|
Woman struggling with music downloading lawsuit
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Renee Elderd never thought to ask her husband about the music he downloaded and listened to on their computer. Turns out she should have.
Last September, a few months after Elderd's husband moved out, a police officer showed up at her Nashua home with a lawsuit from the recording industry. She was accused of copyright infringement.
Url here
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-02-01-riaa-forges-ahead_x.htm
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
awehr
|
Date: February 1, 2005 @ 5:50 PM
Hey.. At least she got a damned subpoena.
Soon, thanks to the sellouts at cryptography research, she wont have that due process right.
theyll just remotely destroy her DVD-rom drive.
|
|
nitedreamerxp
|
Date: February 1, 2005 @ 7:11 PM
See the RIAA are literal pigs so disgusting. |
|
TheSherminator
|
Date: February 1, 2005 @ 7:41 PM
..figuratively pigs |
|
captdunsel
|
Date: February 1, 2005 @ 8:33 PM
she says she can't do anything about it. hmmm, I'd make them prove it. |
|
Nexus7
|
Date: February 1, 2005 @ 8:43 PM
I disagree with the pig comments. Pigs are friendly animals. |
|
ShadowMom
|
Date: February 1, 2005 @ 9:12 PM
"But Jonathan Lamy, vice president of communications for the Recording Industry Association of America, has said the explosion of illegal downloading services made it necessary for the industry to do something." I guess the record industry is a bit fuzzy on the meaning of the word "competition." If you want customers, you sure don't get them in your corner by suing them.
|
|
DeadMan2003
|
Date: February 1, 2005 @ 9:34 PM
I say if you have nothing. Let it damned well go to court. I bet if she did let it go to court the RIAA would try to reduce the amount payable or some other crap to avoid it. |
|
DeadMan2003
|
Date: February 1, 2005 @ 9:35 PM
BTW over 8000 sued but only 1300 paid up thus far. So what's happening with the other 6700? :) |
|
Fobix
|
Date: February 1, 2005 @ 9:36 PM
How can downloading be copyright infingment. d/ling is theft not infringment. Infringement is when you share. |
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: February 1, 2005 @ 9:47 PM
I'm guessing the music files were being made available for downloading by virtue of having them in the 'shared' folder (default uploading status)?
|
|
TheSherminator
|
Date: February 1, 2005 @ 9:49 PM
pigs are pretty friendly now that you mention it. they're more like overly aggressive piles of poo, that fling themselves onto your face whenever you get too close. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: February 1, 2005 @ 9:53 PM
"BTW over 8000 sued but only 1300 paid up thus far. So what's happening with the other 6700?"
Not a damned thing. But none of them issued a press release, so you won't hear about it in USAToday.
"How can downloading be copyright infingment. d/ling is theft not infringment. Infringement is when you share."
If you settle, they don't have to prove anything.
"With the amounts they're settling for, it doesn't make any sense for people to fight these."
It is ALWAYS easier to pay them off than fight their lawlessness in court. This is why extortion has always worked so well. |
|
MajorTreat
|
Date: February 1, 2005 @ 10:49 PM
1) "BTW over 8000 sued but only 1300 paid up thus far. So what's happening with the other 6700?"
"Not a damned thing. But none of them issued a press release, so you won't hear about it in USAToday."
The 7000 others are resisting! Good job US people! I am proud of you! I have good source of information that If a potential victim resist the RIAA leave them alone because they cannot affort to risque a real trial that they will probably lose.
2) No! they are definitly not pig althought they look like it! Pigs are nice are stated above. They are the worst species of pest that nature ever invented. There is an urgent need to exterminate them. There must be some kind of consequences agaisnt these fachists.
Me I volonteer to do Shiitman Matt Oppenheim the dentist and Horible Hach. Who volonteer for the other one?
3) "With the amounts they're settling for, it doesn't make any sense for people to fight these."
This is not about money it's about justice! Beside the risk for not setling is minimum. It does not matter how outrageous their financial claim is! The court decision will neither be more than few thousand dollar anyway including attorney fee. So what the point to settle? And there is a simple way not to pay even this: If you have some asset such as your home Just declare banckrupty and they are screwed permanently! Ha the credit record! Oh yes I know declaring bankrupty chapter 7 today and buying an home the next day!
If you are a student and howe nothing just neither pay there is virtually nothing they can do about this. Let them foot the legal fees it will bring them down faster. So the only real assle is really to go to court to defend your rights and the constitution. I thing it is worth every second you spend on this truncing these parasites and defending our patry! |
|
ghost1735
|
Date: February 2, 2005 @ 8:36 AM
If the RIAA messes w/there sales #'s - whats to say that they don't mess w/the #'s of people they go after - for all we know it could be less or far more. |
|
INeedAlover
|
Date: February 2, 2005 @ 8:56 AM
"Laconia resident Dan Makely, who was sued last fall, agreed earlier this month to pay the companies $4,500. ... Makely's lawyer, Michael Persson..."
