how-to block ads
|
| page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4  |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03 | reply to bigjimc
Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice
PERFECT, bigjim! | |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
 ·CableOne
1 edit | reply to Nightfall
I don't think iSEPIC's point was how much evidence they had against you, but that the current civil suit system is simply unfair to the defendant.
You think the defendant SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE they are innocent? Ever been charged with a crime (especially a felony) Nightfall? I'm willing to bet you have NEVER had to defend yourself in a court of law. Do that, then get back to us on defendant's rights.
What if I were to sue you for $1,000,000 for whatever-I-could-come-up-with? Say, you painted your house purple and it lowered the value of mine (this happened in Seattle one time, don't remember the outcome). I had a picture of your newly-painted house, and an old and recent appraisal of my home showing this. Looks like I could surely prove my case.
Oh, but shouldn't you have the right as a US citizen and a homeowner in the US to paint your house as you see fit?
That was rhetorical; don't answer it. I was just trying to make a point. You should not be allowed to sue anyone over any bullshit you want, and if you do, the poor bastard you sue should have some rights.
In our criminal system, there are only certain things the prosecution may charge you with, and even then, they are REQUIRED to give you a lawyer (albeit a lousy one), and THEY must prove you did it beyond a reasonable doubt. And they have to do it all within 90 days unless you agree to a continuance.
Why should a criminal be afforded all those rights, yet John Doe who is a good citizen who minds his own damn business can be subjected to a frivolous lawsuit, and his only rights are to pay for his own defense and spend his own time and money to try and win?
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Just to tweak the analogy a bit closer to the RIAA, after you sued Nightfall for painting his house purple, you would quickly contact him and tell him that you were willing to settle for $3,000. Otherwise, he could look forward to a long, drawn out trial, tons of legal expenses, and financial ruin when he finally lost his case. (You might also remind him that you have plenty of time and money to fight this case and that he would likely tire before you.)
Of course, if he signs the settlement, he has to agree that painting his house purple lowered the value of the other houses on the block. And your settlement won't protect him should the other neighbors decide to sue also. | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to bigjimc
Nah, it proves their point by all of those dirty rotten pirates who settle. Ignore the fact that the lawsuit and potential expenses stemming from it likely scares many innocent people into settling rather than fighting. That's not important. What's important is that their settlement papers say that they are dirty rotten pirates!
(Above said with heavy sarcasm just in case someone doesn't get it.  ) | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall  :I agree, the **AA shot themselves in the foot on the download services being reasonable. Imagine how successful they would have been if they launched an allofmp3 like system? If they would have added more features to the CD to make it more price friendly, it would have been a win/win. As it is, they didn't do that so these things exist. Back during the heyday of Napster, I thought the recording industry should team up with Napster and build an online music store. The idea would be to limit the bitrate of the "free, shared" music. Say 96kbps tops. Then they would sell higher bitrate (and more reliably produced) versions for differing prices. The higher the bitrate, the more it would cost. (Of course, all of the songs would be reasonably priced. It would just cost more for more quality.)
They could have thought of the free, low bitrate songs like radio copies. Free publicity. Sure, some people wouldn't buy the higher bitrate copies, but some people are content to listen to music on the radio and never buy the CDs. Many more people would be likely to hear the low quality version and decide to buy a higher quality version to keep.
Instead, they decided to stomp Napster out of existence and in doing so provided the climate for the P2P apps to develop. Finally, after many years of fighting music online, they finally figured that they could benefit from online music, but even now they seem to regard online music as a bastard child. Something that should be dealt with with a wary eye and kept as hidden away as possible lest some embarrassing questions be asked. | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to PDXPLT
The penalties are worse because the professional violator is looking to get a quick buck off of someone else's copyrighted item (without the appropriate permission). My example cited 100 customers, but the professional violator likely wouldn't stop there. They would press thousands of copies and sell them on the street corner. These "lost sales" (I tend to hate that term) are sales of the entire CD. So even with my limited example, the 100 customers means a loss of $1,500 (given $15 per CD usually). (This ignores the fact that some of those $1 buyers wouldn't have bought the $15 legitimate version, but let's ignore that for now.)
Meanwhile, the casual violator might be someone made a thousand songs onto a P2P network, but it is hard to prove just how many people downloaded from them. Across those 1,000 songs, they might have had a single download or a dozen, or a hundred thousand. So absent any ability to determine how many songs were downloaded, I would err on the side of caution. Assume that each song was downloaded once (the one time that the RIAA downloaded the file to confirm that it was the right file) and assign penalties from there.
With P2P shared music, the competition isn't really the CD, but digital sales (iTunes, Napster, etc) which tend to run $0.99 each. Given that, and given the one share = one download assumption, the "lost sales" amount to $990. Therefore, it really isn't fair to charge $750 - $150,000 per violation, or $750,000 - $150,000,000 total. Tripling the "lost sales" figure provides an amount that will act as a disincentive to uploaders while not bankrupting ordinary people who don't understand the particulars of copyright law. (And there are a lot of those people out there.) | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall :Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it. ...and then there were the cases of RIAA coming down upon the deceased grandmother who never owned a PC, and various other cases. Their lawsuits are historically far from flawless. Just because they claim they have "evidence" doesn't mean it's not just another botched claim and/or lawsuit fishing expedition.
