Does the RIAA let defaulters off the hook?

Judging by the number of times it has happened, plenty of accused file-swappers believe they're better off not showing up to court than even talking to the RIAA—especially if the recording industry doesn't bother to collect on the default judgments it eventually wins. Unfortunately for the file-swappers, it's not true.<BR><BR><a href='http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/does-the-riaa-let-defaulters-off-the-hookdoes-the-riaa-let-defaulters-off-the-hook.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[Otkon]

Looks to me like Lashaana Straw should be assessed an extra $20 quadrillion in punitive damages for disseminating her egregiously horrid taste in music via her pathetically lame choice of P2P clients. Oh, and another $250,000 for having a dumb name as well.

 

[LuxFestinus]

Step 1: Sue dead people.<BR><BR>Step 2: Get summary judgment by default.<BR><BR>Step 3: Profit.

 

[dark-star]

hey items2002, I'm looking for the latest Ludacris track, can you help a brother out?<BR><BR><BR>Er, sorry. Back OT....so what's the difference between a default judgement that you're never going to pay versus a settlement that you're never going to pay? Either one will ding your credit, etc.

 

[countcracula]

This is my favorite:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The bottom line appears to be simple. If you're liable, settle. If you didn't do it, go ahead and fight The Man in court—it's the only way to get out of a fine altogether. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>As we've seen before, networked printers have received DMCA takedown letters. I don't know what's scarier: settling when you know you're innocent, or facing a million dollar judgment.<BR><BR>Don't you all agree that's what is wrong with this whole mess? Settling is just easier than proving innocence.

 

[jinjuku]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dark-star:<BR>hey items2002, I'm looking for the latest Ludacris track, can you help a brother out?<BR><BR><BR>Er, sorry. Back OT....so what's the difference between a default judgement that you're never going to pay versus a settlement that you're never going to pay? Either one will ding your credit, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not doing either is just further extension of the stupidity, greed, and hubris that got you there in the first place. If you default either way your not the brightest bulb in the pack and I am sure you will have a fun life. Stoopidity is not often rewarded.

 

[skicow]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by countcracula:<BR>As we've seen before, networked printers have received DMCA takedown letters. I don't know what's scarier: settling when you know you're innocent, or facing a million dollar judgment.<BR><BR>Don't you all agree that's what is wrong with this whole mess? Settling is just easier than proving innocence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Sad but true, most civil cases (not just the RIAA ones) are settled out of court because it is easier, and cheaper, than proving one's innocence in court. Usually it goes this way: 1) Plaintiff asks for ludicrous amount of payment from defendant 2) case is settled out of court for a percentage of ludicrous amount 3) Both parties are happy(?)

 

[dark-star]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jinjuku:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dark-star:<BR>hey items2002, I'm looking for the latest Ludacris track, can you help a brother out?<BR><BR><BR>Er, sorry. Back OT....so what's the difference between a default judgement that you're never going to pay versus a settlement that you're never going to pay? Either one will ding your credit, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not doing either is just further extension of the stupidity, greed, and hubris that got you there in the first place. If you default either way your not the brightest bulb in the pack and I am sure you will have a fun life. Stoopidity is not often rewarded. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The behavior:reward ratio of politicians, Wall Street, and the CEO's of many a public company would tend to disprove that last statement.

 

[www-eZee-se]