"The bottom line is, he wanted to do the right thing and get out of the lawsuit and not pay all the fees," Persson said. "With the amounts they're settling for, it doesn't make any sense for people to fight these."
With lawyers like this, who needs enemies? I wonder if Persson is actually working for the RIAA in disquise?? He obviously is a dumb-ass that knows NOTHING about copyright law, and could give a rats ass about justice. I'd better dedicate his name to memory, because if I ever needed a court appointed attorney, he is the last person on the planet I'd want defending ME.
It's results like this that prove our case that the RIAA lawsuits are nothing more than extortion, in violation of many organized crime laws. Gee, you'd think an attorney might think of that too.
|
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: February 2, 2005 @ 9:47 AM
". . . in violation of many organized crime laws.
Gee, you'd think an attorney might think of that too."
RICO issues do come to mind, don't they?
(An opinion by mroop about now wouldn't hurt.)
|
|
stilltrying
|
Date: February 2, 2005 @ 9:48 AM
This is the real reason the Riaa is against P2P???? They don't want people to sample their artists music cause then people will hear that most of it is crap filler and they won't buy the cd!!!!!! |
|
DeadMan2003
|
Date: February 2, 2005 @ 11:15 AM
Anyone got anymore info on the RICO defendant lady? We are hardly hearing anything about people resisting. I am sure there are but the media is controlled by the asswipes who are all part of the same conspiracy. |
|
INeedAlover
|
Date: February 2, 2005 @ 11:29 AM
stilltrying has one of the reasons.
Another is CONTROL. Control of all music. Full control of their music. Which brings us to another reason. Elimination of competition (meaning independent musicians), requiring signing by an RIAA label. The best way to control music and eliminate competition is to eliminate the most promising new means available to independent musicians in spreading their music without RIAA label help, namely Peer-to-peer file sharing. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: February 2, 2005 @ 2:01 PM
"I wonder if Persson is actually working for the RIAA in disquise??"
I wouldn't doubt it a bit, especially if he is an entertainment attorney. Most of them know which side of the bread is buttered. |
|
byteme
|
Date: February 2, 2005 @ 4:23 PM
From the article:
"And it didn't matter that she didn't do the downloading. The computer, its software and the phone line connecting to the Internet all are in her name."
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought there was a way to defer the suit to the guilty party if you were not the one actually doing the downloading. I seem to remember that from the early articles about the lawsuits. In fact, wasn't that the case with 12 yr old Brianna? I know the internet connection wasn't in her name. |
|
Capt-n-Jack
|
Date: February 2, 2005 @ 8:21 PM
"And it didn't matter that she didn't do the downloading. The computer, its software and the phone line connecting to the Internet all are in her name."
I'm with byteme on this. I think Renee Elderd should fight this, and counter sue for court costs and attorney fees. Given the quote above, wouldn't this be the same as someone owning a gun, but someone in your house using it to kill someone. You as the gun owner wouldn't be guilty of killing anyone, the person doing the shooting would.
|
|
Capt-n-Jack
|
Date: February 2, 2005 @ 8:22 PM
If this would go to a jury trial, Renee could easily win!! |
|
independentm...
|
Date: February 2, 2005 @ 10:25 PM
I think those sued would win most of the cases if they went to court. It is my belief that those folks who refuse to settle
eventually have the case against them dropped because the RIAA fears a loss in court.
...are we not still waiting on news about the 'other 6700'? |
|
JDonahue
|
Date: July 22, 2005 @ 5:34 PM
And with Universial releasing play20 Copy protected CDs that only play 20 times after activation, the RIAA pushing for steep increases in online sales, and Sony BMG and EMI introducing unskippable commercials on copy protected CDs, they are only pushing consumers to go to the illegal P2P sites.
What gives. RIAA are inspikable disgusting maggots that don't care about evolution. If I come accross a copy protected CDs that either have a number of plays left, those cruddy 48kbps WMAs with commercials, or just plain inferior, than so be it.
Copy protect the CDs and raise the price high, and you bet that there would be illegal downloads. I don't download MP3s from illicit site, but I would be force to do two things: Illegal downloads, or no music at all.
Quality and consumer flexibility is just as important as controlling piracy. Get it? Good. It also helps on building a better future. If these don't apply, than we are heading to the same crash as the video game crash of 1983, only this time, involving music. |
|
JDonahue
|
Date: July 22, 2005 @ 5:37 PM
"And with Universial releasing play20 Copy protected CDs that only play 20 times after activation, the RIAA pushing for steep increases in online sales, and Sony BMG and EMI introducing unskippable commercials on copy protected CDs, they are only pushing consumers to go to the illegal P2P sites."
(Fix: Steep increases in online Prices, not sales) |
|
|
Navigation
