digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at blog.wired.com —

RIAA Says Proof is Not Necessary To Sue For Infringement

blog.wired.com — The RIAA echoed its sister lobbying group, the MPAA, by telling the Jammie Thomas judge that solely making available copyrighted works on a peer-to-peer network is enough to prove unauthorized distribution with fines of up to $150,000 per violation. Any higher standard of actual proof would "cripple" copyright enforcement in the digital age.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • iissmart, on 07/01/2008, -3/+131What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
    • Fairly, on 07/02/2008, -0/+30No *****. MPAA? RIAA? Go ***** yourselves. How about we ream a sequoia up there for ya?
      • protogenxl, on 07/02/2008, -2/+10You will have to remove that I-Beam first.
      • PabloMac, on 07/02/2008, -0/+9The tree-huggers would disapprove.
      • flashback99, on 07/02/2008, -3/+7That would be true if there were any tree's left to ***** hug.
      • Cybermaul, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3*trees

        There, fixed.
    • Corrosionx, on 07/02/2008, -0/+17If you step into their corporate courts, you already admit their jurisdiction, you're as good as guilty.
    • mykid8yours, on 07/02/2008, -2/+15It's been guilty until proven innocent for years now! It's not just the RIAA or MPAA that act like that but local law inforcement as well. They sit around trying to bust anyone for something. Even our Federal Government is that way. Trying to allow wiretapping on it's citizens for "terrorist" reasons. We do not live in a demacratic society in America, we live in a Republic.

      "Under the Republic for which it stands. One Nation, under God..."

      America is slowly going to s**t because we allow big corporate entities full control of our lives. MPAA, RIAA, OPEC, insurance companies. To them all, we are instantly guilty
      • CougarDavis, on 07/02/2008, -2/+7It's disheartening to me that things have got to the point where people don't even know the Pledge of Allegiance anymore
      • maceelk, on 07/02/2008, -2/+9...and by that he means it's "and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God..."

        As a born again, and then unborn again, non christian, we need to ride ourselfs of the "God" part. It's clearly leaking into our laws.
      • caseycoold, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6Yeah! it should be changed to
        "One nation, under RIAA, Under MPAA, mostly invisible, with bribery and persecution for all."
        Well, that's what it's becoming, anyways...
      • mykid8yours, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Yes it is CugarDavis and thank you maceelk for the correction. I have, for the most part, forgotten the Pledge because it seems to mean nothing.
      • Corrosionx, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1It's a socialist pledge, and socialism is what you got today. What, you thought it would only be charity and the corporations would play nice?
    • impei, on 07/02/2008, -0/+11Civil courts only require a preponderance of evidence not proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
    • MildApplause, on 07/02/2008, -2/+3Mafia can haz pay off all the judges?
    • XISUPERMANIX, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6They changed it to "guilty until proven innoccent".
    • irieKEN, on 07/02/2008, -2/+4There are two types of courts in the US (Civil and Criminal), and from my understanding, "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to CRIMINAL trials. The MPAA/RIAA are suing in civil court, which means that burden of proof is placed on the defendant (you need to prove/convince a jury that you didn't do what they say you did).

      BTW, IANAL, so I may be wrong/misguided.
      • tony23, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1You are wrong. The burden of proof is still on the plaintiff. It's just that the LEVEL of proof is less: Preponderance of evidence as opposed to reasonable doubt.

        IANAL, too, but I've actually spent some time in court.
    • braininabox, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8Same thing that happened to habeas corpus
      and States' Rights.

      The government just doesn't give a damn about what The Constitution has to say.
    • amnesiac096, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3I bet that these RIAA/MPAA lawyers have used p2p networks before or their kids do. Turn it back onto them somehow, and then *****'em hard.
    • goph, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3apparently the MPAA and RIAA think they're both above the law
    • jobo5432, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Innocent until provent guilty has ALWAYS applied exclusively to criminal law. In a civil suit, you don't need anything more than filing costs to sue someone.

      My dad had an employee named Frank, who at one point after my dad terminated him sued God for his suffering.