Nothing more than a legal protection racket.<BR><BR>The RIAA have caught dead people, printers and innocents (yes, shocking) like Tania Andersen.<BR><BR>This is shameful and should have been stopped a long time ago, yet it has continued for so long.<BR><BR>These legal avenues that the RIAA took were not designed to bankrupt college kids, single mothers, the sick,the elderly, preteens (dead people? - Maybe the RIAA wants to make sure you cant take it with you) etc but were to go after commercial file sharers, and rightly so.<BR><BR>If you are innocent you can have your day in court... get into court weigh in at 90kgs and put on your gloves only to see you are facing a monster at 9000kgs, if not more.<BR>Cant afford it, too bad, later see you cant win because you dont have the resources, too bad - you gotto now pay them more because you had the gall of even trying to defend your innocence, you should have just paid them in the beginning to "make this all go away".<BR><BR>Even if you had a pretty good case, the law is on your side, its still a coin flip and if you lose that flip... you're pretty much screwed for life, while you are waiting for that flip to fall... it can take you years and totally screw up your life, on the RIAAs side:<BR>Money: no issue<BR>Time: No issue<BR>Lawyers: No issue/ constantly on standby<BR>Bad flip: Simply keep re appealing (look at the time issue above)<BR>Life effect: None, its daily work for the RIAA, labels unaffected - a normal day. <BR><BR>Its also a perversion of the law, you are pretty much presumed guilty until you can prove your innocence. <BR><BR>On my recent visit to LA/Chicago I loved the US, so much to love, cherish and protect - then you have the RIAA - like a shit stain on the Monalisa.

 

[Demondeluxe]

The civil court system in this country is fucked up beyond any level of fairness or functionality. The fact that it is easier to settle in most cases than to win a court case, even when your innocent, speaks volumes about how fucked the system is.<BR><BR>As for the RIAA they can eat shit. They have managed to setup a virtually perfect extortion scheme. I am not saying they aren't entitled to their rights, but when they are knowingly suing people for thousands of dollars for a 1 dollar song there is an issue. They could, as a matter of good faith, ask for the minimum 750 per song, plus legal fees. They of course intentionally do not. Worse yet, in their benevolence they offer you a several thousand dollar settlement on a dozen or so 1 dollar songs. They have definatly crossed the line between protecting their rights and extortion based on fear tactics.

 

[whquaint]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by countcracula:<BR>This is my favorite:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The bottom line appears to be simple. If you're liable, settle. If you didn't do it, go ahead and fight The Man in court—it's the only way to get out of a fine altogether. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>As we've seen before, networked printers have received DMCA takedown letters. I don't know what's scarier: settling when you know you're innocent, or facing a million dollar judgment.<BR><BR>Don't you all agree that's what is wrong with this whole mess? Settling is just easier than proving innocence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No, not really. What percentage of the accused do you think ARE innocent? I think a small %. There are obviously some weird exceptions, but most of these people ARE sharing music illegally. For THOSE people, settling is their best bet. Trying to argue that sharing shouldn't be illegal is a sure way to the poor house.<BR><BR>For those few people who are innocent, sure, fight it and hope the truth wins.

 

[whquaint]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by www.eZee.se:<BR>Its also a perversion of the law, you are pretty much presumed guilty until you can prove your innocence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No, you aren't. It's the EVIDENCE that the RIAA usually has on their side. Your computer illegally shared lot's of songs.<BR><BR>Again, there are some rare eff-ups, but most of these people are guilty.

 

[Sandman_1]

If you must use P2P, use a VPN server out of country. Personally, the best, get a Usenet premium provider, out of country, that has 256bit SSL encryption and doesn't log what you download. And even then, you could still get a VPN if you were really paranoid.

 

[Fentras]

Unless you have a lawyer defending you pro-bono, you're far better off paying up even if innocent (unless you're counter-suing for legal expenses and/or harassment). That's a big part of the problem.

 

