Comments on: Teens next RIAA victims http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403 p2pnet.net offers not-your-lamescream news on movies music digital media P2P peer-to-peer TV television file sharing freedom of speech open source product news Wifi mobiles company Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:15:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-28750 Reader's Write Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:28:51 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-28750 Hmmm...let's see. The RIAA, MPAA, and numerous other Entities can "Enter" my computer and browse for files they don't like, and then sue me...that's sort of like breaking and entering into my house, and suing me for a counterfiet product. Has anyone considered Counter-Suing the Industry using the DCMA or other Law, claiming that the RIAA/MPAA illegaly hacked into their computers to find this info? how about sueing them for the pervasive Rootkit/DRM software infecting computers worldwide? if I "browsed" their computer systems for files i didnt like, I'd get 10 yrs in jail and/or a 10,000 dollar fine for "COMPUTER HACKING". why is it ok for big business to get away with it, but not me? someone clever enough with sufficient tech and law knowlege could set a rather lucrative judicial "snare" for the RIAA/MPAA in this manner...muahahahahahahhah!!!! Hmmm…let’s see. The RIAA, MPAA, and numerous other Entities can “Enter” my computer and browse for files they don’t like, and then sue me…that’s sort of like breaking and entering into my house, and suing me for a counterfiet product. Has anyone considered Counter-Suing the Industry using the DCMA or other Law, claiming that the RIAA/MPAA illegaly hacked into their computers to find this info? how about sueing them for the pervasive Rootkit/DRM software infecting computers worldwide? if I “browsed” their computer systems for files i didnt like, I’d get 10 yrs in jail and/or a 10,000 dollar fine for “COMPUTER HACKING”. why is it ok for big business to get away with it, but not me? someone clever enough with sufficient tech and law knowlege could set a rather lucrative judicial “snare” for the RIAA/MPAA in this manner…muahahahahahahhah!!!!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-27293 Reader's Write Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:30:11 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-27293 poor santangelo. i think she's going to lose. even if she can prove that she's computer-illiterate or knows nothing about kazaa or who was responsible for illegal downloading from her computer, she is responsible for the actions of her under-aged children including the activity of visitors within her property. if i recall correctly...you don't get a break by being ignorant of the law. most likely, they have proof that her property was used to download files from matching the IP address location of the music files to her ISP activity logs (if any). and even if they try to delete all the files from her computer before going to court...they're probably also computer-illiterate to realize that files really arent completely deleted in her hard drive. kinda like kids using mamma's house as a place for drug activity while parents have no clue - mama's still responsible. riaa look for peeps to sue cuz they're losing revenue from peepz who download music for free. if u were on the otherside of this case, you'ld be looking 2 sue someone too. and if u think peepz just want to listen to music from the internet without downloading it to their computer...forget it. they dont just want to listen to it..they want to keep it. keep it and put it into their portable music or mp3 players wherever they go duh. sad 2 say some teens think they're smart even though they know it's wrong. just feels cool to get things free and no one's stoppping them so why not? looks like mama needs to review her teaching of morals again or some serious spanking. she can't always be on the lookout for the activities going on in her property but she can try 2 entrust and pass on those responsibilities 2 her kids poor santangelo. i think she’s going to lose. even if she can prove that she’s computer-illiterate or knows nothing about kazaa or who was responsible for illegal downloading from her computer, she is responsible for the actions of her under-aged children including the activity of visitors within her property. if i recall correctly…you don’t get a break by being ignorant of the law. most likely, they have proof that her property was used to download files from matching the IP address location of the music files to her ISP activity logs (if any). and even if they try to delete all the files from her computer before going to court…they’re probably also computer-illiterate to realize that files really arent completely deleted in her hard drive. kinda like kids using mamma’s house as a place for drug activity while parents have no clue - mama’s still responsible.

riaa look for peeps to sue cuz they’re losing revenue from peepz who download music for free. if u were on the otherside of this case, you’ld be looking 2 sue someone too. and if u think peepz just want to listen to music from the internet without downloading it to their computer…forget it. they dont just want to listen to it..they want to keep it. keep it and put it into their portable music or mp3 players wherever they go duh.

sad 2 say some teens think they’re smart even though they know it’s wrong. just feels cool to get things free and no one’s stoppping them so why not? looks like mama needs to review her teaching of morals again or some serious spanking. she can’t always be on the lookout for the activities going on in her property but she can try 2 entrust and pass on those responsibilities 2 her kids

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-26963 Reader's Write Mon, 26 Dec 2005 01:02:58 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-26963 I don't think Ms Santengelo is proceeding correctly. She should not even admit to having had Kazaa on her computer. Let them try to prove it. The law says that the plaintiff must allege specific infringements. So they need to show who the files were transferred to, and when. I.e. a screenshot of Kazaa isn't going to be good enough to prove anything. (Assuming the judge is not incompetent or corrupt. A big assumption I know.) Emil I don’t think Ms Santengelo is proceeding correctly. She should not even admit to having had Kazaa on her computer. Let them try to prove it.

The law says that the plaintiff must allege specific infringements. So they need to show who the files were transferred to, and when. I.e. a screenshot of Kazaa isn’t going to be good enough to prove anything. (Assuming the judge is not incompetent or corrupt. A big assumption I know.)

