Printable View
Funny and ironic at the same time
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/04/riaa_sued/
Goes to show you, even when you think you are in the right, how in such a fluid environment as the internet, the laws can turn on you.
Sort of fits in with some other threads here discussing ethics and hacking and what can and cannot be considered legal.
Good for her..
Might set a nice precedent..
You can't just go bullying people out of their money threatening them with a lawsuit based on weak evidence..
I'd like to see how this rolls out..
Just to bad most of the news reports like this never get a followup..
That's great, the RIAA "Hoisted on their own Petard" :cool:
But begs the question, how many of those the RIAA took to court settled because they were intimidated into it, and may have been falsly accused like this individual. :mad:
RICO statutes used against the RIAA.... NICE. Some have speculated using them against the ACLU as well. Precedence....
The ACLU :eek: your kidding right, they don't go around snooping into private people's lives do they, or is it the people the ACLU go after that may use this precedent :pQuote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
RICO statutes used against the RIAA.... NICE. Some have speculated using them against the ACLU as well. Precedence....
You can't argue the ACLU doesn't use the same tactics. They are ruthless when targeting someone. As far as being on a side of ACLU or not, I don't always agree that smacking people around is the best thing. Depends on the situation.
Regardless of the organization, no one should be allowed to snoop on a machine except the appropriate authorities with a proper warrant, or at least probable cause. I hope they stick it to the RIAA, because if they can't build cases against people without breaking the law themselves, they just become a bunch of well-paid vigilanties.
*NOTE: This doesn't mean that I think those who download illegal music shouldn't be punished, just that Due Process should be respected.
I read about this a couple of days ago here: http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14623
There is actualy quite a good discusion going on it's worth a look.
Let me be the first to quote Nelson Muntz by pointing and laughing at the RIAA while yelling, "HA HA!"
As seen on slashdot two days ago: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/02...tid=188&tid=17
<offtopic>Why don't we have that here anymore..Quote:
I think a lot of it has to do with political correctnes (ethics).
</offtopic>
When I first read the article I was sceptical of the breaking into her computer claims, I still am actualy. However having read this article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10...us_keyloggers/
A small snip
Should not this mean that media sentry are guilty, they moniter and intercept P2P exchanges?Quote:
In addition to criminalizing the actual interception, the U.S. law makes it a crime to either manufacture or possess any device if you have a reason to know that it is, "primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.
Hmm interesting I hope this pans out. Might make the IRAA think a little more before they bully some into submission via the courtroom.
The types of tactics the RIAA is using have been used for a long time. There was a point in time where satellite TV provides obtained a list of every person who purchased the equipment needed to write on the smartcards their recievers used, then they sent them all mail saying they had to pay 3000 and send them the equipment (or some outrageuos claim like that) or they would be sued. Most people were scared to death so they paid without even thinking about it. One doctor did stand up to them and showed why he had the reader, which put an end to the threats.
the point is, the RIAA is intimidating people into paying. They know most people cant afford the lawyer bills, the time out of work, so they pay. even if they didnt really do it. What the RIAA is doing IS unethical.
I agree that intellectual rights need to be protected, but due process must be preserved. If they can legally obtain the information and proof about downloaders then they should press charges. But the way they are going about this is wrong. I hope this person follows through and wins.
I am in a peculiar situation here, as I lost a job in the recording industry due to piracy :eek:
But I hope she creams those parasites for $50M...........................it would be a lesson?
My wife was once attacked in such a way.............it was via snail mail, from a company she had dealt with for a couple of years with no problems.............hadn't paid a bill for about $40.............they said.........she was about to pay her bank about $60 to prove that she had..........
I just rang a couple of contacts...........I saw an unofficial picture of the lumps of sh1t being led away in cuffs...............the guys with the MP5s..................another favour from another department............
They were charged with fraud and demanding money with menaces...............that is prime "Bubba time" stuff over here..............
I was able to demonstrate to mates in the fraud squad that they had had a computer fowl up, and that they had just reinstalled a backup from some time back............
Listen up you lamers out there............when you change fonts and what info appears in which box.........you leave a print better than DNA.................they got 5-7 and all because they employed a donkey as their IT boss?
:D
More here and here...
There was another similar case though. Unfortunately the lawyer in that case declared personal bankruptcy for his client and thus that case was over. And that's one way how the RIAA could win this case, simply because this woman can't afford the costs to pay for her lawyer. She might earn them back if she wins but until the RIAA is actually forced to pay her any damages, she will get close to going bankrupt.
Which just proves that the justice system can be severely flawed. I would almost say that justice can be bought...
Katja: She could fix this if she would put up a donation link. Many, many, many people have offered to give her donations to fight this, but so far I've not seen a way to do so.
EDIT: I just had to "subscribe" to the thread, giving as three out of four people subscribed have very similar names. ;)
She could put up a donation link somewhere but that might actually work against her! The RIAA could then claim that this woman is an attention seeker and just out to earn some quick money. They could argue that she apparantly is fooling many people to just donate money to her and just call it all 'foul play' from her side.
While it would help her cause to pay for the costs, others will clearly make it appear as if she's just doing this for the money. It's more just a flaw in the justice system that people have to give up on a court case simply because they went bankrupt.
Maybe this group http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/?f=riaa-v-thepeople.html should step up and help her out. It's apparent that the RIAA can be very heavy handed when it comes to going after individuals and with their huge resources available (usually from the sales of their overpriced cd's), it can be overwhelming for your average John Q public.
Yet you don't really hear that much about the RIAA going after the huge pirate's like China who are probably downloading tons of music.
I use the program Peerguardian from Methlabs and when I look at the logs to see who it blocked the majority of them are college's or universities, and a lot of times it is the University of Beijing, heck even the Dept of Defense gets in there, somebody probably bored and on duty and while he is there, why not use the Gov't PC to download some files.
So I get ticked when I see the "Industry" RIAA go after the minnows, and leave the big fish alone (paybacks,politics,graft, who knows), a Bully usually ends up on the receiving end at some point and maybe this is the one to do it. :cool:
Having done a little digging on MediaSentry, it would seem that they employ some Dubious people (and therefore tactics??).
Resume: http://kashpureff.org/ekashp/resume.html
Conviction: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/kashpurepr.htm
The actual legal filings from this case can be found here (along with filings from other cases)
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
My favorite excerpt:
:rofl:Quote:
Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had "been viewed" by MediaSentry downloading "gangster rap" musica at 4:24 a.m. Settlement Support center also falsely claimed that Ms. Anderson had used the login name [email protected]." Ms Anderson does not like "gangster rap," does not recognize the name "gotenkito," is not awaka at 4:24 a.m. and has never downloaded music.
Might it just be that the RIAA uses the methode of Woman and Children first ??
via /. http://p2pnet.net/story/6485Yup that evil woman forced the poor RIAA to pick on a 14 year old (13 at the time of the aleged infringements).Quote:
“Notwithstanding that her own testimony implicated her daughter, Candy Chan refused to take responsibility for her daughter and forced Plaintiffs to file this action directly against Brittany Chan even after they informed her that she had left them with no alternative.”