[www-eZee-se]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whquaint:<BR><BR> What percentage of the accused do you think ARE innocent? I think a small %. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I am not trying to put you on the spot in anyway nor trying to use your words against you but your comment has given me some confusion so i would appreciate it if you cleared it you cleared it up for me, with regards to the the above quote, I have no idea what percentage of the accused ARE innocent but it might not be as small as a lot of people think given the RIAAs ability to sue any human, living or dead and even inanimate objects... plus even if the number of innocents is just 2%, does that fall into "think of the greater good"? I think thats pretty unacceptable even if its 1% or a half. <BR><BR>>Trying to argue that sharing shouldn't be illegal is a sure way to the poor house.<BR><BR>I kind of agree with you, I think trying to argue outside of a court of law that private copying shouldn't be illegal is fine, trying to use that as your defense in court and hoping to win is a lotttt of hope mixed with a quite a load of stupidity.<BR><BR>EDIT so as not to double post:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whquaint:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eZee.se:<BR>Its also a perversion of the law, you are pretty much presumed guilty until you can prove your innocence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No, you aren't. It's the EVIDENCE that the RIAA usually has on their side. Your computer illegally shared lot's of songs.<BR><BR>Again, there are some rare eff-ups, but most of these people are guilty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Do you have any actual data to support that "most of these people are guilty?<BR><BR>"Your computer illegally shared lot's of songs."<BR>That may be true, but it may not be YOU who shared lots of songs, it could be wifi hack/piggyback or someone else who used your computer... but still you are thrown into the RIAA monster ring.<BR><BR><I>This comment was edited by www.eZee.se on November 05, 2009 15:25</I>

 

[Demondeluxe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whquaint:<BR>For those few people who are innocent, sure, fight it and hope the truth wins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>And you had better hope as hard as you can because with a current top shelf of 1.9 million dollars, if the truth does not win you are fucked the rest of your life.<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whquaint:<BR>No, you aren't. It's the EVIDENCE that the RIAA usually has on their side. Your computer illegally shared lot's of songs.<BR><BR>Again, there are some rare eff-ups, but most of these people are guilty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I am glad you mentioned this. My computer, or rather My IP address illegally shared some files. Call me crazy, but that does not seem like proof that I did anything. It can be chalked up to an unsecured wireless network, people at the house screwing with shit they aren't supposed to, or good old fashioned error on their part, we have both corpses and printers that attest to their capacity for error. <BR><BR>I don't use any file sharing programs, and as I said I believe they have the right to defend their stuff, but the current methods and cases are a steaming pile of dogshit. Guilty or not, they are not meeting a solid burden of proof, and they are not making the punishment fit the crime.

 

[Naame]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whquaint:<BR>No, not really. What percentage of the accused do you think ARE innocent? I think a small %. There are obviously some weird exceptions, but most of these people ARE sharing music illegally. For THOSE people, settling is their best bet. Trying to argue that sharing shouldn't be illegal is a sure way to the poor house.<BR><BR>For those few people who are innocent, sure, fight it and hope the truth wins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You are being way too black and white and not considering the gray area which are the cases where one is partially guilty and partially innocent.<BR><BR><BR>I really dislike how simply giving into the RIAA/MPAA demands is considered the best route simply because of the vast amounts that they can nail you for if you try to defend yourself especially after combining court and legal fees. It is one thing if you are completely innocent. In that case, go ahead and fight it and you should win (although you still need pay for lawyers). However, what about the cases where you are being wrongfully accused but only in part? What if only a fraction of the content that you are being accused of committing copyright infringement over is truly against the law? <BR><BR>What we have witnessed when it comes to such a situation is you most certainly can try and defend yourself in order to narrow down the accusation and limit it to only the content which you are truly guilty of committing copyright infringement. However, if you manage to get yourself to that point then odds are you are going to pay such a tremendous amount of more money than you were originally asked to pay that it doesn't even come close to being worth defending yourself even if you are partially innocent.<BR><BR>To me, that is a HUGE problem. I have no issue with the law being upheld, but I have a massive issue with situations where people can be simply accused of breaking the law and those people, despite their "rights", are left in a position where it doesn't even come close to being worth defending themselves. This means the RIAA can basically accuse anyone of copyright infringement and as long as they are not accusing someone who is 100% innocent then that means they are in a win/win situation. The accused doesn't stand a chance at a fair trial where being properly defended actually results in reducing the punishment. People are being severely punished for simply executing their right to defend themselves and that is not how our judicial system is intended to work.<BR><BR><I>This comment was edited by Naame on November 05, 2009 15:33</I>

