Riaa-at It Again

[clocker]

That's an excellent point MN, however I fear the end result will stay the same.
A successful prosecution in the US will set precedents that will resonate worldwide.
It would seem by the outrageous sums being asked for as damages that this suit is meant to attract attention rather than actually compensate the plaintiffs. Also, they need to establish that actual harm has been done.
If, by using means available only in the US, the RIAA can prove the factual basis for harm then prosecutions in any country can proceed with a far greater likelihood of success. Your country may not be able to hack your computer or monitor your bandwidth usage but they'll find some way to getcha if they really want.

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by Sparsely@8 April 2003 - 01:24
This is likely the story that you're talking about:

http://www.freep.com/money/tech/newman5_20030405.htm

It's absurd. I love it.

Yeah really.. 652,000 files? What was this guy running "DEEP BLUE"??

@ Sparsely: Thanks for posting that link, it helps give readers an insight about what we're talking about here.

[Switeck]

Get this:
The guy who's in trouble didn't actually have those files on his computer/s.
All he did was make links to the files which were LOCAL on the University's networks... so he wasn't even providing INTERNET links (unless you could access it from the outside) -- these were LAN links.
The University wasn't even NOTIFIED before RIAA filed suit and started taking 'evidence'...

And the guy could claim to have done it as a 'study gone out of control' about the rampant file sharing going on at a university...

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Switeck@8 April 2003 - 10:39

And the guy could claim to have done it as a 'study gone out of control' about the rampant file sharing going on at a university...

That would be a blast to see-kinda like John Gotti's lawyer Bruce Cutler: "They were exchanging sauce recipes, Your Honor-honest!"

Clocker-
I hope this doesn't develop as you fear; I think the RIAA has to recoup some credibility before they make any major moves.

We shall, nevertheless, remain vigilant, yes?

[Bozobub]

Originally posted by Fatal Error@7 April 2003 - 18:27
Exactly.. Where will it all end? Whats next.. are they going to try and hack into your computer because they think you may be doing something illegal?

Actually, they ARE trying to get permission (along w/ Hollywood) to "preemptively" hack systems to not only detect copyright infringement, but actually to HACK them. In other words, to crash/modify/whatever they damn please to any system without getting any permission from even a court!
This is no bull - there're a buncha articles on ZDnet and other sites about this, if yer interested. Love them fat b@st@rds in the RIAA, no?

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by Switeck@8 April 2003 - 11:39
Get this:
The guy who's in trouble didn't actually have those files on his computer/s.
All he did was make links to the files which were LOCAL on the University's networks... so he wasn't even providing INTERNET links (unless you could access it from the outside) -- these were LAN links.
The University wasn't even NOTIFIED before RIAA filed suit and started taking 'evidence'...

And the guy could claim to have done it as a 'study gone out of control' about the rampant file sharing going on at a university...

I have to tell ya.. this REALLY boggles my mind. I cant even IMAGINE how these people are allowed to do this..its preposterous, to say the very least.

It seems like they just threw ALL the Criminal Procedure Laws right out the window here?.. not to mention all the Constitutional issues, that it seems their just trampling all over with impunity.. this is total insanity.

In addition to the many things that you have already pointed out in various posts on this issue.. my take on the article is, not only did he not have all these files on his computer, but simply posted LAN links to them,
they are tying to hold him responsible and seek damages for files that were
"offered" in the links.. and not the files that were actually uploaded from them.. this is crazy.

I think alot of issues and claims are going to be made by his attorneys.. and I'm sure he will have good ones because this will be a "very high profile" case and they're gonna want to jump on the bandwagon and rush to his defense.

I also think (and hope) alot of these issues will be sorted out.. I think it will become very apperant to our elected leaders that unless some semblence
of law and order, as well as respect for the rights of the people that ELECTED them,are adhered too.. they will not be re-elected.

The Court of "public opinion" is very powerful, and reasonable people will simply not tolerate or allow this type of injustice, or intrusion into their privacy.

In any event, lets hope that this will be the case.