Emil

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-26956 Reader's Write Sun, 25 Dec 2005 19:35:39 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-26956 "The process is running backwards and the judge is wrong in allowing it." All that is said on my previous post would be explained to the jury, with instructions to ignore all that was said in testimony. That is what the judge should do out of decency. Also, an apoplogy should be given to the jury by the judge for allowing their exposure to non relevant arguments that can only cloud the issues. Santangelo should request an apology from the judge. If judge Mark D. Fox refuses, then we know the likely results. This is his chance to look good in the forever Internet history, surely on Wikipedia. It is up to him. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com “The process is running backwards and the judge is wrong in allowing it.”

All that is said on my previous post would be explained to the jury, with instructions to ignore all that was said in testimony. That is what the judge should do out of decency.

Also, an apoplogy should be given to the jury by the judge for allowing their exposure to non relevant arguments that can only cloud the issues.

Santangelo should request an apology from the judge.

If judge Mark D. Fox refuses, then we know the likely results. This is his chance to look good in the forever Internet history, surely on Wikipedia. It is up to him.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-26934 Reader's Write Sun, 25 Dec 2005 00:29:07 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-26934 The process is running backwards and the judge is wrong in allowing it. Santangel does not have to prove she is innocent. It is the other way, the suing party has to prove she is guilty. The suing party has to prove that she and not others or her computer downloaded songs. Regardless of who downloaded songs, if it was done, if it is not proven she did it then she wins. Santangelo does not have to help any record company in finding out who downloaded their songs. Anyway, because p2p systems have no filters (and cannot have them) no one should be guilty of downloading infringement. If the lawamakers do not want downloading infringement, then copyright filter are required on p2p systems, even if they are impossible to develop. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com The process is running backwards and the judge is wrong in allowing it.

Santangel does not have to prove she is innocent. It is the other way, the suing party has to prove she is guilty.

The suing party has to prove that she and not others or her computer downloaded songs.

Regardless of who downloaded songs, if it was done, if it is not proven she did it then she wins.

Santangelo does not have to help any record company in finding out who downloaded their songs.

Anyway, because p2p systems have no filters (and cannot have them) no one should be guilty of downloading infringement. If the lawamakers do not want downloading infringement, then copyright filter are required on p2p systems, even if they are impossible to develop.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-26923 Reader's Write Sat, 24 Dec 2005 14:11:32 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-26923 fuck you all the riaa should be paying that poor woman 1million dollars you have no proof that she did it and even theo file sharing it 100 percent legal basterds you just look for people to seu and make fake therates and illegal claims and tell the microstoft police to shouve it up there ass if they try something like that again you no what no one has to pay for a song for 99 cent you can get it for free just to listenif you want to help the copyright law make it so the music cant be draged out of a folder and on to a cd unless you buy that song and have proof that you paid for it you all are so stipid not to think of that im doing you a favor to make p2p networking safe with kazaa the folder that postes the music why not keep it on the site with the other things and if you have to download a liscence on a p2pnetowrking site the liscence says that this file can be cup on cd unlimited times and mp3 ed a lot thats legal because it was uploaded in to the site with kazaa they give you a folder only to keep you music from the net in it and no pot other music that you rip from cd,s to upload get ride of the shared folders and make it so it cant be pulled out of it folder you all were so damm stupid that you never thought of that ansited of seuwing other people you never tool the time to think about it fuck you all the riaa should be paying that poor woman 1million dollars you have no proof that she did it and even theo file sharing it 100 percent legal basterds you just look for people to seu and make fake therates and illegal claims and tell the microstoft police to shouve it up there ass if they try something like that again you no what no one has to pay for a song for 99 cent you can get it for free just to listenif you want to help the copyright law make it so the music cant be draged out of a folder and on to a cd unless you buy that song and have proof that you paid for it you all are so stipid not to think of that im doing you a favor to make p2p networking safe with kazaa the folder that postes the music why not keep it on the site with the other things and if you have to download a liscence on a p2pnetowrking site the liscence says that this file can be cup on cd unlimited times and mp3 ed a lot thats legal because it was uploaded in to the site with kazaa they give you a folder only to keep you music from the net in it and no pot other music that you rip from cd,s to upload get ride of the shared folders and make it so it cant be pulled out of it folder you all were so damm stupid that you never thought of that ansited of seuwing other people you never tool the time to think about it

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-26917 Reader's Write Sat, 24 Dec 2005 07:33:44 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-26917 I wouldn't ask the EFF for help. From what this Register article has to say it'd probly be a bad idea. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/eff_needs_to_die/ I wouldn’t ask the EFF for help. From what this Register article has to say it’d probly be a bad idea.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/eff_needs_to_die/

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-26897 Reader's Write Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:34:57 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7403#comment-26897 Since mrs. Santangelo can't afford a lawyer and she is representing herself - did she at least request (or even got) some advide from EFF? I know I wouldn't want to go against those mobsters lawyers uneducated... Since mrs. Santangelo can’t afford a lawyer and she is representing herself - did she at least request (or even got) some advide from EFF?
I know I wouldn’t want to go against those mobsters lawyers uneducated…

]]>