View Poll Results: What did you think of JK's speech?

10. You may not vote on this poll
  • *****ing great I want to have sex with him!!!!

    2 20.00%
  • It was good.

    3 30.00%
  • It was lame.

    1 10.00%
  • It was utterly pathetic.

    4 40.00%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: havey you been subponead by the riaa?

  1. #1

    havey you been subponead by the riaa?

    A subponea list is located here (provided by eff)

    How to *not* get sued by the RIAA (also by eff)

    If you *have* been subponead go here:

    just some interesting links i thought you might like.
    if you have time be sure to drop my my website at

  2. #2
    Here's a few tips to prevent getting nabbed by the RIAA:

    1. Do not download and share files you do not legally own
    2. Do not install or use programs/music/files that you do not legally own
    3. Do not use OS's (operating systems) that you do not legally own

    Simple, yet effective tactics.

  3. #3
    I like his defense.
    An important issue here is that downloading music is NOT illegal. Sharing the music is the illegal aspect.

    If you get sued, merely claim that you are too stupid to secure your system in order to prevent remote users from having access to your files.

    Additionally since many file sharing clients automatically include file sharing as well, if the RIAA accesses your shared files you could in theory counter sue for their accessing your system i a manner "outside of normal use" much like how accessing a system that is infected with a trojan is illegal.

    The counter suit would be a bit of a struggle and would actually fall under criminal charges, so good luck with that, but I see it as highly unlikely that the RIAA can prove in court that you are required to be a computer security expert in order to own digital music.


    PS. It was ruled a few years back that user requirement site disclaimers and agreements are not binding. However "outside of normal use" is a very real issue and is used for things like prosecuting people for running port/vulnerability scans as well as violating simple to exploit systems like the asp. issue.
    Peer Guardian

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Wow, I feel really bad for the RIAA lawyers:
    Doe #36 MISSING PAGE
    Doe #066 MISSING PAGE
    Doe #132 MISSING PAGE
    Doe #201 MISSING PAGE
    They have ran out of effort and have decided to start sueing nothing.

    Stuff here:
    You shall no longer take things at second or third hand,
    nor look through the eyes of the dead...You shall listen to all
    sides and filter them for your self.
    -Walt Whitman-

  5. #5
    I agree with a bit that rust quoted, but not all of it.

    If you get sued, merely claim that you are too stupid to secure your system in order to prevent remote users from having access to your files.
    Ignorance does not play any part in the Judicial system, and allow me an example.

    Defendant is being charged with man slaughter for shooting someone in the chest with a 9mm. The weapon was licensed and registered, and every legal action was taken for the gun to have been permitted for it to be legal. However, the gun went off by accident due to whatever reason and the deceased person was killed unintentionally.

    The defendant can not use the defence of "I didn't know how to work the saftey" in his case. I take that back, he can, but it will be thrown out of court. The reason why is because the upon using something or something you are claiming the responcibility of that item. If you do not know how to use a gun properly, you are responcible (not set in law, but civic duty) to not use a gun because of the danger it imposes to yourself or others. This same thing would apply to the person who uses P2P to try and say "but I didn't know how to secure the program so it wouldn't allow others to connect to me"

    Because the judge would respond: "If you didn't know how to use the program properly and legally, and to make sure you were legally using it in the first place, why did you continue to use it?"

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Ignorance does not play any part in the Judicial system
    Your partially right here. Ignorance is not a defense in breaking the law when it comes to criminal matters. But we are talking about civil matters. The RIAA is suing in civil court, not criminal. Let me explain. Cousin comes over, downloads music, rips a cd, and disappears. RIAA sues you. You can play ignorant in this case, saying you did not know what was going, you where not home at the time, you allowed them to use your computer only for writing papers, etc.....

    Anyways I would just use the Twinkie defense.
    Everyone wants to know it but nobody wants to hear it.

  7. #7
    AO Antique pwaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
    Ignorance does not play any part in the Judicial system, and allow me an example.
    I don't know about the US judicial system, but in the UK there are some cases where ignorance is a defence. Ignorance of the law is never a defence (i.e. "I didn't know it was illegal to do 40mph in a 30mph zone" will not wash with the judges) but ignorance of the facts can be. For example, if someone appears to be attacking someone else and you step in to help, applying some force at the time then you can escape liability (criminal and civil) if it turns out that you were wrong, so long as you honestly believed that the person was being attacked.

    So you couldn't say "I didn't know filesharing was illegal" but you *might* get away with "I didn't know my firewall wasn't configured to prevent people from downloading my music".

    I've also heard that the record companies are mainly going after the uploaders, if you download a few files now and then they aren't likely to pay much attention, but if you decide to share the latest DVD then you will probably find them knocking at your door relatively quickly. I know someone who this happened to on the university network - no-one complained about him downloading a DVD, but he left it in his shared folder (since he automatically shared any files he downloaded) and *that's* when he got caught and cut-off.

    Edit: BTW, I haven't been subpeoned by the RIAA, probably because it would cost a fortune as UK law usually allows civil cases to take part in the defendant's home town (assuming they aren't going to a higher court) so they'd have to come all the way over here just to start proceedings which would cost them a great deal of money.
    Paul Waring - Web site design and development.

  8. #8
    I see both of your points, and agree with both as well. I assume that each instance would be on a case by case basis (in terms of letting ignorance be okay (I mean come on, letting your cousin download illegal files from your computer??), and thus thank the courts for being the ones to do that

    On a side note, I still point to my first post. If you do not download things you do not own to begin with, there isn't any question in any courts mind.

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Never said ignorance is OK, just that you can get away with it.
    Have to finish downloading now.
    Everyone wants to know it but nobody wants to hear it.

  10. #10
    Have to finish downloading now.
    Am I one of the few people here that does not pirate a single OS, Game, software, or music? From the sound of the forums and the IRC channels, a plethora of AO members pirate like there is no tomorrow. What happened to ethics people?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts