RIAA Sues Yet Another Person Without A Computer
from the sense-a-trend? dept
This isn’t even close to the first time something like this has happened, but the RIAA has (once again) sued someone who doesn’t own and has never used a computer, claiming she was helping to destroy the music business by sharing music. Maybe she was singing too loudly? More likely is that they screwed up again. The woman in question is likely to file a motion to dismiss the case, for obvious reasons. It’s quite likely, actually, that the RIAA will back down and drop out before that’s even necessary. However, the problem is that this keeps happening. What it means is that the process the RIAA uses to accuse people of file sharing is clearly problematic. And, while the RIAA backtracks on cases where it’s obviously screwed up, it’s much more difficult in cases where someone does own a computer. For those who are getting sued, though, it might make sense to gather up a list of these cases to demonstrate that the method is anything but reliable, and use that to produce reasonable doubt concerning the RIAA’s claims.
Comments on “RIAA Sues Yet Another Person Without A Computer”
WEB OF LIES
Ok I’ll believe she doesn’t own a computer, but saying she never used one is just jackass. Anyone that has used an ATM or driven a newer model car has used a computer.
Offtopic but also annoying about this article, the so-called permenant link, “Will change if updated in subsequent month”. What the fuck? Am I the only person that understands what the definition of permanent means?
Re: WEB OF LIES
That was completely idiotic, use a little bit of argument reconstruction and it is quite easy to see he meant “PC”, when is the last time you downloaded a song on an ATM?
Re: Re: WEB OF LIES
Woah you two are both wrong, buds. The article clearly states that the woman was neither an RIAA agent nor a member of either company. If you’re going to make false accusations, provide some evidence!
Re: Re: Re: WEB OF LIES
anyone who defends the RIAA, has no clue what they are talking about anyway
riaaradar.com
downhillbattle.org
boycott-riaa.com
Re: WEB OF LIES you are officially a moron
“Marie Lindor, a home health aide who has never bought, used, or even turned on a computer in her life”, im pretty sure that you can go to any electronics store and buy an ATM(sarchasm), the article is focusing on things that would be used to pirate music, and the only thing that applies to this particular article is a PC (running either a derivative of linux[redhat, linspire, yellowdog, mandrake, etc…], windows or mac.
not only that but the statement you made is also a fallacy of logic(begging the question, circular reasoning, petitio principii), the truth of your premises is claimed by you(without any actual proof), therefore your conclusion is assumed.
Re: Re: WEB OF LIES you are officially a moron
It’s not my fault that your convoluted vocabulary confuses the terms “computer” and “personal computer”.
Microcomputer would have also been accepted but alas that term has gone the way of the dodo thanks to morons like you that water down definitions.
Re: Re: Re: WEB OF LIES you are officially a moron
You definitely could be doing something more beneficial to humanity with your time.
Re: Re: Re:2 WEB OF LIES you are officially a moron
Only two problems with your suggestion… I don’t own a gun and I don’t know where you live.
Re: Re: WEB OF LIES you are officially a moron
see, here’s a perfect example of why it’s a bad idea to try to sound smarter than you really are. you go through all that trouble listing logical fallacies that you learned from freshman english, yet you misspell ‘sarcasm’?
Re: WEB OF LIES
Hey dumbass, can you download copyrighted data from your atm? who do you use, wells fargo?
Re: Re: WEB OF LIES
Sometimes, the only problem is most of them still use Windows 98…
http://daimyo.org/files/images/atm_bluescreen.jpg
Re: WEB OF LIES
Stop being disingenuous you idiot! If you have nothing better to do than get all pedantic about the semantics, rather just shut up! Talk about opening your mouth just for the sake of hearing your own patronising bleating….
Random name draw
How did they “track her down”? arent they suppose to have evidence? or has the RIAA resorted to just drawing names out of a hat because of course we are all guilty.