      I hate to do it, but buried for misunderstanding of the miranda laws...
    • robbiemuffin, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2I wish they weren't right... I also think that, while maybe they don't need as strong a sense of proof as in a criminal case, they do need to substantiate their claim in a stringent way ... simply hiring someone to download segments of a file and CRCing the results should in no way count: you've shown something was binarily equal in that segment of the file, and it was available, but not that the person intentionally put it there. The preponderance of security issues and the rather clear distinction between actually sending a file and simply placing it somewhere should be more than enough reason to assume the need for further evidence
    • locojones, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1"What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?"

      Um, I don't know why this is being dugg up because that maxim only applies in a criminal trial, which this is not. The legal standard in a civil suit, such as copyright infringement, is preponderance of the evidence, which means that all the prevailing party need do is prove their case is more likely than not by a margin of 50% or more. And in this case, she was held liable by a jury of her peers who viewed the evidence and sided with the RIAA. I don't know why all the outrage. The system is working as it should.
  • CryRightardCry, on 07/01/2008, -1/+68"Requiring proof of actual transfers would cripple efforts to enforce copyright owners' rights online – and would solely benefit those who seek to freeload off plaintiff's investment," RIAA attorney Timothy Reynolds wrote (.pdf) U.S. District Judge Michael Davis on Monday.

    Well that should mean that artists don't have to take their label to court to prove they've been cheating them out of royalties. We know royalties were collected, therefore the label is at fault. Any further proof just cripples the royalties payment process.
    Same logic, right?
  • NorthStateGonzo, on 07/02/2008, -1/+17What a F#ckin Joke.. Where is the Supreme Court in this Issue??

    Haven't Heard Anyone mention the United States Constitution???

    Again fear tactics!!
    • MrWhite7, on 07/02/2008, -2/+4You're aware there's a road to the SCOTUS and that they don't just leap in and yell shenanigans, right?
    • reed311, on 07/02/2008, -1/+11You might want to brush up on your law. A civil trial is much different that a criminal trial. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" motto. The scales merely need to be tipped slightly in favor of the plaintiff. Why is there no innocent until proven guilty? Because you can't be found guilty in a civil trial! You can only be found "liable".

      Secondly, the RIAA actually said that a "higher standard" of proof isn't needed, and they are right. This is much different than the headline, which suggests that "no proof" is needed This is a CIVIL issue, not a criminal issue. They can file a lawsuit against someone and then it is up to the judge/jury to decide if they have sufficient proof to be awarded damages.

      This has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. If the judge feels the suit is without merit, then he can award damages.
  • sion2119, on 07/02/2008, -0/+32Thats funny because.

    Proof is not necessary to say RIAA is a ***** of an association either.
    • TimmyGUNZ, on 07/02/2008, -0/+11The funny thing is there is already enough proof based on their actions to verify that statement.
    • Bilabrin, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2'Any higher standard of actual proof would "cripple" copyright enforcement in the digital age.'

      I love how the RIAA tells the judge to base his ruling not on the law but on business interests.
  • MikeSetera, on 07/02/2008, -0/+48***** the RIAA and MPAA!
    • bosssmiley, on 07/02/2008, -3/+7Totally valid. Why hasn't someone taken that mad old dog Jack Valenti round the back of the barn yet?
      • Fairly, on 07/02/2008, -1/+9Uh - because he passed away last year? ;)
      • fatdefacto, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Then why do people keep dragging him out of the grave?
      • fatdefacto, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6To take a metaphor too far.
    • Greengoo, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I always envy the guy who manages to get this comment in first on these articles... One day if I'm lucky... I can be him.
  • MCA2142, on 07/02/2008, -2/+20This is like saying, "No child needed for me to pay child support."
    • oxymoron69, on 07/02/2008, -1/+8Exactly, what they're asking for is for the entire continent and eventually the entire world to pay for "cartel support" because they're slowly dying and need our BILLIONS of dollars to pay for coke, hookers, BMW's, 6 homes... and that's just the executives of these companies.
    • thomn8r, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Actually, it would be more analogous to sayin "no *paternity test* needed for child support."
      • locojones, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Actually no paternity test is required for child support.
    • ncc1701, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Or rather, "This might be your child because you're one of the guys I had sex with around that time, but DNA testing would require too much time, money, and effort. Since you made your sperm available, that's enough reason to have you pay child support."
  • aimhelix, on 07/02/2008, -1/+12It's not 'available' if RIAA can't see it... oh, and ***** you RIAA.
  • x2wenty4x, on 07/02/2008, -0/+16To the MPAA and RIAA the constitution is irrelevant.
  • darc87, on 07/02/2008, -0/+17Perhaps next the RIAA will tell us they are able to gain access to our homes without a warrant due to homeland security issues...
    • oxymoron69, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Just wait until ACTA becomes law.
  • terrizance, on 07/02/2008, -1/+25Actually, proof isn't needed for anyone to sue for any reason. It is, however, usually helpful in winning a case.
  • SuckMyDigg, on 07/02/2008, -1/+9So can I sue the RIAA for copyright infringement of the library of songs I wrote that no one has ever heard, but pop singers have stolen?
    • reed311, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Yes, you can sue anyone for anything; but that doesn't mean your suit will be allowed to proceed to court. Especially with such a flimsy example which you provided.
      • acknotSW, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1They can also counter sue you for costs if your case is found to be a waste of time.
  • kevro, on 07/02/2008, -2/+5I wonder what would happen if I put a computer out side my front door with a stack of Cd's I own and a stack of blanc Cd's. Outside of the possibility of theft. since the other is of course copying.
  • rald84, on 07/02/2008, -0/+18but .. but ... i have a penis, does that mean i'm guilty of rape??
    • Screwy1138, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4only if you unzip your pants.
    • cybrguy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6only if you "Make it avaliable"
    • acknotSW, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Have a penis? yes are are a rapist as far as some womens groups are concerned.
  • pond70, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7Any bets what next month's RIAA headline grabbing news release will be - after this is shot down in court .

