Re: RIAA terrorists now want $1.5 million penalty for every song copied. Magazine publishers want thousands of dollars for every magazine page you photocopy.
- From: Deadrat <a@xxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:09:52 GMT
richard <I.dont.care@xxxxxx> wrote in
news:crk2q3tcp25q2br0nsi9cf210hheorl5ni@xxxxxxx:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:08:09 GMT, Deadrat <a@xxxxx> wrote:
richard <I.dont.care@xxxxxx> wrote in
news:mcb2q35e4kgv8b85et3ibqc809t0mq4qdq@xxxxxxx:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:44:36 -0800 (PST), Joe
<useful_infos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Story at http://Muvy.org
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080130-magistrate-judge-sugges
ts -sanctions-against-riaa-lawyers.html
On a similar note, pardon the pun, it appears that the RIAA is going
about the countryside and seeking out would be participants in a
lawsuit. Filing frivously against multiple unnamed "john/jane does".
Is there any topic on which you fear to display your ignorance.
Why are these suits frivolous? Are you maintaining that illegal
copying is not taking place. Once they file, they may compel the ISPs
to produce records. Do you understand what rules the federal
magistrate suggested that the RIAA might be breaking?
IOW, they don't even know yet with whom they are filing suits
against.
How could they? Are you maintaining that because someone uses a
screen name, the RIAA can't file suit?
In previous cases, the RIAA simply tracked the IP to the ISP, then
found out who owned that IP, or was assigned to it at that time, and
made their threats. Why is this case any different? They can't track
an IP any closer than the University?
In the proper course of events, which the RIAA refuses to use, one
must first request from a court, usually small claims, for the ISP to
turn over the information to the court. Then, the RIAA files claims in
civil court.
My civil procedure is fairly rusty (read nonexistent), but I think this
is nonsense. I don't think a court is going to direct an ISP to turn
over its records unless there's a legal proceeding.
By filing in civil court directly, they expect the court
to do all their dirty work. Thus, the "john doe" actions. Did you read
the article?
Yes. Did you?
The judge is refusing the mass actions.
And that's all she's doing. The RIAA is accused of taking a shortcut,
bundling many cases together by declaring that there's evidence that the
cases are related.
I agree. You can
not bring multiple cases into one lump sum, assuming all parties are
guilty of the same precise crime.
You've almost got it. I think everyone assumes that some parties are
probably guilty of the same offense (note that this is a civil action).
But that alone doesn't mean that the parties or their actions are
related.
By that I mean, you can not try 22
seperate individuals at the same time, even though they mave have
committed the same crime. There are 22 seperate cases, not 1.
That's what the magistrate says.
In this particular case, the only thing they do know for a fact is,
that all "does" use the same ISP. In this case, centering on the
University of Maine, it would seem to me that if the campus was
hooked up to cable, well duh, the ISP would be the same for the
entire frickin campus. It seems to me that the RIAA is just
initiating the lawsuit so that they can properly determine exactly
who the guilty parties are.
Not "just." But once the do initiate, they can find out names.
If done properly as noted above. IOW, they are on a phishing
expedition.
You've almost got it. The law says they have to go on separate
expeditions. It can't be a cruise.
And it's not "phishing." That's a separate cybercrime. It's plain old
fishing. And you're wrong. They know downloading has been taking place;
they won't be asking for records to see if downloading has happened.
They already know that. They'll be asking for who was doing the
downloading.
Or perhaps scaring the "does" into incriminating themselves.
This is not what the copyright law is about.
This is *exactly* what copyright law is about. The stealing of
intellectual property.
Prove so.
By definition.
They have the burden of proof.
Of course they do. But that's different. You're claiming that this
[presumably downloading] "is not what the copyright law is about."
You're wrong.
The only thing they can prove
is that someone using a computer MAY HAVE downloaded copyrighted
material.
Oh, I think they can show that copyrighted material was downloaded.
Does the ISP know who? The ISP only has records that a
person purchased service. Some services may keep records as to when
that service was used, but probably not.
And if there are no records, the RIAA has a weaker case. What's your
point?
If it's broadband, it's always connected so the computer could be
online all the time as well. Which means many people could be using
it.
Could be. That's what subpoenas are all about.
Nor is it about using the
courts to impose such ridicously high fines that only pay the RIAA
for their services.
If the RIAA initiates legal action, then it's a civil suit. In such
suits there are no "fines." There are damages
I use the word "fine" because in my opinion, the RIAA is attempting to
act as a legal jurisdiction. They are trying to use the courts as
their collection agent.
What is a "legal jursidiction"?
That what civil courts do. They determine damages in disputes. Exactly
how do you expect the RIAA to proceed?
Anyone know for a fact if any RIAA initiated case has resulted in
the payment of proceeds to the artists involved? I seriously doubt
it.
But then again, you're an ignoramus. Why would your doubts count
toward anything?
The RIAA is a creature of the recording companies, not the artists.
The RIAA is trying to recover lost revenues for the companies. The
artists receive the
percent of those recovered revenues specified in their contracts.
The RIAA is getting fatter by these frivilous lawsuits.
I don't understand what the RIAA's budget has to do with this.
The recording companies already made their money on the sale of the
music.
So what?
Copyright law says I can give you that music if I so choose.
If by "music," you mean the physical thing that I can play to hear the
music, then you're right.
The recording company can not collect again.
Whatever that means.
Which is precisely what the RIAA wants to do.
You are not free to make copies of the music even when you own the thing
you're copying. That's what the RIAA wants to stop.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: 2nd amendment under fire!
- Next by Date: Re: 2nd amendment under fire!
- Previous by thread: Subcontractor insurance
- Next by thread: Disbarred vs Resigning from the Bar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