Re: Random name draw
They “sniff” the P2P network, and collect IP addresses. Has anyone ever explained IP “spoofing” to these idiots…
Re: Re: Random name draw
What’s in an IP I mean seriously. The biggest prolem is that ISP’s have had a problem with turning over IP’s for people in things that matter compared to petty things like a lil bit of downloading muzik. Oh my god she just copied a vhs tape she rented. I mean get serious. This is literally the most ridiculous waste of money I’ve ever seen.
Re: Re: Random name draw
If the accused doesn’t have an IP, how could spoofing be related to a mistaken identity? And no, to answer you question, the idiots don’t really care…”Somebody has to pay” is ALL that matters.
Any one who...
Tries to defend people who share content they don’t have a copyright to with the world is dishonest or ignorant.
If this is like previous cases.
It isn’t IP spoofing since you can’t spoof the IP of a computer that doesn’t exist. (unless the cable company thinks the P2P was running on her digital cable box)
I have to guess that this is comcast or another cable company where the connection provider insists on being the ISP too.
So RIAA says here is the IP and info of the person infringing on copyright. Can you please provide the name and address.
ISP goes “here it is,” but gives them the name of a customer that never had a computer. Because the records are all messed up.
RIAA is not being smart on the PR end of it. But in general with intellectual property law if you are not aggressive in protecting it once you know there is a violation, you can lose the right to protect it at all.
RIAA is out there, because some people are at worst dishonest or at best ignorant. It is illegal to publish and distribute copyrighted materials and when you list them on a service with hundreds of thousands of users, that is not fair use, it is publishing and distributing.. end of story.
Re: Any one who...
You didn’t complete that statement with an explanation other than something about law. The law should never be the arbiter of your morality because it’s simply broken and immoral. It exists to make it easier for big business to make large land-grabs, to prevent you consuming certain types of herbs and seditious literature and to protect itself. The law is an ass and those who practice it are pigs.
That said, I think artists should be compensated for producing something they poured their heart and soul into, bot ONLY if it’s really something they poured their heart and soul into. Britney, Justin and “J-Lo” are not artists. This is what is being defended here – empty major label calories.
If I set up a business where I decided to sell dog turds at exorbitant prices and spent millions convincing people that they really need dog turds. Dog turds will enhance your every day and make you the life of the party – the latest dog turd is different to and better than all the dog turds that came before and so on… Then people, after say 20 years, start to realise that they can scrape dog turds off the pavement that are just as good as the ones in my shop… Can I sue them? Or was my business model fucked to begin with? I mean, selling shit… How CAN it work? Well, it doesn’t and it’s over. Then what about if people start hand crafting dog turds of higher quality and won’t sell them through me but go independent, then I find people are buying the good turds but still scraping the ones off the street that are like mine? Do I take a chance and spend some time and money on these quality turds or do I pound everybody’s head flat until they go back to paying premium for my standard turds of pavement quality?
People are “stealing” this crap because it’s not worth buying. I bet they’ll start buying again when the large record labels grow some fucking cojones and start signing artists. You know, artists – producing art, not this mindless, “everything’s great!”, party garbage that infests every single FM radio station from Tokyo to LA the long way round.
Re: Re: My take.
The RIAA blows. Back when CD’s first came out, they were contained in a small cartridge the size of a cd case. The cartridge acted much like a floppy disk does. It protected the surface of the optical disk from dust, smudges, fingerprints, scratches, ect. But then they did away with the cartridge and started distributing the optical disks by themselves. They sighted reasons such as “the cartridges got jammed alot” and “this makes them more portable and less expesive to produce.” While some of these claims may have had some merit, it was not the real reason they did away with cartridges. Why you wonder? Because 99% of people dont take care of their CD’s the way they should. People finger them up, toss them aound their car, and do all sorts of irresponsable things with them. Don’t beleive me? Go and try to rent a DVD from a video rental store some time. I have come home before to find that my freshly rented “Army of Darkness” had crayon drawings all over the optical side.