    man...the RIAA is like that kid no one likes but keeps showing up at the front door....

    oops.....got-ta go and seed over my lunch break
    • Depravo, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4RIAA claim they can sue anybody who has ears, as ears can be used to listen to illegally downloaded music.
  • BlackTye, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Uhh. Seriously?....

    I mean, really?
  • pigfister, on 07/02/2008, -1/+35So then i will create a load of white noise mp3 files call them the latest crap published by the RIAA limit the speeds to slow and w8 for the suits to come knocking.

    Don't say riaa, ect, name the companies so they can't hide behind the fronts they use to keep anonymity.

    ***** SONY
    ***** UNIVERSAL
    ***** WARNER GROUP
    ***** EMI
    ***** DISNEY
    ***** PARAMOUNT
    ***** FOX


    The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

    The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

    The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!

    The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
  • Badandy127, on 07/02/2008, -15/+1Did anyone even read this?

    "Proof is not necessary TO SUE for infringement..."

    It says nothing about conviction. God you're all idiots. Stop downloading music illegally, you won't have a problem.
    • artfiend77, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6You, my friend, need to retake Reading Comprehension 101.
    • sindex, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2"It says nothing about conviction. God you're all idiots. Stop downloading music illegally, you won't have a problem."

      Really? So like, the people the RIAA sued that didn't illegally download music didn't really get sued? They didn't really incur $25k-100k worth of court costs and lawyer fees? They aren't really involved in legal battles trying to get the money back from the RIAA that they spent to prove that they're innocent and the RIAA is wrong in their practice? No one should be proving their innocence. The RIAA should be proving their guilt, but they're not interested in truth or justice, they're just after sowing fear in the population and making some big headlines about people's personal lives and confusing morons about file sharing.

      Even if you completely agree with their "sharing music is illegal" shtick, they are going about it the wrong way, and in an illegal way. If you don't see that, you're, and I rarely say this about people directly, an idiot.
      • Badandy127, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Sorry, sharing music by giving it to people to keep is illegal. You're using a product, music, and taking it without compensation. Now that that's over with:


        Suing does not mean someone is guilty until proven innocent. I can sue you right now for slander. It's not true, and it would be unfounded, but I CAN sue you, and you will have to take care of that lawsuit. The RIAA is just establishing under what actions they think suing is the proper course of action. The courts never said that was grounds for conviction at all.
    • Badandy127, on 07/02/2008, -1/+0No, I do not. The RIAA is arguing that they should be able to use the fact that someone made something available on a P2P network is proof it was distributed. That is what they are arguing. It says nothing about conviction, they are just saying it's grounds to sue. Judges will determine if it is.
  • Corrosionx, on 07/02/2008, -0/+13Actually, showing proof isn't as important as:

    -Showing a tangible loss for the RIAA, the only way they can acquire "standing"
    -Proving juridisdiction of the court (Anytime a jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven)
    -Providing the court with the corpus delecti (which is the crime itself), where someone's legal rights have been violated.