 

[www-eZee-se]

Here's what i get from this:<BR><BR>1. Its a protection racket and extortion.<BR>2. The punishments dont fit the crime<BR>Heres a case that happened in my country where the punishments do hurt, but is arguably fair:<BR><BR>torrentfreak.com/file-sharer-convicted-in-swedens-biggest-p2p-case-080505/<BR><BR>Totally around $9000 in fines, not a small amount in Sweden and quite a few months of work.<BR><BR>3. Guilty because your IP Address/computer shared files, totally wrong, an IP address (as pointed out) does not point to a single individual.<BR><BR>The RIAA have the scumbag way of targeting the children and then hoping to get confirmation as to who really is to blame, then if its not the kid, drop the case and go after the new person.... but what about the original person who was blamed? why no compensation there? No harm done? I dont think so, plenty harm done.<BR><BR>4. Using laws that were designed for commercial copyright against private p2p'ers.<BR><BR><BR>Come on America, land of opportunity and land of the fair.... throw the RIAA - the dregs of society into the gutters where they belong.

 

[mltdwn]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its also a perversion of the law, you are pretty much presumed guilty until you can prove your innocence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Um, innocent until proven guilty is only in the case of criminal law... Last I checked these are civil filings which has nothing to do with guilt or innocence and only to do with Liability.<BR><BR>I.e. Your sharing music illegally on your computer, COULD you be liable for having impacted the recording industry's sales? Obviously the answer is yes.<BR><BR>Again this is Civil not Criminal law. There is no need for beyond a shadow of a doubt (just a preponderance of evidence IIRC), and it has nothing to do with was the person absolutly and completely liable with nothing showing diffierent. It is all about could you have been.<BR><BR>Look at the OJ Simpson case for example, regardless if you think he did it or not he was found innocent in a court of law, by a jury of his peers, under Criminal law. He was found heavily liable in civil court though and got a huge judgement against him, because it "may have been" him. This is the way Civil Law has always been and I don't see it changing anytime soon.<BR><BR>And again it has nothing to do with innocence or guilt which everyone keeps wanting to use.

 

[Naame]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by www.eZee.se:<BR>4. Using laws that were designed for commercial copyright against private p2p'ers.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That in particular is why the primary solution to this problem is modernized legislation. The present laws for commercial copyright are fine. What we need are a new modernized set of copyright laws designed for individual people when they break the law.

 

[JabberWockey]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Demondeluxe:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whquaint:<BR>No, you aren't. It's the EVIDENCE that the RIAA usually has on their side. Your computer illegally shared lot's of songs.<BR><BR>Again, there are some rare eff-ups, but most of these people are guilty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I am glad you mentioned this. My computer, or rather My IP address illegally shared some files. Call me crazy, but that does not seem like proof that I did anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yeah, this is still hard to prove though. It's like running a red light and getting caught on camera - sure the car is licensed to you, but were you the actual driver? It's almost impossible to prove that it wasn't you doing the illegal activity with your machine, without someone else coming forward and confessing to the activity. This is especially so in civil court, where "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not always needed.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naame:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by www.eZee.se:<BR>4. Using laws that were designed for commercial copyright against private p2p'ers.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That in particular is why the primary solution to this problem is modernized legislation. The present laws for commercial copyright are fine. What we need are a new modernized set of copyright laws designed for individual people when they break the law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This can be muddied very easily - what if you're a consultant running your own company? Does that mean that you are now eligible as an individual for the comercial law? What if you file shared using a company machine?<BR><BR><I>This comment was edited by JabberWockey on November 05, 2009 16:07</I>

 

