I will tell you that there are people who are walking around despondent and depressed, because of this, and I know of people who have previously attempted suicide who are now in a depression provoked by the lawsuit. I've spoken to people in tears, people who are distraught, people who don't know what to do. Many people are faced with impossible choices here... pay settlement money they don't have... hire lawyers they can't afford.... go to Court themselves, which they don't know how to do... rat out their own children, or nieces and nephews, or friends, or neighbors, or neighbors' kids.... Many think they or their children will go to jail, because the Settlement Support Center goons told them as much. And I have heard of a suicide, but cannot at this time substantiate the report.
So if you think this is a joke, shame on you. And if you're on the RIAA payroll, you should rot in hell. I'm done responding to your stupidity. I will leave it other Slashdotters, if they choose, to respond to your absurd argument. I hope you get modded down to where you belong, -5 as a Flamebait Troll.
Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
Of course neither I, nor any other lawyer, would engage a technical expert to challenge facts which are absolutely true.
In a minority of the cases, the defendant is actually someone who engaged in peer to peer file sharing. Those defendants have other defenses, which the lawyers can handle, and which probably would not involve technical advice at all... defenses such as the RIAA's own misconduct, defenses such as the due process implications in the damages theory, etc. As to those defendants, however, it would still be nice to receive financial support for their legal defense, nice to receive support of people writing to their congresspeople to change the laws, etc.
In a majority of the cases, the defendants are innocent of what they are being accused of. In those cases the need for technical help is great.
You seem skeptical of my telling you that MOST defendants are innocent, and challenge my knowledge of all 20,000 cases. Of course I'm not familiar with all 20,000 cases; my conclusion is tentative, and it is anecdotal, based only upon a year and a half of being immersed in this issue, and speaking to people from all over the country every day about it. However, if you have taken the time to familiarize yourself with the flimsiness of the RIAA's so called "investigaton" (and I'm betting you have), you already know that (a) no real pirate would ever be so stupid as to use his own internet access and leave intact metadata identifying the pirated files, (b) the RIAA has no actual evidence of any downloading, (c) the RIAA has no actual evidence of any uploading, and (d) the RIAA knows nothing about the defendant except that he or she paid for an internet access account which the RIAA has linked to the shared files folder. The RIAA admitted on national television, on December 28, 2005, in Cary Sherman's response to my remarks on the CBS Early Morning Show with Harry Smith, that the only thing they know about the person they've sued is that that is the person who paid for the internet access account. So it should come as no surprise to you that the majority of the defendants are innocent. And whether it's a majority or a minority, should be irrelevant. What is relevant is that there are many innocent people being targeted, and they need the help of the tech community.
I'm sure you're right that some of them are just morons.
The only reason I've "foed" them is to remind myself that they're time wasters. If there were a "foe" process that's private, I'd use it in a minute; I'm not out to tarnish anyone, just want to keep a list for my own use.
But I would be willing to bet there are at least 5 or 6 user ID's out today that are actually on the RIAA payroll.
As for being the "devil's advocate", I'm a professional in that department. Every good litigator is capable of making the other side's arguments even better than the other side can. We need to be able to do that, in order to anticipate and crush the arguments that are made. So I don't mind it at all when Slashdotters play the devil's advocate.
But I do hate phonies, liars, fakes, shills, plants, and trolls, who apply all kinds of critical thinking to my post or to the defendant's arguments, but show none of that same skepticism when rattling off the RIAA's company line as though it were gospel.
Meanwhile, as to the original post about RIAA plants.... I've been noticing some very interesting patterns here. I think it is a fun game to try to detect the patterns and find the shills. Their saving grace is that they're not that smart, and usually tip their hand.
The ISP knows the person's name and address. The RIAA could ask the judge for an order directing the ISP to give the person notice that the RIAA is seeking an order to get his or her name and address. Instead they go ahead and get the order first, and then ask the ISP to give notice of an order that's already been granted, and with no information about the basis for the order, the basis for the suit, the Court's rules, etc., so that once the victim gets the 'notice' he doesn't know what to do with it, because there's just about nothing he can do with it. See How the RIAA Litigation Process Works.
You've taken another big leap when you say that the person whose name and address is turned over by the ISP has 'harmed' the record labels in some way. They have no clue about that. They just go ahead and sue. Sure that person would be a good person with which to start an investigaton into whether there's someone out there infringing the RIAA sound recording copyrights. But there's no justification for just going ahead and suing that person. See Brief of EFF, ACLU, Public Citizen, AALL, and ACLU-OK and Brief of Communications & Computer Industry Association and US Internet Industry Association.
What's your point? That in your opinion you're smarter than everyone else in the world? Or have you lost track of what your point is?