    It might also help to realize the DMCA is an Act, a Statute, and as such, has force of law only on the society of people who voluntarily agreed to obey it.
  • ZodiacKiller, on 07/02/2008, -10/+4Would you guys go into Best Buy and steal a CD or a DVD? If the answer to that question is "No", then I'd like to know how downloading from a torrent or rapidshare is somehow different. I don't give a ***** if people steal or not, I'm just genuinely curious what the difference is? Please reply
    • Cyberen, on 07/02/2008, -2/+5One involves a physical copy, wrapper, label, and all. Deducting from their inventory with no payment. Online torrenting creates a digital copy, and it's not stealing if all you're doing is creating a copy for yourself.
      • ZodiacKiller, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3Right... That's what the majority of people are doing, downloading torrents of music they already own.
      • Epistaxis, on 07/02/2008, -1/+0I don't believe that for a second, and I don't see how you can either.
      • filmbandit, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3cyberan -- catch a clue. what is being argued about is intellectual property rights, recordings, copies, whatever. an artist made a recording and if you're listening to it again and again you should have wanted to compensate the artist. don't talk about the packaging cost, etc. what about the time the artist spent writing the songs and making the recordings?

        i'm not for a minute saying the RIAA does anything to protect the artist and neither do the labels mostly -- the artist is the last one to get paid in a label/artist structure. the dollar or buck and a half the artist didn't see when someone bittorrents instead of buying their album is substantial. and even though a lot of artists are going independent that doesn't change the fact that people steal that content as well.

        i'm not quite sure why you would be "creating a copy for yourself" since most of us are prompted to auto-import anytime we stick a disc in our computer anyway.
    • enigmaneo, on 07/02/2008, -2/+4I'd like to see how you feel when you get falsely accused of downloading music, get sued and there's no need to go to trial because you're guilty til proven innocent. Sorry I like my rights.
    • artfiend77, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2Thing is here they say PROOF isn't necessary. So if someone over at the RIAA wakes up one morning and says " Hey! I think ZodiacKiller might have some illegal files on his PC!" or " Hey! We *think* he might be distributing illegal files", they can drag you to court.
      • ZodiacKiller, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1I guess it's the same principle as these internet predator stings... The guy doesn't actually have to bone or correspond with an underage person to be convicted... it's the obvious intent..
      • sandiegodude, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Wait, did you read the article or just the misleading title here on Digg? They're saying they don't have the means to prove it was downloaded from her download folder, but according to copyright law the act of making copyrighted material available to others without paying proper royalties to the copyright owner is still breaking the law. That's the point in question here.

        As far as your example of RIAA suing ZodiacKiller with no obvious proof off the bat? yep, they can. I can too. So can you. Such is the way our Civil court system works, hence why the rest of the world calls America sue-happy.

        I worry about the ramifications of cases like this honestly. Right now the RIAA is saying they don't have a way to prove files were transferred. If it suddenly becomes a requirement to prove downloads, then guess where the RIAA goes next... That's right, Congress, who whips right back around to your ISP's.

        Believe me, I cannot stand the RIAA. Their data collection is flawed, their tactics are barbaric and their legal definitions are cloudy at best. On top of that, their lobbyists have a sickening amount of weight on our dumbass congressional "leaders." In this case however, this lady is hardly a saint. She had 1700+ songs in her Kazaa share folder, which she didn't own hard copies to. Don't even try to tell me she had no intent to distribute at that point. I can't see her getting out of this one.

      • Elshar, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I dunno. I knew people, and still know people that use Kazaa and the like. They didn't realize that downloading stuff from those services typically allows other people to be able to download it from them.

        So it's really more of an ignorance thing. Not that ignorance of any existing laws is a defense, but it's not as blatant as it would be if it was someone as knowledgeable as you or I.
      • artfiend77, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1@ sandiegodude

        You're absolutely right, we pretty much agree somewhat on what the article talks about. And YES, the title is sensationalist and misleading. And YES, her intent is more than questionable in this case. But what of people who are dragged to court, pay legal fees, take time off of work just to be proven innocent?
      • locojones, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1That's not what they are saying. Their argument is that making a file available for distribution infringes the copyright holder's exclusive rights, and they have the case law to back it up.