If it was another company, maybe. However, RIAA has a track record of suing first, and verifying their evidence later. I wouldn't be surprised if many in their lawsuit files were yet more fudged data. | |
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to hayabusa3303
A dollar a month sounds good, but wipe with it first, or let it soak in the litter box over night, just to pass along your new found respect for them... | |
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit |  reply to PolarBear
said by PolarBear :Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money. You obviously don't know how our legal system works. If a court orders you to pay a certain amount to someone and you are unable to do so willingly, the courts have the authority to find and dip into your bank accounts, confiscate your property and garnish your wages and other official income.
So suppose that you do lose $1 billion to RIAA. While most likely you'll never be able to pay them back in full, you'll be constantly "sharing" a part of what you make with them for the rest of your life. There are, of course, ways around it. You can flee the country, but you'd have to move to a third-world one because in a civilized one you will eventually be caught and extradited back to the US. You can move your money off-shore to a country that doesn't cooperate with the US. Or you can work off the books, but you won't make much and risk going down for tax evasion.
The purpose of these ridiculous fines it to scare the sh*t out of people. RIAA/MPAA are showing that they are big and powerful, but most of all capable of destroying people's lives and are more than willing to do so when they catch someone who messes with them.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill...
| |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03 | reply to Jason Levine
Oh, I got it (bastards)! | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to Thaler
said by Thaler :said by Nightfall :Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it. ...and then there were the cases of RIAA coming down upon the deceased grandmother who never owned a PC, and various other cases. Their lawsuits are historically far from flawless. Just because they claim they have "evidence" doesn't mean it's not just another botched claim and/or lawsuit fishing expedition. If it was another company, maybe. However, RIAA has a track record of suing first, and verifying their evidence later. I wouldn't be surprised if many in their lawsuit files were yet more fudged data. All the more reason to have that evidence available to you to defend yourself. That is the crappy thing about civil court cases. Thankfully, I have only had to file a civil court case once, and never had to go in any of my copyright infringement cases. You can show all the evidence you have, and even if it is iffy or too technical, they will just approve it. Which is why there needs to be some kind of governing body to overlook this process, especially with digital media rights.
That said, just because mistakes were made doesn't make copyright infringement a lesser crime. There has to be some kind of repercussions for this. Just because a company has screwed up doesn't mean those laws should be just thrown out the window. It just means that these lawsuits should be analyzed and dealt out by a group that is a little more neutral and can analyze those claims.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Jason Levine
Then you don't know much about Bankruptcy.. The scenerio you just described would not happen. Not to mention, a judge allowing a million dollar judgement would be doing it so, and as a favor to the defendant so that it would never be collected on. (Satisfies both parties.. the plaintiff gets their judgement, worthless as it is, and the defendant would not have to pay it.. no court would allow for insolvantcy for a case like this with an amount way beyond the means of the defendant)
By the way.. getting a judgement and actually enforcing them are two different things.
Once the judgement is obtained, they have to do a discovery of your ability to pay and assets. When they find out that there are no assets, there is a very slim chance they would ever collect or persue.
The legal system is not as cut and dry as some people like to believe it is.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
raythompsontn
join:2001-01-11
Oliver Springs, TN
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall :You are responsible for the data being transmitted on that connection. Why? Where is that a law?
What about the attacks on my system that are unsolicited that are blocked by the router? Am I responsible for that traffic?
There may be such wording in the agreement with the ISP allowing them to terminate your service. But as for being responsible for the data on the connection, there is no such law, civil or criminal. Such laws would make airlines, busses, trains, boats, etc. responsible and liable for any drugs that were smuggled.
There is also no law that requires you to secure your connection. As long as your wireless device does not violate FCC radio transmission rules in regards to power, frequency, and cross talk.
When dealing with theft of copyright material it is necessary to prove the person actually did the deed. That is going to require more than an IP address which is simply attached to a box with no capability to initiate any download music transactions.