[drag]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naame:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by www.eZee.se:<BR>4. Using laws that were designed for commercial copyright against private p2p'ers.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That in particular is why the primary solution to this problem is modernized legislation. The present laws for commercial copyright are fine. What we need are a new modernized set of copyright laws designed for individual people when they break the law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Yes... <BR><BR><BR>There was a day when we had a thing called 'freedom' in which a individual was pretty much allowed to do whatever they wanted to do as long as it did not harm another person or hurt their property. <BR><BR>But in the past 70 years or so it has turned from "A government of the people, by the people" into "Lets maximize profits for corporations"<BR><BR>Digital media has no physicality. Its very nature promotes copying.. you need to copy it to do even the most basic operations. People want to share and they want to get stuff cheap. So the law needs to reflect a balance between the highly positive and natural acts of the citizens (aka to share with other humans) with the national best interests.<BR><BR>We are talking about the old 'maximum benefit for the maximum amount of people' type of affair. It is not the job of the government to protect corporate profits or promote business models that without the laws would never have existed in the first place. <BR><BR>I mean people want to make things complicated and try to equate copying files with shoplifting or car theft, which is just insane. It's nothing of the sort.. when I steal a loaf of bread that means that somebody else goes hungry.<BR><BR><BR>It's like this:<BR><BR>Say your in star trek with replicators. I am a baker that owns a massive bread production facility. With replicators everybody in the entire world can have as much bread as they want, but that will probably drive my factory out of business. Why would they go through the trouble of paying for a physical product that needs to be shipped all over the world and stored and have store fronts and all sorts of stuff like that when they can just press a button get as much of my bread as they want. They just have to buy one loaf, stick it in the machine to be analyzed, and then they can have as much of it as they want and share it with the whole world for almost nothing.<BR><BR>Is that immoral for them to do that? It is horrible and criminal? Should I then get the government to go and issue court summons to everybody that uses a replicator in a way that hurts my profits? For each infringing loaf of bread they should pay 750 dollars in fines?<BR><BR>So far the recording industry is richer then they ever have been before. Modern technology has opened up massive new markets and created huge new profit centers for people like the RIAA. Yet they want massive government protections and they want to pin down individuals so that those individual's behaviors that reduce profits are illegal. <BR><BR>All in all it is laughable if it was not so twisted.<BR><BR>Times change. The day of the music studio controlling markets and using advertising to control perceptions and tastes among consumers is almost over. They can use laws and DRM controls, scare tatics, and pressure plays to slow down progress (by maybe a 100 years or so), but it is only a matter of time before copying and sharing information is as natural to people as breathing.

 

[www-eZee-se]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mltdwn:<BR><BR>Look at the OJ Simpson case for example, regardless if you think he did it or not he was found innocent in a court of law, by a jury of his peers, under Criminal law. He was found heavily liable in civil court though and got a huge judgement against him, because it "may have been" him. This is the way Civil Law has always been and I don't see it changing anytime soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Isnt this kind of a loophole in the law then that corporations like the RIAA are totally exploiting?<BR>They are simply pointing fingers and you have to prove you are innocent, and with their massive amount of firepower what can average Joe do but pay up?<BR><BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naame:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eZee.se:<BR>4. Using laws that were designed for commercial copyright against private p2p'ers.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That in particular is why the primary solution to this problem is modernized legislation. The present laws for commercial copyright are fine. What we need are a new modernized set of copyright laws designed for individual people when they break the law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Exactly, come down on commercial copyright violators like a ton of bricks, hell, like 10 tons and I'll be there waving your flag and singing your praises, bankrupting college kids under the same laws is just downright low.<BR>I remember when i was in college, i was a broke ass guy who had trouble scrounging money for rent and (yes, i admit it) booze, I did hope after my education I would have the money i needed though after I got a job.<BR>For me things worked out ok, but for these poor people who are getting hit so hard for money when they need it most.. a lot of them actually dropping out because of these lawsuits... its grossly unfair.<BR><BR>Take the above example that I wrote with the link to TorrentFreak, if that person was sued at the same ridiculous rates of $750 - $150k per song x 4500, well - you do the math keeping in mind how much Joel and JT are in for after sharing a 2 digit number of songs.<BR><BR>It's just not right by anyone's 'fairness barometer', other than the labels and RIAA of course..