        They have plenty of proof to bring and prosecute their lawsuits. They have IP addresses, they have the names and addresses of the people associated with those addresses, they have a record of the infringements offered for distribution, and after discovery they have evidence of those exact same copyrighted materials on the computer of the defendant. It's a smoking gun and an open and closed case.
    • MickJT, on 07/02/2008, -2/+4Do you have a problem with recording a movie on TV, and playing it back more than once? If not, you have double-standards.
      • ZodiacKiller, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Television is broadcast, they are giving you the content on purpose, and if you have cable you are actually paying for it. If I record what they are giving me or what I'm paying for, for personal use in my home, I don't see a problem with that.
      • artfiend77, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1@ ZodiacKiller

        In Re: to the recording at home.

        They actually do have a problem with that.
      • ZodiacKiller, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1"@ ZodiacKiller

        In Re: to the recording at home.

        They actually do have a problem with that."


        Really? Then why did the cable company give me a DVR as part of my cable service?
      • locojones, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Your analogy doesn't work MickJT because time-shifting broadcasts recorded over the air for personal use is entirely legal. It isn't even in the same ballpark as making unauthorized copies of material you didn't pay for and re-distributing them to others who likewise didn't pay for them.
      • MickJT, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Sure my analogy works. I said "more than once", timeshifting only allows you to play it back once, and then you have to get rid of it.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 07/02/2008, -2/+3The only difference? To steal from Best Buy, you have to actually leave your parents basement. Other than that, there isn't a difference.
      • ZodiacKiller, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1So you must have a squeaky clean police record then.
    • Corrosionx, on 07/02/2008, -1/+401010010010010101001010011000100101010010101001010
      10010001001010100110010101001001001010100101001100
      01001010100101010010101001000100101010011001010100
      10010010101001010011000100101010010101001010100100
      01001010100110010010101001010100101010010000101010

      What the hell did I steal just now... can you tell? Look in your stuff see if there's anything missing.
      • ZodiacKiller, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1Oh I get it, it's digital so it's not real, just a bunch of binary code that when combined properly may form some sort of data.. but really it's just ones and zeros! and you can't copyright numbers!

        You're on to something man...
      • Corrosionx, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1No more like I'm singing this song to you, and you remember it and sing it to someone else. Who lost something?
    • Br3ach, on 07/02/2008, -2/+4The difference is that these assholes expect us to shill out 15 dollars for a CD with maybe 2 decent tracks on it, which the artist gets almost none of, so they dont have to adjust their business model for the new age.

      They lost control of distribution, and they are throwing a fit because they were too stupid to get on board when they had the chance to be a consumers friend, not their worst Nazi-esque enemy.

      And, if I download something, there is a high chance that I NEVER WOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT ANYWAY, so what do they lose exactly if I listen? If anything the artist wins because I heard their stuff and may want to go see them live, which they do get paid for.
      • ZodiacKiller, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Hmmm... So could you apply this rationale to other consumer products?

        "Apple expects us to pay $300+ dollars for an Iphone and it only has like two decent features in it, plus they pay their assembly line workers ***** money, so I'm walking into the cell phone store and stealing that *****"

        Why does that justification sound so asinine when it's applied to other things?
      • filmbandit, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1that last one is a good point and several smaller labels have realized the love/hate relationship they have with free distribution.

        what if that band you wanted to see can't tour the way they did because of the insurmountable cost of gas? this kind of scenario is happening right now.

        i don't see this being a problem for nickelback, but you know there's a larger group of bands/artists barely getting by on the income from touring and now even that is being impacted.
      • filmbandit, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1that last one is a good point and several smaller labels have realized the love/hate relationship they have with free distribution.

        what if that band you wanted to see can't tour the way they did because of the insurmountable cost of gas? this kind of scenario is happening right now.

