gfhjtdut
@suddenlink.net | reply to wentlanc
Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS!
Nothing is ever black or white. Right and wrong are subjective and have varying degrees. Real world problems are tricky like that. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to Goober
said by Goober  :I would imagine the RIAA is scrambling to figure out how to bail out of this. Losing this lawsuit probably doesn't fit very well into the RIAA's business plan for the future. They'll probably either settle (terms too good for Joel to pass up under non disclosure) or find some reason to drop this lawsuit, then Charles R. Nesson will have to find another client. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | reply to fiberguy
Thanks Fiberguy. I don't have a horse in this race, so I'm just trying to make fact based comments. I'm not trying to take a position one way or another. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
1 edit | reply to wentlanc
You make a good point.
It'll be during discovery where they'll try to get some detailed evidence. But, they have at least something that they feel was good enough to get them into court. I suppose the judge could toss the case it if he feels that the RIAA is bringing a frivolous lawsuit forward. But, I doubt that happens.
I will say, though, that I strongly doubt that this is the kind of fight the RIAA was looking for when it filed the original lawsuit. I would imagine the RIAA is scrambling to figure out how to bail out of this. Losing this lawsuit probably doesn't fit very well into the RIAA's business plan for the future. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | reply to Goober
Goober, I'll 2nd you, and respect your input - at least I recall what you do for a living and where your background is. As for the other side of this coin, well, he just needs to remain face down, preferably in the gutter. |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | reply to Goober
Can they prove that any transfer actually occurred to anyone but themselves? It just seems to me that they are making a lot of assumptions about what could have possibly happened...
cw |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
1 edit | reply to wentlanc
I don't have to choose a side and neither does the RIAA. They can choose who they want to pursue based on whatever internal criteria they have. There's no obligation that they pursue everyone. |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to Goober
said by Goober :In your example, your copies weren't virtually perfect and you supplied only to a limited number of people. In the cases being pursued by the RIAA, virtually perfect copies are being distributed to potentially millions of people. How can you permit it depending on quality of the material and quantity of people receiving it? It's either right, or it's wrong. Pick a side.
cw |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | reply to Goober
There is nothing civil about the RIAA racketeers! |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | reply to Sammer
That really applies in criminal laws.
This is civil. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to Goober
said by Goober : I'm saying the $1M is statutory, not compensatory. So if $1 Million for sharing 7 songs is cruel and unusual punishment (any reasonable person would think it is) the statute must be unconstitutional? |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | reply to wispalord
In your example, your copies weren't virtually perfect and you supplied only to a limited number of people.
In the cases being pursued by the RIAA, virtually perfect copies are being distributed to potentially millions of people. |
|
wispalord
join:2007-09-20
House Springs, MO | reply to Goober
i could see feds involvement if he was profiting from the copyrighted works, but not just SHARING. i dont see how its different from recoring it off the radio and making copys for friends, i did that alot when i was younger. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to kamm
said by kamm :said by Goober :$150K * 7 = $1.05M I guarantee you that I'll be correct compared to you in regards to IP matters 99.99% of the time. Might be - though we will have to see that because you really sound like someone with little clue about the very flimsy or flat-out false constitutionality of these "copy-right" or IP laws, the lingering illegality of the DMCA etc - but again, you are NOT CORRECT here. I don't see my math being wrong.
"someone with little clue . . . " BIG LOL!!! You're a funny little self-inflated ego maniac. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to Goober
said by Goober :$150K * 7 = $1.05M I guarantee you that I'll be correct compared to you in regards to IP matters 99.99% of the time. Might be - though we will have to see that because you really sound like someone with little clue about the very flimsy or flat-out false constitutionality of these "copy-right" or IP laws, the lingering illegality of the DMCA etc - but again, you are NOT CORRECT here.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
2 edits | reply to kamm
said by kamm :said by major marco :said by Goober :Statutory copyright infringement damages don't have anything to do with compensatory damages. Different animals. WTF are you even talking about. Your comment makes about as much sense with regard to the topic as saying that red apples and a blue sky are different animals.  On top of that he's dead fuckin' wrong about pretty much everything WRT statutory infringement damages: the statute provides for damages $750 to $30k per work (up to $150,000 if proven to be deliberate) so $1M just doesn't make sense anyway, it was obviously pulled out of the bottom part of some skinny 'hot stud' studio boy by his fat boss... $150K * 7 = $1.05M
I guarantee you that I'll be correct compared to you in regards to IP matters 99.99% of the time. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | reply to major marco
said by major marco :said by Goober :Statutory copyright infringement damages don't have anything to do with compensatory damages. Different animals. WTF are you even talking about. Your comment makes about as much sense with regard to the topic as saying that red apples and a blue sky are different animals. On top of that he's dead fuckin' wrong about pretty much everything WRT statutory infringement damages: the statute provides for damages $750 to $30k per work (up to $150,000 if proven to be deliberate) so $1M just doesn't make sense anyway, it was obviously pulled out of the bottom part of some skinny 'hot stud' studio boy by his fat boss...
--
said by bicker :Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | reply to major marco
Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS!
Okay. Whatever you say . . . |
|