 

[Demondeluxe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JabberWockey:<BR><BR>Yeah, this is still hard to prove though. It's like running a red light and getting caught on camera - sure the car is licensed to you, but were you the actual driver? It's almost impossible to prove that it wasn't you doing the illegal activity with your machine, without someone else coming forward and confessing to the activity. This is especially so in civil court, where "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not always needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Which simply illustrates what I mentioned earlier about the system itself being fucked. Even so in the case of the red light camera, I can fight it, and even if I lose it (at least in most states I am aware of) does not change the predetermined fine. On the other hands if you are willing to contest the RIAAs assertion that you were at the helm when your IP violated their copyright, you can be on the hook for a very painful, life altering sum of money. <BR><BR>While I firmly believe that the burden of proof should be much greater than it is, at the very least if we are not going to change it, we need to adjust our rewards so that when we get a false positive, someone does not have to sell their children into sex slavery just to avoid starving to death.

 

[countcracula]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whquaint:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by countcracula:<BR>This is my favorite:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The bottom line appears to be simple. If you're liable, settle. If you didn't do it, go ahead and fight The Man in court—it's the only way to get out of a fine altogether. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>As we've seen before, networked printers have received DMCA takedown letters. I don't know what's scarier: settling when you know you're innocent, or facing a million dollar judgment.<BR><BR>Don't you all agree that's what is wrong with this whole mess? Settling is just easier than proving innocence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No, not really. What percentage of the accused do you think ARE innocent? I think a small %. There are obviously some weird exceptions, but most of these people ARE sharing music illegally. For THOSE people, settling is their best bet. Trying to argue that sharing shouldn't be illegal is a sure way to the poor house.<BR><BR>For those few people who are innocent, sure, fight it and hope the truth wins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>You're forgetting the first tenet of the US Legal System: Innocent until proven guilty. Going into the whole mess with the idea that "well, we're in court so you're obviously guilty" undermines the whole system. Sadly, the defendant now has to struggle to prove innocence while people like you automatically label them as guilty.

 

[countcracula]

www.glennbecksharedmp3sin1990.com/<BR><BR>If he would only deny these allegations, how can we be sure he didn't? Since he won't come clean, we should just sue.

 

[SweetAnt]

HAHAHAH illegal filesharers. I hope you all rot in prison! Or in the poor-house!

 

[Deleted member 231679]

Many settlements are done with the accused party neither admitting nor denying guilt. You see that little phrase in news articles constantly. Usually with big companies and politicians, not private individuals.<BR><BR>If I settle with the RIAA, am I admitting guilt? Am I saying yes, I did what they accused me of doing, and I'm settling because I know the evidence will convict me?<BR><BR>This could have a huge life-long impact for "three strikes" legislation.<BR><BR>It's also bizarre that, if the RIAA has enough evidence to convict someone, they'd offer to settle when they could get a highly publicized victory in court. If they don't have enough evidence to convict, why would anyone settle? If the reason was just because legal fees to defend cost more than the settlement, isn't that extortion?

 

[swalsh76]

I dunno about you, but my IP on my consumer-level cable modem stays the same for years at a time. <BR><BR>Are there instances where an open AP may be used for P2P music sharing? Absolutely. Are there instances where the RIAA/MPAA investigators get it wrong? Without question. Is it at all a large number of cases? Doubtful. Most people using P2P to get music/movies/software don't really care where it comes from, so long as they can pull it down in a reasonable amount of time. While the plural of anecdote is not "data", I can say that just about every P2P user I've ever personally known has pulled down files with the same casual concern as going to get the mail.