I guess my point is this: CD’s are made to break, just like vaccum cleaners. If someone wants to download Arials instead of buying the same System of A Down CD for the fourth time in a row, then LET THEM! And if someone else wants to share Arials then let them too. Don’t sue them for trying to do the rest of us a favor when your crappy media fails and certainly dont sue the nice old lady down the street who doesnt own a computer.
Holy CRAP! Is there no end to the GREED of the record industry! First you charge a consumer for music which you didnt create on inferior media that is designed to break down. You rape the consumer on the price and you rape the musician on their cut and take 95% of the profits. Then you sue people claiming they “shared files” who dont have a computer and probly still listen to all their music on 8-tracks and vinyl!
The RIAA deserves to be anal raped in a dirty prison shower room.
The End.
Re: Re: Re: My take.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve read a musician interview with the interviewer asking them about their take on the whole file-sharing fiasco, and nine times out of ten, the musician could care less. One in particular (Kid Rock, I think it was) said something along the lines of “The music industry has been raping us for years, I’m just glad they’re finally getting what’s coming to them.” That’s not the actual quote, mind you, but it’s, more or less, what he said.
Re: Re: Any one who...
I agree completely with fuzzix. Sell quality crap and then get mad if people steal it. Dont get mad over someone stealing crap that wasnt worth anything in the first place. Besides that, in the first place, doesnt someone have to buy the music in order to share it? As a teenage music lover that owns at least 100 burned cds that my friends have courteously burned me, I have bought music legitimately, then turned around and burned it for my friends. Am I filesharing? Do I deserve to go to jail or whatever punishment they dole out for burning a cd? Im just wondering. As far as I can see, the only argument the RIAA has is that “its stealing, you wouldnt steal a car, or a purse, or a painting”. But we are “stealing” music. How can they enforce no filesharing? If I download a program like limewire will they come knocking down my door with a lawsuit in hand? I dont know. These days what people call “music” almost doesnt seem worth stealing.
Re: Re: Any one who...
to fuzzix … dude… shut up. that was stupid. quality wouldn’t change people buying music vs. stealing it. people steal ’cause they don’t want to spend thier money when they can get it free and not get in trouble. bottom line.
i’m against file sharing for the most part…
but i’m also against companies killing up with thier prices…
so i’m torn.
so i stay out of this most of the time.
i just listen to the radio… and use open source software.
No Subject Given
You don’t need reasonable doubt for a civil case; the burden on the plaintiff is lower than in a criminal case. All that needs to be shown is a preponderance of the evidence — that is, that 50.00001% of the evidence suggests that the defendant did in fact do what she is accused of.
I’d like to see the complaint (wherein the plaintiff alleges what the defendant did wrong) . . . and the next person who gets this kind of treatment should consider a counter-suit.
Has anyone?
Has anyone compiled a list of people without computers that the RIAA has sued.
Speaking as a musician who fully supports free sharing of his music, I hate the corporate suits against people whom 99% of artists have no problem with.
Proving that the RIAA’s legislative method is flawed on a basic level is something that every proponent of fair use should be looking for.
If they’re suing people who have no computers… it shouldn’t be that hard to prove…
Civil Suits
These are civil suits so isn’t the burden of proof at balance of probabilities? It is not enough to show reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities the RIAA method is unreliable.
Losing a lawsuit
The author of the article said at his conclusions that gathering a history of the RIAA’s past mistakes would “cast a reasonable doubt.” To that I say, “congratulations, you watch ‘Law & Order'” However, “reasonable doubt” only applies in criminal cases. Civil cases do not require “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Civil cases are judged on the “preponderance of evidence” This means if it looks like you did it more than it doesn’t, then under civil law you did it. The same goes for juries. In criminal cases the jury must be unanimous, in civil cases it’s usually the majority. Differing jurisdictions may determine how many jurors are considered “the majority”, but regardless its a simple majority vote.
Re: Losing a lawsuit
Man. Everyone’s harping on “reasonable doubt”. I just used that as an expression. Didn’t mean the specific legal usage of the term. Sorry about that. I think the point still stands, however.
