RIAA Found To Have Sued Yet Another Woman Without A Computer
from the sterling-investigative-techniques dept
While the RIAA insists that it’s stopped its lawsuit campaign, it’s still moving forward with existing lawsuits — including one against yet another woman who claims not to have even owned a computer on the date she was accused of file sharing. Now it’s possible that the woman is lying — but if that’s the case, she’s going to be in a lot more trouble than for sharing some music files. This is not the first time the RIAA was found to have sued people without a computer either — which again just serves to raise significant questions about the RIAA’s “investigative” techniques.
Comments on “RIAA Found To Have Sued Yet Another Woman Without A Computer”
I hate it when my printer is downloading mp3s. 🙁
Re: And Printers
Heh. I was just clicking in to make a comment about the printers sharing files and I see you already made one. Well done. I really need to talk to my printer about copyright infringement here sometime soon.
Sounds like they use the pin the tail on the donkey method after drinking two fiths of vodka.
Shouldn’t that be: “If she’s not lying this is not the first time the RIAA was found to have sued people without a computer either”?
There are plenty of well-documented cases over the last few years where people have been sued despite not having owned a computer. Or accused of running Windows-only software when they own a Mac. Yet, we’re meant to accept that their information, gathered on the same basis, is accurate when they extort some who could potentially have done something wrong?
Even if this particular person is not telling the whole truth, there’s many other who have been falsely accused. If these civil suits had the same burden of proof as a criminal case, they’d be laughed out of the room.
Re: Re: IF
> Even if this particular person is not telling
> the whole truth, there’s many other who have
> been falsely accused.
Yep. It’s a question of credibility at this point and the RIAA’s past behavior means they have none.
As a result, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused in this case. She’s assumed to be telling the truth until it’s proven otherwise because we *know* the RIAA doesn’t tell the truth.
Identity Theft, not I said the Pirate
Point the finger at someone else. Simple misdirection. The lynch mob will have blood. Anyones it seems. Those that illegally copy/pirate stuff are sure to have other vices in their retinue.
This is always the thing that gets me about these tactics. For all the rhetoric over the last decade about “pirates” and how they’re “stealing” content, the RIAA seems to be incapable of catching those “thieves”. When they can’t even correctly identify people who are *capable* of breaking the laws they insist on trying to uphold, how do they expect the rest of their claims to be taken seriously.
Remember, this case is part of the statistics they use to try and force your ISP to cut your internet connection when they suspect you of wrongdoing. How anyone can support these idiots is beyond me.
I don’t think that the RIAA should be upholding any laws… That’s more the purview of the police and the courts, isn’t it?
Silly little details – do you seriously think the RIAA cares about minor issues like that?? They are record company PROFITS at stake!! Nothing else should be more important.
The irony, of course, is that if they looked more closely at these “minor issues” then they’d probably make more money. I wonder how many people have been driven to completely boycott the RIAA by these kinds of stories, as I have?
Not to mention the fact that any legal fees spend on suing this woman is money down the drain – she couldn’t possibly have pirated the music they “lost”, so there’s no profits to gain by suing her…
Re: Re: Re:
There’s settlement. It’s costly to go to court, even if you’re innocent. And therein lies the rub.
It went like this....
“The industry began suing end users about five years ago, finding no alternative to piracy…”
MegaRecords Exec: “Say Bob, did you look into alternate ways to curb this damn piracy the other day like I asked?”
Bob: “Sure boss. Spent 5 hours on it.”
MegaRecords Exec: “Great! Call the lawyers. Let’s sue away!”
Gotta keep the RIAA lawyers earning their keep!
Why care about evidence?
Why in the world does the RIAA need evidence for their extortion scheme? They could care less about evidence, they only want to screw people for extortion money since their business model has changed from selling music to extortion. It’s much easier to simply extort a few thousand from people rather than try to find a way to make money sellig music in the digital age.
Story from a few days ago ...
They are only hurting themselves because the money they get is then used to buy more coke.
yeah riaa, try to bomb our cities and schools! – it may helps you to survive
RIAA YADA YADA YADA
it still comes down to the fact that if a person isn’t going to buy the song anyway,how is downloading music causing the industry to lose money.
i refuse to spend the money the cd,so i download the track i like.if the riaa stops me that’s not going to convince me to spend 10 or 12 bucks on that one track..i’ll do without it. most dowmloaders using p2p software feel the same way i do.so nobody’s losing money that won’t be spent regardless of the situation. the riaa is such an arrogant organisation.