?

Probably torrent sites like pirate bay.

I'm still old school, ftp, usenet. I challenge the RIAA to stop either.

Why do you say that? Limewire users have been getting hit more often. That article even states they're charging her for 10 tracks, and it'd be really odd to download just 10 tracks via torrent.

Because they do get a lot of users IP off sites like pirate bay. I didn't say they didn't get them off Limewire. The number of users on torrent sites is much larger than Limewire.