 

[Naame]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JabberWockey:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naame:<BR>That in particular is why the primary solution to this problem is modernized legislation. The present laws for commercial copyright are fine. What we need are a new modernized set of copyright laws designed for individual people when they break the law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This can be muddied very easily - what if you're a consultant running your own company? Does that mean that you are now eligible as an individual for the comercial law? What if you file shared using a company machine?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not as much as you might think actually. It all boils down to the language in the new set of laws. Part of the process of creating laws is clearly defining how and when they should be applied and enforced. In this case, the process would involve language within in the new laws which is intended to clearly distinguish itself from commercial copyright law. In addition, commercial copyright law might need to be amended but only to add/change some language which clearly distinguishes itself from the new copyright law intended for individuals.<BR><BR>The bottom line is that lawmakers have been doing this for a very long time. If they do their job properly then it won't be a problem. If they do their job poorly then that is a separate problem entirely which has nothing to do with copyright infringement at all.<BR><BR>Basically, if you are a business who committed copyright infringement for your own business's financial gain then commercial copyright law should be applied. Otherwise, individual copyright law should apply. There are probably exceptions, but that is the basic gist.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by countcracula:<BR>You're forgetting the first tenet of the US Legal System: Innocent until proven guilty. Going into the whole mess with the idea that "well, we're in court so you're obviously guilty" undermines the whole system. Sadly, the defendant now has to struggle to prove innocence while people like you automatically label them as guilty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, that concept only applies to criminal law. The prosecution is not subjected to the burden of proof when it comes to civil or family law. <BR><BR>Overall, that is a good thing imo. It may not necessarily seem like a good thing in the case of the RIAA vs The People, but the answer to that problem is not changing the concept of how civil law works. The answer is forming modernized legislation for individual copyright law in order to preserve civil rights properly while also reasonably maintaining IP rights.<BR><BR><I>This comment was edited by Naame on November 05, 2009 16:53</I><BR><BR><I>This comment was edited by Naame on November 05, 2009 16:58</I>

 

[swalsh76]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by trencher93ish:<BR><BR>If the reason was just because legal fees to defend cost more than the settlement, isn't that extortion? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No.

 

[bartfat]

I think MediaSentry is smart enough to only target the people who did file-sharing constantly, and were therefore egregious file-sharers. Otherwise we would be seeing alot more cases where some tech-savvy people would've done some things to their computer that wouldn't be detected, like getting rid of the file metadata (the ID3 tags for MP3s) that shows they're ripped from so-and-so. They could claim the songs are a recording, and then they'd reset their wireless router, and reboot it, allowing it to be unprotected and completely free of logs that it had been reset till the investigators started coming. Better yet, they'd delete any traces that the program was there by deleting the references directly in the Registry (on Windows) or plist file (on the Mac). Of course, most of these terms completely go over most people's heads, but I bet if there was a person like that they sued (me), I doubt they would win. And I could say that some of my library came from iTunes (because it's true), and the other were sound recordings that were shared, rather than downloaded via Acqlite or Cabos. After all these reasons for legality, I wonder if even in this case I would get sued at all. Most likely I would pass under the radar... I guess the lawsuits are there to scare off people who don't know how to configure their computer themselves.

 

[Naame]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bartfat:<BR>I think MediaSentry is smart enough to only target the people who did file-sharing constantly, and were therefore egregious file-sharers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yeah, MediaSentry is so smart that it accused fax machines of copyright infringement.<BR><BR>I understand where you are going here, but the fact is that all of the automated robot police programs being used right now are producing enough false positives to warrant extra protection for both the innocent and those who are partially innocent in relation to the charges. Not to mention that every single one of those programs is not capable of isolating an individual person. They are only capable of isolating and individual IP.

 

[swalsh76]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naame:<BR><BR>Yeah, MediaSentry is so smart that it accused fax machines of copyright infringement.<BR><BR>I understand where you are going here, but the fact is that all of the automated robot police programs being used right now are producing enough false positives to warrant extra protection for both the innocent and those who are partially innocent in relation to the charges. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Partially innocent? What does that even mean? It means they're partially guilty, right?<BR><BR>In any event, please provide the citations showing that there are "enough false positives" to warrant your actions. What is the threshold? Must any civil investigation ratio be perfect in order to continue? Do you believe that the RIAA/MPAA are purposefully and with intent targeting people who are non-infringers?