I'm fighting a real life problem trying to help real people who are suffering. I really don't have time for games. If you have something constructive or helpful to say then say it.
I agree wholeheartedly that 'supporting independent music' is something which belongs on our list of things we can do. I've been maintaining, on my blog, a list of sites that are sources of non-RIAA music. I call the list Liberated Music. If anyone has suggestions for additions to the list let me know.
Interesting that you readily believe every word the RIAA lawyer said. I have to wonder why your powers of critical thinking are applied to the original post, but not to the RIAA lawyer's missive.
1. If it's so simple, why have they refused to say how they do it?
2. Most of the defendants I've seen haven't used Kazaa or any other p2p application at all.
3. I don't have the power to change legislation, do you? If so, please take care of it for me.
4. Most of the defendants I've seen haven't been "breaking any law".
I am sure you are well aware that most people who are actually 'pirating' songs would never get caught by the sham investigation which I just outlined for you.
What I can say is that without exception the RIAA never has a basis for its suit. And that almost without exception, after it brings suit, even after it learns the defendant has not infringed its copyrights, it will continue with the lawsuit until it gets its money.
Undoubtedly some of the people sued have infringed a copyright.
If you go out and sue the first 500 people who walk down the street, no doubt you'll find some copyright infringers.
But that does not mean you should just go out and sue the first 500 people who walk down the street.
And if you do sue someone, and find out they didn't infringe your copyright, you should drop the case with apologies.
What is more, even if you knew of a copyright infringement, you shouldn't just go ahead and sue people indiscriminately, if (a) they didn't know they were infringing a copyright, (b) they're willing to sign a "cease and desist" agreement, (c) they weren't getting any commercial gain, and (d) you can't really show that any damages were sustained by you. Fairness and decency and respect for other human beings should still count for something in this world.
We hear about all the ridiculous cases, but do you have any credible evidence that the majority of these people being sued are innocent?....So now you want me to give you the evidence of the defendants' innocence in 20,000 cases? Anything else I can get for you while I'm collecting it?
What I can tell you about all 20,000 cases is that the cases are not based on any evidence at all of copyright infringement.
They are all based on exactly the same spurious "investigation", which the RIAA itself claims that ANY Kazaa user could do him or herself: -the RIAA 'investigator' pretends to be a normal Kazaa user -he finds a shared files folder with what appear to be some copyrighted songs in it -he downloads a sampling of the files, usually from 6 to 9 song files -he allegedly plays them to verify that they are the song files they appear to be -he somehow finds out what the dynamic IP address was for the shared files folder at the time he made his screenshot -he gets the ISP to tell him the name and address of the person who paid for the internet access account which allegedly was used for that dynamic IP address at the moment of the screen shot, and -he sues whoever paid for that internet access account.
That's it.
That's why there are so many "ridiculous cases". Because the basis for the lawsuit is ridiculous.
No, they're being annoyed, embarrassed, given a few sleepless nights and so on. The jackboot kicking your down in at 2am is terror.The difference between you and me is I'm speaking from experience, and you're not.
Sorry, I meant Ray;)In that case I'll answer your question. Yes I would like to see an offensive mounted. The thing is, class action work is very specialized. Although I have experience in that field, I'm not equipped to do it on my own. I need to find a good class action firm to do it.
Also law enforcement should be going after them, and maybe will be.
Just because you never planned on buying it doesn't entitle you to a free copy of it. Why should you get a freebie just because you're less interested?....This is totally off topic, because the RIAA doesn't know of anybody making free copies of anything when it sues them.
Strange that you accept at face value everything the RIAA's lawyer has said. Is he a friend of yours or something? The only facts you know are that (a) in a lawsuit against a lady in Brooklyn, after finding that her computer didn't support their case, they're now trying to subpoena her adult son's computer, and (b) they called his employer and spoke to him about what they were doing. The rest of what Mr. Gabriel is insinuating is falsehood.
Slashdot Mirror
As a matter of fact you insulted me in 2 of your 3 previous posts. Just to set the record straight.
I view liberalism as a political philosophy of social justice and fairness.
Since I'm a liberal and you're obviously not, I think my definition trumps yours.
I will tell you that there are people who are walking around despondent and depressed, because of this, and I know of people who have previously attempted suicide who are now in a depression provoked by the lawsuit. I've spoken to people in tears, people who are distraught, people who don't know what to do. Many people are faced with impossible choices here... pay settlement money they don't have... hire lawyers they can't afford.... go to Court themselves, which they don't know how to do... rat out their own children, or nieces and nephews, or friends, or neighbors, or neighbors' kids.... Many think they or their children will go to jail, because the Settlement Support Center goons told them as much. And I have heard of a suicide, but cannot at this time substantiate the report.