        i don't see this being a problem for nickelback, but you know there's a larger group of bands/artists barely getting by on the income from touring and now even that income is being impacted.
    • Luke2012, on 07/02/2008, -3/+1In one case I'm stealing from Best Buy, in the other from the recording label. Simple as that.
    • davewashere, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2This has nothing to do with piracy being right or wrong and everything to do with the RIAA violating our rights. They want to just be able to claim they "saw" a file on a computer and that's proof of copyright infringement. The RIAA has proven time and again that they suck at gathering evidence. They discredit themselves every time they sue an elderly woman who lives alone with her cats for downloading the latest 50 Cent album. As they are not trained criminal investigators, they lack the training to properly collect evidence, and it shows. They make stupid mistakes like mixing up an IP address, which leads to the ISP providing the wrong personal info, which leads to an innocent person getting sued and having to pay to defend him/herself. The RIAA/MPAA considers this just an innocent mistake - collateral damage in their all-important effort to stop the inevitable. I consider it a serious violation of our rights.
      • locojones, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Well if you're such a staunch supporter of your rights, then don't download unauthorized works and then offer them up for distribution and you won't have to worry about it.
      • davewashere, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1@ locojones:
        My whole point was that you don't even have to be guilty to get caught by the RIAA/MPAA's wide net. Anyone with an IP address could get sued because they (the RIAA/MPAA) aren't very careful with their evidence gathering. Trained criminal investigators are held to a higher standard with their evidence, because they know that one mistake can get a case thrown out. The RIAA/MPAA has admitted to making serious mistakes in the past like mixing up an IP address and therefore suing the wrong person, yet it's still the burden of the person who is being sued to show that they didn't do it. I, for one, do not think it's acceptable to wrongfully sue a few dozen people here and there while filing blanket lawsuits against a thousand or so people. The penalty for this collateral damage should be great -- far more than just legal fees, to discourage the RIAA/MPAA from filing lawsuits without first putting in the effort to make sure they have the right person.
    • braininabox, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2The difference is in today's society, a CD is a material token that you buy in order to show support and respect for a specific musician and their work.

      A digital copy of a song is art, meant to be enjoyed freely and cannot be stolen.

      Think of it as the difference between walking into the Louvre and stealing a Rembrandt, versus doing a google image search for one of his paintings and printing it out.
      • zeromous, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure you're only getting dugg down because the REAL Rembrandt is a single item, which cannot be copied and is verifiable (see Authenticity/Auth of Ownership.

        What people don't realize is a REAL Rembrandt is like a Master Reel/Tape/Track etc, so this example applies beautifully.

        Basically the RIAA is trying to limit and own discussion and dissemination of their Masters, because they make money off residuals of the master recordings. The difference being is they believe digital copies are an equivelant, but really we're all just trading and viewing approximate photocopies of the original.

        It's not illegal to draw your own approximation of a Rembrandt, no matter how good or bad the copy is. Furthermore, there's nothing stopping you from taking a picture of it (digital or analog) and making a ton of copies of that picture to share with your friends. As a result, they may never care to visit a museum tour featuring the real Rembrandt. Poor museum, if only they'd been more hip.

        Maybe RIAA should look to museums for a workable business model, since they're pretty much done alienating the rest of their supporters. The only value they provide to culture at this point, is as they say, history.
      • Epistaxis, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1If it's "meant to be enjoyed freely," the musicians don't charge money for it. If someone is selling something and you take it for free, you have stolen it. This isn't like printing an 8x11 black and white pixellated version of a Rembrandt distributed freely on the internet under fair use, this is like shoplifting a print from the museum store. Just because you think it's overpriced doesn't give you the right to steal it.
      • skyz, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1take it one step further your visual art analogy

        there are original works and there are limited edition lithographs and unlimited edition posters

        if you want quality at any level you have to pay for it

        even if you download it and print it it is not totally free you have the cost of the printer and printing

        the riaa and mpaa are in the wrong but expecting any and all types of digital art for free is more wrong

        do you think michelangelo should have had another job so he could eat it wasn't enough for him to sculpt paint and design
    • foxhound009, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1there is a difference.. by downloading "illegally" music u make no financial damage to the company's...
      by stealling a CD u do.

      Why should any1 buy a CD on which heshe doesn't what content is placed... he or she should be
      able to see/heaar the content first and then decide whetever they do want to support artist in order for them to make more music....
      that way the real artists with real fans will be stay around while the fake's will die out.....

