The same federal judge who oversaw the Joel Tenenbaum file-sharing trial earlier this year passed out default judgments this week against other file-swappers who never bothered to show up—and they now owe far less than Tenenbaum.<BR><BR><a href='http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/ignoring-riaa-lawsuits-cheaper-than-going-to-trial.ars'>Read the whole story</a>
Ignoring RIAA lawsuits cheaper than going to trial
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I don't want to get into the whole issue of what is an appropriate award... most here are of like mind on the absurdity of the damages assessed in the two trials.<BR><BR>The award may be far less for not showing up (so far) but you can't win the case unless you show up, either.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The award may be far less for not showing up (so far) but you can't win the case unless you show up, either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>But you couldn't win. The thing is a judicial system that in reality punishes people who want a real trial is a sham. Esp. if it is possible to destroy the life of someone because he did something every college student does.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JPan:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The award may be far less for not showing up (so far) but you can't win the case unless you show up, either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>But you couldn't win. The thing is a judicial system that in reality punishes people who want a real trial is a sham. Esp. if it is possible to destroy the life of someone because he did something every college student does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Maybe if he had a case you could make this argument. He had no case. Worse, he put on a show designed to generate press and waste everyone's time. There are other, legitimate cases that could have been in court that day. Everyone involved could have been spending their time on something better. The guy used the legal system to waste everyone's time. He got on the stand and admitted that he did it. When you are willing to admit guilt, there is a process for that - pleading guilty. It saves everyone a lot of time. If you're going to plead not guilty, don't get up on the witness stand and admit your guilt.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkowl:<BR>I've read that first sentence a few times over now, and it still doesn't make any linguistic sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'd guess that between "attention" and "they" there was supposed to be one of "when", a semicolon, or perhaps an em-dash.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wallinbl:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JPan:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The award may be far less for not showing up (so far) but you can't win the case unless you show up, either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>But you couldn't win. The thing is a judicial system that in reality punishes people who want a real trial is a sham. Esp. if it is possible to destroy the life of someone because he did something every college student does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Maybe if he had a case you could make this argument. He had no case. Worse, he put on a show designed to generate press and waste everyone's time. There are other, legitimate cases that could have been in court that day. Everyone involved could have been spending their time on something better. The guy used the legal system to waste everyone's time. He got on the stand and admitted that he did it. When you are willing to admit guilt, there is a process for that - pleading guilty. It saves everyone a lot of time. If you're going to plead not guilty, don't get up on the witness stand and admit your guilt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>He wasn't even allowed to assert his defense. It was rejected a few hours before the trial began.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
And for roughly $2000, or if you have technical know-how use duty lawyer, as long as you aren't raided by police, you can justify the RIAA's evidence as invalid due to issues with dynamic IP address' and the use of non-commercial (commercial if kazaa or something) shareware that can produce erroneous data (find disclaimer about program instability or something). Next.<BR><BR>And if the cops raid you, well....plead guilty and not show up.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wallinbl:<BR><BR>Maybe if he had a case you could make this argument. He had no case. Worse, he put on a show designed to generate press and waste everyone's time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is exactly the problem.<BR><BR>So far, all of the cases that have been fought have been hopeless for the defendant. The RIAA had them dead-to-rights on downloading (or more importantly, uploading) the files illegally, the RIAA knew it, and they chose those cases with deliberate precision because they KNEW they could win and win big.<BR><BR>The good news is that if either of those cases had been lost, that would have been game over once and for all for the RIAA. If you can't win such a painfully obvious case, you can't win anything. On the flip side, though, you will NEVER see the RIAA or MPAA go after a case that is even barely questionable. If there's even a slight chance they could lose, they will either settle (if the defendant agrees to it) or simply drop the case (if the defendant doesn't). Yes, that lets the defendant get away clean, but it also prevents the case from setting precedent and/or being publicized to let people know that these cases really are actually winnable a lot of the time.<BR><BR>That's why there's such a disparity in the awards. The averages of the awards for the people who have been found guilty so far don't represent the averages of the people who fought back. Most of the people who have fought back ended up paying $0 when the RIAA dropped the lawsuit; but technically, and legally, it wasn't a straight-out "win," it was an RIAA forfeit. Unfortunately, there's a huge difference in terms of setting precedent and helping to end these legal reigns of terror.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I dunno, $7500 is something you can pay or take a loan out for. $1.86 million? Not even a payday loanshark would be that crazy. In the latter case, you can easily claim bankruptcy. In the former case, you instead are saddled with a huge debt that you have to pay back. For those making closer to $100k it is not going to kill them, but those stuck around $30k will see it much differently since it is more than 1/3rd of their yearly take-home pay. Coming out of college, which I imagine many of these people are, $7500 was three times as much as my car loan was worth, and that payment was nearly enough to break the bank sometimes.