 

[bartfat]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naame:<BR>They are only capable of isolating and individual IP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, for Kazaa, the investigators had it easy, at least for Jammie Thomas. Because it was unlikely that another person would use the same username, especially something as unusual as tereastarr. But yeah, the single person would still have to be singled out in court. It just depends on whether they have enough evidence and whether the judge decides that your arguments are invalid. In Thomas's case, she did so many other actions that it is highly probable that she did it (i.e. trying to wipe her hard drive by a technician after the letter arrived, blaming boyfriend who wasn't legally allowed to be near her, etc.)<BR><BR>In other cases/networks where a username wasn't required, that would make it harder to prove who was who.

 

[SweetAnt]

I'd rather see filesharers do time with hard labor (and a little night-time visits from Bubba). Do the crime, do the time.

 

[Naame]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by swalsh76:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naame:<BR><BR>Yeah, MediaSentry is so smart that it accused fax machines of copyright infringement.<BR><BR>I understand where you are going here, but the fact is that all of the automated robot police programs being used right now are producing enough false positives to warrant extra protection for both the innocent and those who are partially innocent in relation to the charges. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Partially innocent? What does that even mean? It means they're partially guilty, right?<BR><BR>In any event, please provide the citations showing that there are "enough false positives" to warrant your actions. What is the threshold? Must any civil investigation ratio be perfect in order to continue? Do you believe that the RIAA/MPAA are purposefully and with intent targeting people who are non-infringers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>In regards to the partially innocent question, please refer to my previous comments made here. I go into detail there and you are correct that being partially innocent directly implies that there also exists partial guilt.<BR><BR>In regards to a threshold, I don't know if one actually exists. In fact, I am pretty sure that there isn't an exact threshold. Such responsibilities are given to legislators and I have already expressed my desire for a new set of modernized copyright law to be created for individuals rather than continue using commercial copyright law for individual cases.<BR><BR>Lastly, I do not believe that the RIAA/MPAA is purposefully targeting non-infringers. However, I do not believe they are putting in 110% to reduce their margin of error either when it comes those who are only partially innocent. They have absolutely no incentive to do so. They figure such things will be sorted out in court if the defendant does not settle, which is both true and even though I don't like it I can deal with it within reason. <BR><BR>The problem, as stated in my previous comment about partial innocence that I expect you read if you want to talk to me about it, is that the people are stuck in a position where it is not worth defending themselves because if they do then they are going to be slapped with a much larger bill regardless of the outcome in almost every case unless they are 100% innocent of all charges.

 

[Demondeluxe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SweetAnt:<BR>HAHAHAH illegal filesharers. I hope you all rot in prison! Or in the poor-house! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SweetAnt:<BR>I'd rather see filesharers do time with hard labor (and a little night-time visits from Bubba). Do the crime, do the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Would someone please stuff this troll in a bag, maybe work him over with a baseball bat, and deposit him back under whatever bridge he crawled out from?

 

[mujadaddy]

SweetAnt, your cute little zero-tolerance prison rape ranting is not appreciated by anyone.

 

[www-eZee-se]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SweetAnt:<BR>HAHAHAH illegal filesharers. I hope you all rot in prison! Or in the poor-house! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not really sure if you are just trolling sweetant, but for arguments sake I'll agree with you this once, even though i regularly to this day download music that the RIAA tries to protect everyday hence I am an "illegal filesharer" i too would be in trouble/prison/poorhouse, but I ask you this: what about the innocents who have been targeted and unfairly had to pay up?<BR><BR>What about the people who had to pay up because someone else (family member/friend/wifi hacker) used their connection to download?<BR><BR>Wheres the justice for them when the law is so heavily skewed in favor of big content?