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by Bozobub+8 April 2003 - 13:25--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bozobub @ 8 April 2003 - 13:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Fatal Error@7 April 2003 - 18:27
Exactly.. Where will it all end? Whats next.. are they going to try and hack into your computer because they think you may be doing something illegal?

Actually, they ARE trying to get permission (along w/ Hollywood) to "preemptively" hack systems to not only detect copyright infringement, but actually to HACK them. In other words, to crash/modify/whatever they damn please to any system without getting any permission from even a court&#33;
This is no bull - there&#39;re a buncha articles on ZDnet and other sites about this, if yer interested. Love them fat b@st@rds in the RIAA, no? [/b][/quote]
And if this isnt bad enough.. it gets worse, they also want immunity from any "accidental damage" to your system as a result of them hacking into it..
can you imagine that?

[Tempest]

Wow, Trillions, hey. For the best part of living in the UK the authorities dont bother with 1 bit d/l&#39;s like me. So its ok. Funny how the little people get stiffed, and the money smoking companies sue for everything you get. The blame piracy for decrease in sales, but really its the prices of music (in the UK its much higher than anywhere else, the courts know this and all you get a slap on the wrist) and the crap "artists" ie Gareth Gates, Will Young and the whole "popstars" shite. Id rather d/l the original song than buy a manufactured singers redo. In the UK the ISP are only allowed to monitor network usage but not content. Its against the law. Only the police are allowed to tap internet &#39;lines&#39; after getting a warrant by a judge. To hell with all this copyrighting, im moving to Cyprus, there are no copyright laws there, ive seen police officers walk by stands of copied DVDs on every corner shop, oh and you cant be sued by anyone for &#39;copyright&#39; offences, no one not even the m@crosoft craporation.
Reasons why you cant be sued.
1. Hacking is an invasion of privacy,
2. Data stored on your PC is your own property. Nuf said
3. Its impossible for anyone to determine that the file you d/l ed is copyrighted, ie someones changed the name.
4. You cant copyright electrical impulses.

If anyof this fails, just lock your door, when the authorities turn up just start to format your hdd, as soon as it starts its unreadable.

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by Tempest@8 April 2003 - 19:22
Wow, Trillions, hey. For the best part of living in the UK the authorities dont bother with 1 bit d/l&#39;s like me. So its ok. Funny how the little people get stiffed, and the money smoking companies sue for everything you get. The blame piracy for decrease in sales, but really its the prices of music (in the UK its much higher than anywhere else, the courts know this and all you get a slap on the wrist) and the crap "artists" ie Gareth Gates, Will Young and the whole "popstars" shite. Id rather d/l the original song than buy a manufactured singers redo. In the UK the ISP are only allowed to monitor network usage but not content. Its against the law. Only the police are allowed to tap internet &#39;lines&#39; after getting a warrant by a judge. To hell with all this copyrighting, im moving to Cyprus, there are no copyright laws there, ive seen police officers walk by stands of copied DVDs on every corner shop, oh and you cant be sued by anyone for &#39;copyright&#39; offences, no one not even the m@crosoft craporation.
Reasons why you cant be sued.
1. Hacking is an invasion of privacy,
2. Data stored on your PC is your own property. Nuf said
3. Its impossible for anyone to determine that the file you d/l ed is copyrighted, ie someones changed the name.
4. You cant copyright electrical impulses.

If anyof this fails, just lock your door, when the authorities turn up just start to format your hdd, as soon as it starts its unreadable.

Hmmm.. I used to think the same thing.. boy was I disillusioned. I can&#39;t speak on the laws in the U.K. or Cypress, I&#39;ve never lived there. But the fact of the matter is that FOUR students here in the U.S. have infringment suits pending against them, and I find it pretty unlikely that the attorney&#39;s representing these mega-millon dollar intrests would file lawsuits that they couldnt win,and destroy their bosses credibility altogether.. must be something to this, ya think?

[Jibbler]

No, I think its a political statement. Court cases make headlines, and that&#39;s what they want. The RIAA can kiss my ass. They aren&#39;t even offering any other options in place of free filesharing. Even the music/movie industry has failed to bring to market any other options for customers. They say no, we say yes, and the battle goes on for another day.