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jr76:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wallinbl:<BR>Maybe if he had a case you could make this argument. He had no case. Worse, he put on a show designed to generate press and waste everyone's time. There are other, legitimate cases that could have been in court that day. Everyone involved could have been spending their time on something better. The guy used the legal system to waste everyone's time. He got on the stand and admitted that he did it. When you are willing to admit guilt, there is a process for that - pleading guilty. It saves everyone a lot of time. If you're going to plead not guilty, don't get up on the witness stand and admit your guilt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>He wasn't even allowed to assert his defense. It was rejected a few hours before the trial began. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It was rejected because it wasn't a defense. It was grasp at straws.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
They would have been even better off if they'd taken responsibility for their actions and settled. Maybe that should be added to the graph.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ironman 2008:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jr76:<BR>He wasn't even allowed to assert his defense. It was rejected a few hours before the trial began. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It was rejected because it wasn't a defense. It was grasp at straws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It doesn't matter how crazy his defense is, he should still have a chance to have his say. But not only did he get denied a chance to even present his defence, he is now worse off for having showed up to his day in court than he would have been to just disregard the court altogether. That is just wrong.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by togenshi:<BR>And for roughly $2000, or if you have technical know-how use duty lawyer, as long as you aren't raided by police, you can justify the RIAA's evidence as invalid due to issues with dynamic IP address' and the use of non-commercial (commercial if kazaa or something) shareware that can produce erroneous data (find disclaimer about program instability or something). Next.<BR><BR>And if the cops raid you, well....plead guilty and not show up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Or simple go out and buy the CDs and then they have no case. Actually at that point countersue. Of course this assumes the charges are for downloading. Uploading would be a different thing and not much of a defense.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
This reminds me of homework grading in a class I took:<BR><BR>+10 points if everything is right<BR>0 points if assignment is not turned in<BR>-10 points if everything is wrong.<BR><BR>There were students who were in the hole after the first assignment and had to begin the semester by digging themselves out. Psychologists must have a term for authority figures (judges, teachers, etc) who punish people like this.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jr76:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ironman 2008:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jr76:<BR>He wasn't even allowed to assert his defense. It was rejected a few hours before the trial began. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It was rejected because it wasn't a defense. It was grasp at straws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It doesn't matter how crazy his defense is, he should still have a chance to have his say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>He had his say. The court listened to his "defense" and ruled it was not valid. It wasn't a defense. It was a grasp at straws.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ironman 2008:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jr76:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ironman 2008:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jr76:<BR>He wasn't even allowed to assert his defense. It was rejected a few hours before the trial began. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It was rejected because it wasn't a defense. It was grasp at straws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It doesn't matter how crazy his defense is, he should still have a chance to have his say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>He had his say. The court listened to his "defense" and ruled it was not valid. It wasn't a defense. It was a grasp at straws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No- a JUDGE decided it was a bad defense. Not a JURY as should have happened. It doesn't matter how crazy the defense it- he still should have been allowed to present. And since the jury is a judge of both law and fact, they could have declared him innocent because the law is bad.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JPan:<BR>But you couldn't win. The thing is a judicial system that in reality punishes people who want a real trial is a sham. Esp. if it is possible to destroy the life of someone because he did something every college student does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It doesn't help matters when it's incredibly obvious you are guilty. Or when it's incredibly obvious you are lying to the jury.<BR><BR>If you decide to "fight the good fight", make sure you are actually innocent.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I think I found the official drama thread of the day. We have filesharing as a subject, and ironman as a poster. I was starting to worry that today was going to be boring.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by apple4ever:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ironman 2008:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jr76:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ironman 2008:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jr76:<BR>He wasn't even allowed to assert his defense. It was rejected a few hours before the trial began. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It was rejected because it wasn't a defense. It was grasp at straws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It doesn't matter how crazy his defense is, he should still have a chance to have his say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>He had his say. The court listened to his "defense" and ruled it was not valid. It wasn't a defense. It was a grasp at straws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No- a JUDGE decided it was a bad defense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Exactly. The judge listened to his "defense" and ruled that it was not a defense.