Re: Re: Losing a lawsuit
Don’t sweat it Mike. People spot one mistake and suddenly they think they are God. Especially that asshole who made the Law & Order remark. What a smartass piece of shit thinking that he’s the only one who knows how a civil suit works.
Re: Re: Re: RIAA buys their stuff from the toilet store
As much as I agree with the rest of you (who find riaa an excellent source of entertainment) I wonder why they are going for the small folk, rather than the people litteraly running servers for the sole purpose of sharring music. (I mean TB’s worth of music..) Or could it be that the avarage Shmo who is into music is far easier to get a hold of? The avarage music go’er hears about P2P from a friend, tries it out, and downloads a couple of tracks (using no proxy routing (my favorite, through scandinavia) or any other protection what so ever). VS the guy shareing 260 TB’s of music routing his IP’s through china, using multiple firewalls, encryting everything, and based somewhere in Nevada. HMMM, which person would be cheaper (aka easier) to go after? Riaa is getting a bit lazy if you ask me, and not to mention new BIT sites are poping up faster than the Govt can knock them back down again.
~SmallTwig
Re: Re: Re: Losing a lawsuit
“People spot one mistake…” Yeah, there are a crapload of errors in mine 🙂 (Forgot to spell check b4 i published it 😉 )
No Subject Given
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There’s also a negative side.”
– Hunter S. Thompson
A little snippit from goggle i would like to share with you
record companies profits into the drug dealers poc
The record companies would have us believe that the money made by CD pirates goes to fund the drug industry.
But the money rock stars make
from legal record sales ends up in exactly the same place. When they stop breaking the law, so will I.
http://www.viz.co.uk/?domain=viz&page=%2Fletterbocks%2Fletterbocks_story.php%3Ffb%3D1%26id%3D493
Best way to deal with the RIAA
I must say that i personally do not purchase music from artists that have a close relationship with the RIAA-associated labels.
Buckethead has a few CD’s that are noted as “warning” on riaaradar.com, but the majority of them are not. And when i say majority, i mean he puts out a LOT of records, under his name and in collaborations with other musicians.
Once i get my cd in the mail (since most record stores don’t carry any buckethead cds, just that one cd from the ‘Bucketheads” [?] ) i quickly yet tenderly extract it from its package and make a dupe of it. Then i put it back in its case and stash it away with the rest.
If anybody else likes what i am playing and wants a copy, i make a copy for them and hand it to them. If anything, this will help the Artist by letting that one person know of buckethead and maybe they’ll do a search.
Anyway, Buckethead makes a lot of records a year, as opposed to one every two years like most RIAA slaves. I really think that is what artists should do; don’t bet that ONE song on your crappy album will make you the millions.
anyway, i have said enough.
Get sued and you're innocent?
Make noise.
Countersue for defamation.
Go to the press.
Legal downloads
I believe that iTunes Service is the best way to download music. I have NEVER bought cd’s, and yes, before iTunes came out, I downloaded music from the internet illegally all the time. Reason being: If I only like a few songs by the artist on a few of their cd’s, why buy the entire cd when I can just download the songs I know I like or songs other people recommend to me. I would much rather spend $1.98 on two songs that I like rather than spend $12 on the entire cd. My only question is though: Where does the money from iTunes music downloads go, I mean, what percentage goes to the artist and what percentage goes to the record label or Apple???
Re: Legal downloads
Who cares realy? They cant sue all of us. I havent payed for music in years and i never will again. Its only a matter of time before they are gone. I think they are pulling names from a hat out of panic. They see the end of there business model. I am in the music business and i can tell you bands dont make money from cd sales or iTunes. They make money from touring and playing live shows.
Re: Anecdotal Evidence
From what I have heard, Apple get to keep about 15%, the other 85% goes to the RIAA for protecting the artists. In exchange for this “protection” the artists get about 5% or less.
Thank your lucky stars..
If you are an artist and you DIDN’T hire these goons to ‘protect’ you.
A 5% per download return for the artist is ridiculous.
Screw their distribution model.