So if you think this is a joke, shame on you. And if you're on the RIAA payroll, you should rot in hell. I'm done responding to your stupidity. I will leave it other Slashdotters, if they choose, to respond to your absurd argument. I hope you get modded down to where you belong, -5 as a Flamebait Troll.
Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
Of course neither I, nor any other lawyer, would engage a technical expert to challenge facts which are absolutely true.
In a minority of the cases, the defendant is actually someone who engaged in peer to peer file sharing. Those defendants have other defenses, which the lawyers can handle, and which probably would not involve technical advice at all... defenses such as the RIAA's own misconduct, defenses such as the due process implications in the damages theory, etc. As to those defendants, however, it would still be nice to receive financial support for their legal defense, nice to receive support of people writing to their congresspeople to change the laws, etc.
In a majority of the cases, the defendants are innocent of what they are being accused of. In those cases the need for technical help is great.
You seem skeptical of my telling you that MOST defendants are innocent, and challenge my knowledge of all 20,000 cases. Of course I'm not familiar with all 20,000 cases; my conclusion is tentative, and it is anecdotal, based only upon a year and a half of being immersed in this issue, and speaking to people from all over the country every day about it. However, if you have taken the time to familiarize yourself with the flimsiness of the RIAA's so called "investigaton" (and I'm betting you have), you already know that (a) no real pirate would ever be so stupid as to use his own internet access and leave intact metadata identifying the pirated files, (b) the RIAA has no actual evidence of any downloading, (c) the RIAA has no actual evidence of any uploading, and (d) the RIAA knows nothing about the defendant except that he or she paid for an internet access account which the RIAA has linked to the shared files folder. The RIAA admitted on national television, on December 28, 2005, in Cary Sherman's response to my remarks on the CBS Early Morning Show with Harry Smith, that the only thing they know about the person they've sued is that that is the person who paid for the internet access account. So it should come as no surprise to you that the majority of the defendants are innocent. And whether it's a majority or a minority, should be irrelevant. What is relevant is that there are many innocent people being targeted, and they need the help of the tech community.
For discussion of the RIAA's "driftnet" strategy I commend you to the ACLU, EFF, Public Citizen, AALL, and ACLU-OK Brief in Capitol v. Foster, and for a discussion of the RIAA's attempt to expand the copyright law to make mere 'making available' a copyright infringement, and the damaging effect that would have on internet technology, see Brief of US Internet Industry Association and Computer & Communications Industry Association in Elektra v. Barker.
I'm sure you're right that some of them are just morons.
The only reason I've "foed" them is to remind myself that they're time wasters. If there were a "foe" process that's private, I'd use it in a minute; I'm not out to tarnish anyone, just want to keep a list for my own use.
But I would be willing to bet there are at least 5 or 6 user ID's out today that are actually on the RIAA payroll.
As for being the "devil's advocate", I'm a professional in that department. Every good litigator is capable of making the other side's arguments even better than the other side can. We need to be able to do that, in order to anticipate and crush the arguments that are made. So I don't mind it at all when Slashdotters play the devil's advocate.
But I do hate phonies, liars, fakes, shills, plants, and trolls, who apply all kinds of critical thinking to my post or to the defendant's arguments, but show none of that same skepticism when rattling off the RIAA's company line as though it were gospel.
Meanwhile, as to the original post about RIAA plants.... I've been noticing some very interesting patterns here. I think it is a fun game to try to detect the patterns and find the shills. Their saving grace is that they're not that smart, and usually tip their hand.
Yeah you're missing some steps.
The ISP knows the person's name and address. The RIAA could ask the judge for an order directing the ISP to give the person notice that the RIAA is seeking an order to get his or her name and address. Instead they go ahead and get the order first, and then ask the ISP to give notice of an order that's already been granted, and with no information about the basis for the order, the basis for the suit, the Court's rules, etc., so that once the victim gets the 'notice' he doesn't know what to do with it, because there's just about nothing he can do with it. See How the RIAA Litigation Process Works.
You've taken another big leap when you say that the person whose name and address is turned over by the ISP has 'harmed' the record labels in some way. They have no clue about that. They just go ahead and sue. Sure that person would be a good person with which to start an investigaton into whether there's someone out there infringing the RIAA sound recording copyrights. But there's no justification for just going ahead and suing that person. See Brief of EFF, ACLU, Public Citizen, AALL, and ACLU-OK and Brief of Communications & Computer Industry Association and US Internet Industry Association.
What's your point? That in your opinion you're smarter than everyone else in the world? Or have you lost track of what your point is?