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not a JURY as should have happened. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Wrong. This kind of thing happens all the time and is not unique to his case.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It doesn't matter how crazy the defense it- he still should have been allowed to present. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>He did have an opportunity to present it. The judge listened and ruled that it was not a defense.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And since the jury is a judge of both law and fact, they could have declared him innocent because the law is bad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't see the law as bad at all. Maybe the limits are excessive. But the law itself seems just fine to me.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There are other, legitimate cases that could have been in court that day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>True, so how hard should he be punished for wasting everybody's time? Should he pay double? Sounds fair. Or triple? Perhaps also ok.<BR><BR>but 30 times as much, meaning his whole life is more or less in shambles? Sorry but that's idiotic. That's the problem if law gives too much leeway to those interpreting it.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
So, let me see if I've got this straight. If you download some songs from the internet (and upload, we'll be fair here), you're liable for the losses of the recording industry. Then, if you show up in court like you're supposed to, you're on the hook for whatever the hell they can squeeze out of you.<BR><BR>On the flip side, if, rules be damned, you download (and upload) songs, you're still on the hook for the RIAA losses. And your attitude is then, still rules be damned, you're not showing up to court, you're on the hook for a lot less.<BR><BR>When the heck do we get a judicial system that is about justice and correction rather than publicity and showmanship?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
This is just crazy. If you don't show up you get a slap on the wrist (in comparison to what Jammie Thomas-Rasset and Joel Tenenbaum got), if you do show up you get rail roaded or slam dunked into a life altering judgement. The whole thing is crazy and as screwed up as a soup sandwich.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JPan:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There are other, legitimate cases that could have been in court that day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>True, so how hard should he be punished for wasting everybody's time? Should he pay double? Sounds fair. Or triple? Perhaps also ok.<BR><BR>but 30 times as much, meaning his whole life is more or less in shambles? Sorry but that's idiotic. That's the problem if law gives too much leeway to those interpreting it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>He should have, and even should (because I believe the RIAA is still willing to settle for considerably less), settled with the RIAA instead of taking it to court.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I don't understand why this is news. Getting a default judgment against you isn't "having your day in court," it's not bothering to show up. You could have done better than $750 a song if you simply settled the suit in the first place, and you wouldn't even be forfeiting anything beyond the option of contesting the RIAA.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkowl:<BR>I've read that first sentence a few times over now, and it still doesn't make any linguistic sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR>It's been fixed.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
So, if you agree with extortion, you pay a fair amount. If you don't agree with it, you pay more anyway. Dick in your ass one way, 2 dicks another. Sounds awesome.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ironman 2008:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JPan:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There are other, legitimate cases that could have been in court that day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>True, so how hard should he be punished for wasting everybody's time? Should he pay double? Sounds fair. Or triple? Perhaps also ok.<BR><BR>but 30 times as much, meaning his whole life is more or less in shambles? Sorry but that's idiotic. That's the problem if law gives too much leeway to those interpreting it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>He should have, and even should (because I believe the RIAA is still willing to settle for considerably less), settled with the RIAA instead of taking it to court. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The real question though, is what lesson should some random person contacted by the RIAA learn from this? AFAICT, the only clear lesson is: don't use the judicial system to argue your innocence.<BR><BR>Settling for approximately $3k and a couple of months (tops) of negotiations, getting a default judgment of approximately $8k and no negotiations, or spending years in court with some chance of getting a judgment of approximately $2million against you.<BR><BR>Rational people will forget about questions of innocence and guilt and choose the option which causes least upset to their lives. Your posts only reinforce the conclusion that this entire issue isn't really about guilt, innocence, justice, or even fairness. It's about finding the least-obnoxious way of letting the RIAA and MPAA get their way.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The fact that paying these hoodlums $7500 now seems to be ok is ...beyond me,<BR>I recently visited the US, beautiful place, lovely people... but still a totally out of date unfair judicial system. Not that our judicial system in Sweden has been untouched by industry money and influence... heck, its even more openly corrupt if you look at the TPB fiasco.<BR><BR>This is the advise i give everyone i meet, invest in a good vpn service for $5, its well worth it..then give the finger to the industries.<BR><BR>I download RIAA music everyday, even with ipred i challenge the morons to get me.<BR><BR>Civil disobedience is fine and great to make a statement, but do it safely.<BR><BR>Keep hitting this greedy scum infested industry, as hard as possible till they are no more.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
It's stupid and borderline criminal, but sadly it is more economically sound to settle even if you are innocent. Even if you manage to get them to drop the case, or *gasp* win, you will still be balls deep in legal fees that will no doubt exceed the original settlement. <BR><BR>The moral of the story. The judicial system is fucked, the RIAA's extortion scheme is sadly the best deal for the consumer. FUCK YEAH CAPITALISM!!
