Comments on: RIAA — what the judges say

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:11:55 +0000

The internet is made up of 200,000+ computers with 1.2+ billion users. That’s on average 4 to 8 people to a computer. Thus, 1 IP doesn’t equal 1 user.

Nice collection of quotes.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:57:56 +0000

This BS that one IP equal one person is comming to an end.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:56:32 +0000

“Theyâre not going to get away with it.”

If they do they might be a bunch of bad ass ready to go on a shooting rempage against them.

Not recomanded!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:50:45 +0000

The problem for the RIAA is that there is a limit to how many judges they can corrupt.

Corrupting judges is an expensive and dangerous exercise.

By: A_F

A_F — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:45:13 +0000

catflap
I think i remember that some time ago someone else posted a comment linking to an archive org page where “Mr. BT” posted some different tune about copyrights and the law on his own site before he sold to the MAFIAA.
Can’t the people sue him like the MAFIAA sued grokster and get their “settlements” back this way?

By: catflap

catflap — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:42:03 +0000

ââ¦one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third partiesâ¦â

-Hon. David H. Souter, for the Court
Justice
U.S. Supreme Court
June 27, 2005
MGM v Grokster

545 U.S. 913

**********

so why donât/didnât they go after the inventor of the best and most popular p2p âdeviceâ ever created, Bram Cohen?

(this is obviously a rhetorical question since BitTorrent, Bram, and his gang have been bought by MPAA and RIAA members – unless someone can give specific reasons.)

when Bram created it, he had a disclaimer on his website. and indeed, he has stated that he has never used his creation to share or download copyrighted material. Yeah, right. I think he stated that publicly only when the MPAA and RIAA started breathing down his neck. luckily Bram was easily coerced into selling out -his only other choice would have been settling out of court, a settlement that would have cost him millions. instead, he teamed up with the cartels, probably selling his once-open source BT code to them, and was instead rewarded with millions.

Bram can say all he wants that he never intended BitTorrent to be used to share copyrighted materials. And he might even be believed in court.

Justice Souter states âOne infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringementâ¦â

If Bramâs intentions are to believed, he (and subsequently the new owners of the BT code – MPAA and RIAA, etc) must be held accountable even after the fact.

In BTâs early days, Bram never posted messages to filesharing sites requesting that BT be used to share copyrighted materials. he also never requested that it not be used to share copyrighted materials. How could he? the open source code – which he distributed freely – was disseminated too quickly for him to put a stop to it. instead, he did nothing until the cartels came a-knockinâ with lawsuits. and then what he did was to sell out.

if Souterâs decision stands, the meaning is akin to saying âignorance of the law doesnât make one innocentâ. he posted the first versions of the BT program on his website and offered the code to anyone to play around with it and make improvements. that is also inducement, whether or not his intention regarding copyrighted materials was stated.

if grokster can be held accountable this way, so can Bram and the cartels. it would be a wonderful circus to see them all suing each other.

the horse has been out of the barn too long. the new owners of the formerly open source code have to live with it. both they and Bram acted too late. they are not in control of their Frankenstein-like creation.

and they will never be in control of the customers ever again.

to the cartels: we ain’t your bitches no more. you is our bitch now.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:38:36 +0000

It looks to be like the legal system is wising up to exactly what is going on with these so called infringement violation cases. Cases where nothing beyond speculation into maybe it happened being used as a fishing expedition for possible sources of income. Not only are the major media companies and their pet legal dogs on-a-leash beginning to reap the bad publicity from the public but now from the legal system as well. Continuation into this line of legal actions could result in the loss of their copyright privileges each time they come before the court with BS accusations. This more than anything could well spell the end of sue’em all when their very sources of income are threatened with termination.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:09 +0000

Sweet! Looks like the judges have finally stopped taking bribes and wised up to the bullshit being tossed about by the RIAA’s so-called legal team. The parasites are losing their grip on what little precedence they ever had to terrorize anonymous internet users with no evidence. If all goes well, it won’t continue for much longer, and the parasites will be forced to pay damages to everyone they wrongfully accused of infringement. They’re not going to get away with it.