I'm fighting a real life problem trying to help real people who are suffering. I really don't have time for games. If you have something constructive or helpful to say then say it.
I agree wholeheartedly that 'supporting independent music' is something which belongs on our list of things we can do. I've been maintaining, on my blog, a list of sites that are sources of non-RIAA music. I call the list Liberated Music. If anyone has suggestions for additions to the list let me know.
Interesting that you readily believe every word the RIAA lawyer said. I have to wonder why your powers of critical thinking are applied to the original post, but not to the RIAA lawyer's missive.
Interesting.
1. If it's so simple, why have they refused to say how they do it?
2. Most of the defendants I've seen haven't used Kazaa or any other p2p application at all.
3. I don't have the power to change legislation, do you? If so, please take care of it for me.
4. Most of the defendants I've seen haven't been "breaking any law".
I am sure you are well aware that most people who are actually 'pirating' songs would never get caught by the sham investigation which I just outlined for you.
What I can say is that without exception the RIAA never has a basis for its suit. And that almost without exception, after it brings suit, even after it learns the defendant has not infringed its copyrights, it will continue with the lawsuit until it gets its money.
Undoubtedly some of the people sued have infringed a copyright.
If you go out and sue the first 500 people who walk down the street, no doubt you'll find some copyright infringers.
But that does not mean you should just go out and sue the first 500 people who walk down the street.
And if you do sue someone, and find out they didn't infringe your copyright, you should drop the case with apologies.
What is more, even if you knew of a copyright infringement, you shouldn't just go ahead and sue people indiscriminately, if (a) they didn't know they were infringing a copyright, (b) they're willing to sign a "cease and desist" agreement, (c) they weren't getting any commercial gain, and (d) you can't really show that any damages were sustained by you. Fairness and decency and respect for other human beings should still count for something in this world.
Interesting how you totally accept as true everything the RIAA lawyer said. I wonder why.
We hear about all the ridiculous cases, but do you have any credible evidence that the majority of these people being sued are innocent? ....So now you want me to give you the evidence of the defendants' innocence in 20,000 cases? Anything else I can get for you while I'm collecting it?
What I can tell you about all 20,000 cases is that the cases are not based on any evidence at all of copyright infringement.
They are all based on exactly the same spurious "investigation", which the RIAA itself claims that ANY Kazaa user could do him or herself:
-the RIAA 'investigator' pretends to be a normal Kazaa user
-he finds a shared files folder with what appear to be some copyrighted songs in it
-he downloads a sampling of the files, usually from 6 to 9 song files
-he allegedly plays them to verify that they are the song files they appear to be
-he somehow finds out what the dynamic IP address was for the shared files folder at the time he made his screenshot
-he gets the ISP to tell him the name and address of the person who paid for the internet access account which allegedly was used for that dynamic IP address at the moment of the screen shot, and
-he sues whoever paid for that internet access account.
That's it.
That's why there are so many "ridiculous cases". Because the basis for the lawsuit is ridiculous.
No, they're being annoyed, embarrassed, given a few sleepless nights and so on. The jackboot kicking your down in at 2am is terror.The difference between you and me is I'm speaking from experience, and you're not.
I talk to these people every day.
Many of them are truly terrorized.
Sorry, I meant Ray ;)In that case I'll answer your question. Yes I would like to see an offensive mounted. The thing is, class action work is very specialized. Although I have experience in that field, I'm not equipped to do it on my own. I need to find a good class action firm to do it.
Also law enforcement should be going after them, and maybe will be.
Just because you never planned on buying it doesn't entitle you to a free copy of it. Why should you get a freebie just because you're less interested? ....This is totally off topic, because the RIAA doesn't know of anybody making free copies of anything when it sues them.
He did not avoid service at home. "Actively" or otherwise.
I don't gloss over the truth. If you have substantiation of some "truth" which you think I've "glossed over", why don't you tell us what it is?
Strange that you accept at face value everything the RIAA's lawyer has said. Is he a friend of yours or something? The only facts you know are that (a) in a lawsuit against a lady in Brooklyn, after finding that her computer didn't support their case, they're now trying to subpoena her adult son's computer, and (b) they called his employer and spoke to him about what they were doing. The rest of what Mr. Gabriel is insinuating is falsehood.
Unfortunately, none of your assumptions are accurate. The majority of people being sued haven't 'broken any law'.
Thank you, moderator. I rarely get modded 'funny'. Humor doesn't seem to be my forte.
Who the hell is Gary?
Well said. They're going after the 'low hanging fruit'. Their 'investigation' would never catch actual 'pirates'.
The Netherlands gave them short shrift like Canada did. In other countries it's a mixed bag.
Well spoken.