      Artist do NOT deserve more money than theirs fans are willing to give them.
      If u're an starving artist go find a job!
      • skyz, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2artist's don't deserve

        maybe it is you that doesn't deserve

        that's why you get britney cyrus and such

        because you don't think artist's deserve

        so the real artists don't bother

        i took 100 music classes and i wouldn't sing for you for a million dollars with that attitude
      • filmbandit, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1digged skyz --

        here's a scenario -- an artists work a real job for 15 years all the while working on developing his music. luckily the hard work gets the attention it deserves -- this guy gets written about in spin, and rolling stone paste magazine, his band is a darling on pitchfork, etc. this guy doesn't want to be able to buy an island off the coast of france (those days are largely over) -- he would like to make a living recording and touring and be able to pay the annual taxes on his 2 bedroom frame house.

        unfortunately everybody thinks if you are a artist/musician you are living like David Bowie or Neil Young or Prince or The White Stripes or Britney or Cyrus.

        that's not the case.
      • artfiend77, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I'm for file sharing (not blatant piracy) and I'm for a new business model and such, but ***** like you give the rest of us a bad name.
  • AmericansRevolt, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5title misleading. it's not that they think they don't need proof- they actually think seeing data logs on an isp showing torrent traffic is proof. they are mistaken because that stuff is EVIDENCE, but not solid proof. should it be enough for LAW ENFORCEMENT to look into based upon probable cause? likely. but why don't they? BECAUSE THEY HAVE BETTER ***** THINGS TO DO AND MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT. go ***** yourselves RIAA. seriously, just kill yourselves you're a disgrace to modern civilization.
  • alricsca, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5So basically if I happen to name a file the same as one of the million of song titles I am guilty? That is insane. Do people have any idea how many words in the English language have been used as song titles. Shoot you can not even use numbers. At the very least they should need to download enough of the file to be sure it is the actual content in question.

    Beyond that why not switch to a service model or charge much lower fees. Most people will choose to avoid the risks, prefer the massive amount of titles, and the ease of download. It is not a hard equation, if it saves me a minute and the cost is very low I would use a service. Shoot if the service is cheap enough why pay for storage or waste the time downloading when I can have what I want the way I want on line at any time. Their mistake is in their lack of imagination and understanding of profit by scale.
    • skyz, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1as a matter of fact you cannot copyright the name of a song so using a song title for a file name is not copyright infringement
  • fas2, on 07/02/2008, -3/+1http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-says-it-doesnt-need-e ...
  • banderwocky, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Sweet! That should mean anyone could sue the RIAA for pretty much anything since proof is not needed.
  • ATLien74, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8R.acketeering I.nnocent A.verage A.mericans
  • Br3ach, on 07/02/2008, -0/+9So, basically, RIAA doesnt think they need any of this so called "evidence", the very core of our legal system? WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED TO OPERATE!

    RIAA: They stole music!
    Court: What is your proof?
    RIAA: They just...did!
    Court: How?
    RIAA: ....step 3 is profit....
  • Sillywombat, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Damn that annoying thing called "PROOF"!!
  • raskali, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4This doesn't have anything to do with copyright, they're just hoping that suing people will become another revenue stream for them.
  • drgirlfriend, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Hello? You don't have to have proof to sue anyone. But you DO have to have proof to WIN said lawsuit.

    Haven't you noticed? These RIAA douches haven't won a whole lot of their lawsuits.
    • Ricky81682, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0With the cost of their lawyers, it's clear that's not their goal. They are just hoping to scare enough people away. Instead, they are creating the incentive for new technology like BitTorrent (which really isn't that secure for privacy) that work to defeat their LEGAL arguments (they'll never stop the technical issues.)
  • chabotc, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0And here i was thinking that 'Fair Trial' and 'Presumption of innocence' was more then just a wikipedia page.

    Really when you remove those, from any part of the justice system, what you are left with has very little to do with 'justice'
  • Maratanos, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2It's also interesting how overboard they go with punitive damages. I mean, seriously. Given the number of people who host any particular file, there's no way any one person will have facilitated 150000 dollars worth of infringement.
    • Ricky81682, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0That's statutory. The DMCA. You can't blame the RIAA and MPAA (at least not directly); blame their lobbyists and your retarded "internet is full of tubes" elected officials.
  • saltinecracker, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Wow, I could probably use this argument to hack into someones computer without any fear of prosecution. Basically, it's OK to download anything from someones computer, because if they don't have anything keeping me out (firewalls, etc...), they are basically giving me permission.