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shudder:<BR>So, if you agree with extortion, you pay a fair amount. If you don't agree with it, you pay more anyway. Dick in your ass one way, 2 dicks another. Sounds awesome. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That's what this is about. The RIAA must be happy as a clam with the result of this trial, as it tells everyone they should agree with extortion or face the consequences. Sickening.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ironman 2008:<BR>He should have, and even should (because I believe the RIAA is still willing to settle for considerably less), settled with the RIAA instead of taking it to court. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The real question though, is what lesson should some random person contacted by the RIAA learn from this? AFAICT, the only clear lesson is: don't use the judicial system to argue your innocence.<BR><BR>Settling for approximately $3k and a couple of months (tops) of negotiations, getting a default judgment of approximately $8k and no negotiations, or spending years in court with some chance of getting a judgment of approximately $2million against you.<BR><BR>Rational people will forget about questions of innocence and guilt and choose the option which causes least upset to their lives. Your posts only reinforce the conclusion that this entire issue isn't really about guilt, innocence, justice, or even fairness. It's about finding the least-obnoxious way of letting the RIAA and MPAA get their way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Your argument would have more merit if these two weren't guilty. One even admitted as much when questioned on the stand. Yet we have people, such as yourself, arguing as if they're innocent. They're not. As such they should have settled.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Demondeluxe:<BR>It's stupid and borderline criminal, but sadly it is more economically sound to settle even if you are innocent. Even if you manage to get them to drop the case, or *gasp* win, you will still be balls deep in legal fees that will no doubt exceed the original settlement. <BR><BR>The moral of the story. The judicial system is fucked, the RIAA's extortion scheme is sadly the best deal for the consumer. FUCK YEAH CAPITALISM!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Feel free to propose an alternate, and perfect, legal system to replace the current one.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He should have, and even should, settled with the RIAA instead of taking it to court. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>ok so you want to tell me that extortion pays and whatever you do: do not try to get into the legal system? Thumbs up
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Civil disobedience is fine and great to make a statement, but do it safely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Civil disobedience is downloading songs just to prove the laws are wrong. Downloading songs you actually like and want to listen to is anything but civil disobedience.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Hack-n-Slash
Ars Legatus Legionis
How about this as an additional datapoint?<BR><BR>http://www.rr.com/news/topic/a..._stealing_30000_DVDs
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JPan:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He should have, and even should, settled with the RIAA instead of taking it to court. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>ok so you want to tell me that extortion pays and whatever you do: do not try to get into the legal system? Thumbs up </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Saying it's extortion doesn't make it so. These people engaged in an activity which has a certain, predefined set of consequences. They got caught and were offered an opportunity to settle. There is nothing unique about this and it's the way the vast majority of cases are handled through the legal system.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<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>The fact that paying these hoodlums $7500 now seems to be ok is ...beyond me,<BR>I recently visited the US, beautiful place, lovely people... but still a totally out of date unfair judicial system. Not that our judicial system in Sweden has been untouched by industry money and influence... heck, its even more openly corrupt if you look at the TPB fiasco.<BR><BR>This is the advise i give everyone i meet, invest in a good vpn service for $5, its well worth it..then give the finger to the industries.<BR><BR>I download RIAA music everyday, even with ipred i challenge the morons to get me.<BR><BR>Civil disobedience is fine and great to make a statement, but do it safely.<BR><BR>Keep hitting this greedy scum infested industry, as hard as possible till they are no more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You aren't some kind of freedom fighter. You're a guy who's too cheap to pay for the music he wants to listen to. Get over yourself.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by apple4ever:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ironman 2008:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jr76:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ironman 2008:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jr76:<BR>He wasn't even allowed to assert his defense. It was rejected a few hours before the trial began. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It was rejected because it wasn't a defense. It was grasp at straws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It doesn't matter how crazy his defense is, he should still have a chance to have his say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>He had his say. The court listened to his "defense" and ruled it was not valid. It wasn't a defense. It was a grasp at straws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No- a JUDGE decided it was a bad defense. Not a JURY as should have happened. It doesn't matter how crazy the defense it- he still should have been allowed to present. And since the jury is a judge of both law and fact, they could have declared him innocent because the law is bad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That's not the jury's job; they don't interpret the law. The only decide guilt/innocence/liability based on the law and the instructions presented to them.<BR><BR>If a jury could hear any defence and accept or reject it themselves, they'd, effectively be writing on the law.<BR><BR>If I kill someone because they were wearing last year's collection summer collection, this fall, with sandals and white socks; should a jury be allowed to decide if that's a valid defence? What if they're all fashionistas and decide that, that being unfashionable should be punishable by death?<BR><BR>What if my defence for killing 162 hookers is "They were prostitutes and sinners and I was an angry vengeful man; I have found Jesus and prayed and confessed my sins and asked him for forgiveness... if he forgives me, shouldn't you?". If you have a religious jury, should they be able to consider that as a valid defence for multiple counts of murder?<BR><BR>"Crazy" defences are presented all of time... if they have a legal leg to stand on. If not, the judge will very rightly reject them.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
- Status