Comments on: Duke University to RIAA: put up or shut up

By: IT Professional

IT Professional — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:21:37 +0000

I was falsely accused by these turkey’s of sharing a specific movie from one of my computers. This accusation obviously happened solely because I was running a P2P software program. The movie I was accused of sharing was not on any computer in my possession. Also the hard drive of the P2P sharing computer had been purged using Acronis shortly before the accusation was made; so there was no chance of there being any residual image of the movie in question. I wrote to my ISP, the Producers of the movie, and the so called investigators, pointing out the facts and their error; demanding an apology. I received NO RESPONCE. The humorous part of this episode is that I didn’t even know the movie they accused me of sharing existed; until I was accused of sharing it. By the way I also tested all files on the P2P computer (there were not that many) and none of them where mislabeled or corrupted. So now that I know one person was falsely accused; how many others are being falsely accused, but do not have the skill or the good luck to be able to prove it!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:16:38 +0000

If you receve a pres litigation letter All you have to do is post on line the name and business address of the author of the letter and someone will take care of the rest for you.

We can stop this crap!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:09:02 +0000

I would love to receive a pres litigation letter.

Why?

Because it is intelligence information.

With the “pres-litigation” letter you know who to attack back and a devastating counter attack could be conducted within few days. This will take care of few parasites.

If enought people do this this pres-litigation BS will not last very long.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:37:42 +0000

All that will most likely happen is the RIAA will change gears and continue by adding pressure to the Uni. I would imagine it will go something like this.

Instead of sending pre-litigation letters, they will go to court for a pile of John Doe requests for the Uni to give up IP addresses on. If they can find them, they would in my opinion wait until there are a hundred or so to send at one time to the Uni, knowing full well that it will eat into the Uni staff’s time to come up with identification. It will be done with the shortest possible time frame allowed to add to the pressure. If and when the Uni complains about their business being interrupted to fill this court request, the RIAA will come back with something along the lines of “You could have passed on the re-litigation letters”.

They are after bucks from both ends as usual. From the victims of the re-litigation letters and from the Uni in hopes that it will come in the form of them purchasing some of that snakeoil, Audible magic.

They are doing their best to make sure there is not another generation of music listeners that wish anything from the major labels. Continuing at this rate, later in the decade they won’t be able to give their music away. Anyone that listens, buys, deals with, or has such music, begins to stand the chance of being in a law suit. Today it is file sharing, who knows what it will be tomorrow, other than it will in some way involve their product. Who needs their product under these conditions? Why would anyone in their right minds pay for the privilege of being in a lottery where they could be the next victim?