    I can see the dawn of a whole new age.
  • portnoy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3It's a new country my friends. At one time only criminals could kill you for some imagined slight against them. Now the entertainment industry has acquired basically the same right. In the same was that at one time the neighborhood criminal dude could lend money at astronomical interest rates. Now all the respectable banks can do the same thing by opening quicky check cashing/loan offices on pretty much every street corner. Crooks have taken over the country and crooks can now operate right out in the open. Welcome to the new America.
  • Epistaxis, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0I can see the abstract logic in this, and I think it's just being explained poorly.

    It is (or should be) illegal to host file-stealing services from your computer, whether or not anyone actually likes your taste in movies/music/games enough (or your connection is fast enough) to steal from you. Of course, if there is evidence of how much stealing you did facilitate, that should be important in setting the amount of the damages. I don't want to defend everything the RIAA and MPAA are doing, but stealing is illegal and wrong.
  • foxhound009, on 07/02/2008, -3/+2there is a difference between downloading "illegally" music and buying a CD.. by downloading "illegally" music u make no financial damage to the company's...
    by stealling a CD u do.

    Why should any1 buy a CD on which he/she doesn't know what content is placed on... he or she should be
    able to see/hear the content first and then decide whetever they do want to support artists in order for them to make more music....
    that way the real artists with real fans will stay around while the fake's will die out.....

    Artist do NOT deserve more money than theirs fans are willing to give them.
    If u're an starving artist go find a job!
  • spongya77, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4I am sure the law enforcement would be thrilled if they could work on the same premises. It'd be much easier to keep their quotas up.
  • tehbored, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3They can say it, but does it have any weight? Isn't it ultimately up to the court to determine whether or not they have a case?
  • NuFadZoo, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I hate the RIAA but I also hate sensationalism,

    The RIAA didn't say "Proof is Not Necessary To Sue For Infringement"
    Don't say they said that unless they actually said it.
  • SilverBlade2k, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3The RIAA and MPAA just don't want to have to WORK for their money, whether it be through lawsuits OR through their music/movies.

    The RIAA and MPAA are just ***** lazy.
  • IrwinEffect, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Following this logic, if I were to carry a loaded gun with people around I could be arrested for murder. The possibility is there. If I left a drink unsecured then I could be arrested for giving alcohol to minors. The possibility is there.
  • Stwo, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I think is is rediculous, but then again, there IS tons of piracy going on. What would you do if someone was taking food out of your mouth?
  • artfiend77, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2@ ZodiacKiller
    "Really? Then why did the cable company give me a DVR as part of my cable service?"

    The same reason you have a DVD burner on your PC, and MP3 players with 100Gbs + capacity exist.
  • Gauthic, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4If you can't beat the game, change the rules?
  • insomniac8400, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2If these people are filing lawsuits based on such incorrect assumptions, why isn't the judge just dismissing cases with prejudice?
  • Juncti, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1That's funny, the library down the street "makes available" tons of copyrighted works that I can take home and do whatever I want with. Could scan it, could retype it, whatever I want. Better alert the publishing companies they're missing out on a huge revenue stream of lawsuits.

    Just because one media takes a little more work to copy, should that make it any less severe?
  • Ratteler, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3We the People... in turn, shouldn't need evidence of their treason, like bribing our elected officials and judges, in order to hold them responsible for violating the will of the people.

    We have to make working for the RIAA/MPAA the most dangerous profession on Earth. And revoke ALL corporate copyright.
  • bbliss17, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2RIAA is so lame
  • Corrosionx, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2"Music does not belong to the artists, it belongs to all of us" - Serj Tankian
  • bincoder, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Oh goody!
    Now I can sue them when they share fake versions of 'copyrighted works' (whatever those are). Sorry **AA, if you make them available, you make them available, GUILTY!
    If I share a fake named as the real thing i'm automagically guilty, even if nobody can really gain access nor download a single byte of the file.
    The knife cuts both ways and with that fine, cuts very deep.
  • Scanner771, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2We NEED to take down the MPAA and RIAA!!!
  • nydwarf, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Looks like the RIAA is going to have to go and buy themselves some new laws.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.