However, is it a good thing considering that trolls looking to start an argument and people who just want to mouth off when they have no idea what they are talking about are also allowed a platform?

I suppose it is. That is what Freedom of Speech is all about.

Paul

http://www.ratiatum.com/news2874_Les_serveurs_de_Razorback_saisis.html

With more than one million users, the largest waiter eDonkey/eMule of the world, Razorback, east was gone this morning in the hands of the Belgian federal police force. Two of its administrators remain injoignables per hour when we write these lines.

We have only very few information. The whole of the waiters of Razorback were seized this morning towards 10H by the Belgian federal police force. Although Razorback association domiciled in Switzerland, it is in Belgium that the system main part was installed. Razorback did not lodge any illegal contents and even took part very actively in the diffusion of legal contents such as those of our chain of remote loading of software or the free musics of Jamendo.

The waiter used for eMule and eDonkey was nevertheless an index of million files exchanged on the networks peer-to-peer, including one great part were illicit. The principal administrator of Razorback had indicated in the past that it was ready with blacklister the files brought back to him by the holders of royalties, but it never had any answer. Finally the whole of the material was seized this morning, indicates a source close to Razorback to us, while two administrators of the waiter remain injoignables at this beginning of afternoon.

Razorback tried to reconcile legality and P2P while taking part in many legal projects, by providing the stastic invaluable ones for the cabinets of marketing, and by diffusing paying files protected by DRM, for the account of content providers.

But especially, the disappearance of Razorback will not change absolutely anything for the million users eMule, who profit already since from very many months of a network entirely decentralized baptized “Kad”.

We will inform you as soon as we will have more information.

I figured I would get that out of the way before the rest of the discussion is wasted on such nonsense. God knows how dissenting opinions are treated here.

That said, you have many valid points. I agree this could have been over and done with months ago, with Patti simply paying the 3 grand. P2Pnet and whoever could have still had their fundraiser and she would have still come out ahead. But I feel she is being led down a path of financial ruin.

Even if she happens to win, she still will face an appeal. The RIAA can keep her in litigation until she’s old and gray.

Ever heard of appeals? Ever heard of copyright law?

The RIAA have a case against Santangelo. She point blank refuses to name the culprit, merely saying it was not her or her children, but rather her children’s friend.

Santangelo does not have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning this case. Jon Newton mentioned in the article a figure of $240 000 for a decent defence. Now imagine the bill that the RIAA are running up. Imagine the many zeros there. Now if by sheer miracle, Santangelo were to win, this would go to appeal – more money. Then imagine if she lost that? What would the bill be?

Watch this space….

I think a precedent is going to be set here – don’t go to court unless you have a case!

Oh and in case I am accused of being a RIAA shill, think again.

This isn’t a filesharing case, it is simply a case where someone has elected to obstruct those trying to sue her by refusing to provide a credible rebuttal. Why can’t she save us all this boring drivel by simply naming the culprit and walking away?

Jordan Glass isn’t an independant lawyers, given that he is Ray Beckerman’s nominee, paid directly by Santangelo. Or, rather, those foolish enough to support her. He is incorporated in the Bahamas to avoid taxation, and you only get taxed on profit.

How do we know he’s not Ray Beckerman’s son in law or some other relative?

How long ago was it that Santangelo was bemoaning the fact that she was having to apply to the court for recognistion as attorney of her own record? And just ho much did her (then) lawyer claim he was charging her?

So why are the filesharing community being fleeced with this bogus charity appeal?

More questions than answers.

A glib retraction, Jon, but you said it right the first time.