trust the US to lie about only $500 fine. if it was true why did this kid get a $675000 fine? the us is full of bullshit thats why i live in Australia

Reply

the whole industry is over inflated , it gives rise to piracy, they charge to much for a bunch of songs , most artists don't make music for money alone the way the record companies do , but after they spend money on an image , make a deal that our rapper will only wear nike sneakers , they want a big return,

Reply

yeah, cuz the australian government would never do anything so intrusive....geezus

[link]

Reply

That fact that this kid's lawyer is a Harvard Law Professor, doesn't really impress me. First of all academic types many times are a bit too liberal thinking, and they're also pretty cloistered. As I said earlier, he would have been better off with a Federal Defender, they know the judges, they know the probation department, and in general, they're in a better position to wheel and deal on a defendant's behalf. As near as I can tell they made an example out of the "prof" in the process. Here's how not to be taken seriously, claim that it's really "fair use". "Fair use" is making yourself a backup, one copy.

This generation seems to be comprised almost exclusively of sociopaths. From what I can gather, people think they're entitled to share, keep, or steal whatever type of intellectual property they come across, and the worst part, blatantly, and in full public view.

Now, try and wrap your head around this. Just because the original artist may have in fact have a claim against the RIAA for not forwarding their royalties, that doesn't mean the any third party in entitled to steal the material. It still belongs to the original owner, and by extension the RIAA, the agent for enforcement of copyright.

Well, the RIAA didn't give the royalties to the artist, so that means I can make as many copies as I want because the RIAA is stealing from the artist. OK, I hope that sounds as stupid to you as it does to me. Not only that, but if I read that statement over and over, I don;t think I can brainwash myself into believing it.

I sincerely wish that anybody involved in the pro-unfettered sharing of other peoples property, would develop some intellectual property of their own. because then, I haven't got a shred of doubt, that they'd be preaching a different sermon!

Reply

I've done the file sharing thing, and frankly this is as much scary as this "." is on a 9 by 9 meter piece of paper. I do think its obsessive, but even so, just imagine if they caught all 20 million of us. lol. Barack Obama couldnt even save that kind of deficit.

Reply

File sharing on the internet is sorta like s***ing on you neighbor's front lawn while a parade is coming down the street.

it's just the kind of thing that people are looking to come down on.

Reply

anyone know how they actually go about picking a target? and setup their 'sting' operation im assuming were not talking abscam here.

Reply

Just from what I've been looking at its through ISP's. Comcast isnt on that list, along with Rogers Network(Canada), also At&T. Passed that I'm not sure who they contact to get their info.

Reply

If I were the FBI, I'd enroll one of my younger agents in computer science and a frat in the local college. Open up accounts in Lime wire and elsewhere. And run plenty of web crawlers. You can get them (I think) as freeware. I saw one at "Softpedia" I think. "Find out if your software is on the web", was the sales pitch. Christ, just go to, "isohunt.com". and work from there.

Think about Macafee's "Site Adviser". It has to track your every move, to tell you which sites are good or bad. So, basically there's a tool that knows, "who's been naughty" and "who's been nice".

Reply

I guess what im getting at is where is the privacy, or invasion thereof argument come down?

Reply

I agree, but if isp's are worried about business being compromised they wont give information, that imo was the biggest drawback in the issue arrising years ago when supposedly isp's were going to supply the information to "catch" the offenders. If you can only fine 150k per item confirms and admitted, how does that compare to losing 50k customers over a 5 year period. Not much.

Reply

If you believe the Bush administration's telling, or rather non telling of it, at moot point. In any event in any legal venue, the only privacy issue that >> might <

Reply

Idealism is fine in it's place and purpose. But since when do you need an ISP's permission to install Limewire software. The only reason that they were bullying the ISPs is so they could have the information handed to them on a silver platter, with minimal effort on their part. They're just flat out, too f***ing lazy, to do their own police work. This unauthorized and unreasonable search and seizure is in national security interests, now loosen up your trousers. So, that when we are "looking for terrorists", and then we "stumble upon" copyright violators, this is a public place. There's no expectation of privacy, and the evidentiary rules of no search warrant being needed for, "articles found in plain sight", attaches! Or at least can be molded to apply.

Reply

I notice in my town dvd players with divx built in , how does that happen , isn't divx probaly the most common format for pirated material , and now dvd makers are enabling pirated material to be viewed more easy.

Reply

I heard he was doing a lot of file sharing and the university warned him several times and he didn't pay any attention. I bet he'll get the fine reduced somewhat on appeal but its over for him. I don't think he is guilty of any crime personally unless he was the one also doing the ripping of tracks from a CD, or was breaking the DRM security on each track. Like if a plane carrying money explodes over your house and you put out a net and grab some of the cash does that make you a thief?

This is ridiculous. Ruining this kids life serves no purpose except act as a warning to everyone else to either stop or cover your tracks. Makes you want to learn how to protect your PC from the RIAA and use a proxy service. Thats whats going to happen. Its all going to go underground and the music industry losses will probably double!

Reply

It took the longest time and a contentious legal struggle to allow VCRs to exist. And that argument revolved around "fair use". Especially with respect to broad cast TV, advertisers cryed "foul", since it was assumed the evil doers taping programs would FF through the commercials. The "fair use" doctrine prevailed that time, but it was still illegal to copy tape and distribute copies, piracy then, and piracy now. A copy of a prerecorded VCR tape of of low, almost unwatchable quality, but with modern digital means, copies can be made that for all intents and purposes, cannot be distinguished from the source.

Sony BMG is by far one of the most aggressive and proprietary with respect to attaching DRM and pursuing legal action against pirates. So, they. still make recordable drives because they can make money selling them. Are they hypocrites? Yes! Does that work to your advantage? Yes! Don't look a gift horse in the mouth!

But I would add, that of course you don't think it's a crime. You think it's a crime that people have the nerve to charge you for music. You're entitled to it, aren't you now!

Reply

I see divx files are smaller , but like the trouble with video recorders , I'd say there was huge dispute ,

ps . try typing with a joypad in cell phone layout !

Reply

Thats just.. wow.

I can understand charging them a bit of money, but that much!? Thats way over the line. I think the appeal will turn things around and likely get him out of deep sh**.

Reply