Those that have settled know they uploaded music. Those that have not uploaded need to fight with all their resources. When they win they should then sue the **IA for harrassment, defamation of character, and frivilous lawsuit. | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to PolarBear
said by PolarBear :I don't think iSEPIC's point was how much evidence they had against you, but that the current civil suit system is simply unfair to the defendant. You think the defendant SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE they are innocent? Ever been charged with a crime (especially a felony) Nightfall? I'm willing to bet you have NEVER had to defend yourself in a court of law. Do that, then get back to us on defendant's rights. What if I were to sue you for $1,000,000 for whatever-I-could-come-up-with? Say, you painted your house purple and it lowered the value of mine (this happened in Seattle one time, don't remember the outcome). I had a picture of your newly-painted house, and an old and recent appraisal of my home showing this. Looks like I could surely prove my case. Oh, but shouldn't you have the right as a US citizen and a homeowner in the US to paint your house as you see fit? That was rhetorical; don't answer it. I was just trying to make a point. You should not be allowed to sue anyone over any bullshit you want, and if you do, the poor bastard you sue should have some rights. In our criminal system, there are only certain things the prosecution may charge you with, and even then, they are REQUIRED to give you a lawyer (albeit a lousy one), and THEY must prove you did it beyond a reasonable doubt. And they have to do it all within 90 days unless you agree to a continuance. Why should a criminal be afforded all those rights, yet John Doe who is a good citizen who minds his own damn business can be subjected to a frivolous lawsuit, and his only rights are to pay for his own defense and spend his own time and money to try and win? You seem to be taking what I am saying out of context. Do I believe the defendant should have to prove they are innocent in say a murder case? Absolutely not! Civil court is much different that criminal court. If I bring charges against someone in civil court, then the defendant should have a right to prove they are innocent. You are correct, in a criminal court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In a civil court, there is more burden of proof on the defendant.
The problems you describe have to do with the current system of law, which I agree is bloated and sucks. We are talking about a system where OJ Simpson went free and multiple murders can get out of their sentences just by hiring the best lawyer money can buy.
The system is not a good one I will give you that much.
However, that should NOT give everyone a free pass to infringe on copyright, which is the impression I am getting from your post. You seem to think since the RIAA have filed frivolous lawsuits means that everyone who infringe on copyright should be passed by.
You also seem to think that every lawsuit is frivolous, which is not accurate. The digital trail is clear, and those people who are traced should be sued in civil court and they should get penalized in court or settling out of court. I would prefer a neutral governing body do the work on assessing the damage, the evidence, and determining the best course of action. That just hasn't happened, but I hope it will.
The news about the frivolous lawsuits are just like bad customer reviews. You never hear about the good customer reviews because good news never travels so far. However, if someone gives you a bad review, they will tell 100 people about it. Same goes for these lawsuits...
I am a firm believer that a vast majority of these lawsuits are legit. How do I know this? Log into a public torrent site sometime and you can see a list of everyone who is sharing a file when you try to download something. You can see their ISP and IP address. Its kinda hard to deny that there are a ton of people out there sharing. Those people sharing works that aren't theirs are subject to lawsuits, and to be honest, they should be taken to court over it.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Better a 1000 copyright infringers get off, than 1 innocent person be convicted. The problem is that the RIAA is only interested in a cash settlement, they have NO interest in justice being served. So, if you believe the RIAA has a right to sue someone, based on a 3rd party claim, then you obviously don't believe in the 'innocent until PROVEN guilty' clause of our constitution. The RIAA is wielding a big stick, to scare people into settling, and that is just plain wrong. The RIAA must PROVE that a person did the said crime. The RIAA must PROVE it wasn't an open hotspot. Unless the RIAA can meet the highest levels of proof, they shouldn't be able to sue someone.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Pirate515
You are KIND OF right.. (Many of the laywers I have as clients deal in this very practice).. I posted more on it above in another message.
When discovery is done, they figure you don't have the ability to pay, their judgment would most likely be stayed or reduced and that would be the end of it. The initial judgement would be on record but what ultimately happens in the end is different.
"CAN" they do what you said? Sure.. would/do they? In VERY rare occasions.. to this day, the punishment is still based on the situation.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to fiberguy
The legal system is fine if you're rich and have the money to use it. And it's fine if you're poor and they can't collect. However, if you're somewhere in the middle, you can't effectively defend yourself and they'll take everything and garnishee you into slavery for the rest of your life (now that you can't get a Chap 7 bankruptcy as long as you have income). | |
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| reply to fiberguy
Wow, your pretty close to being wrong. What pirate515 is true of any company that is looking to collect on any large number of judgments. You always look to hit the bank accounts and garnish wages. You also look to lien and possibly force a sale on any real estate. If they do not have any of the above, the judgment is never reduced or stayed as you have put it. Also, keep in mind that all states are different but I can tell you we sue in yours quite often and collect monthly from wage garnishments, bank attachments and sometimes property sales. Discovery is only a required process in a few states. KY, for example, requires no discovery post judgment and no notification aside from the judgment itself before a wage garnishment begins.
My suggestion to anyone being sued is deny all allegations, under no circumstances let them win by not showing up for court and always make them prove their case to the fullest. Also, as a matter of good measure and to force the other side to incur more legal costs, file an answer AND counter claim. Most attorneys who earn their keep through a contingency basis start charging hourly fees to their client once a counter claim has been established. This is quite often the deciding factor as to whether the plaintiff wants to continue the suit or not. | |
birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Pirate515
Oh, so is that what happened to OJ Simpson?
"I gave all my money to my lawyers, so I don't have any left to pay off the families of those I didn't murder (no matter what the jury said). I have some income but it's just enough to keep me for food, rent and greens fees." | |
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall :I am all about limiting the **AA frivolous lawsuits, but I think people who commit copyright infringement should be punished in some way. Watch out, you'll be called a troll for having morals. | |
|
