He then happily waddles off to the golf course….

(Mitch Bainwol takes the blue pill and swallows it with a glass of water)

Perhaps now you can stop filing lawsuits, quietly drop the ones you’ve got going and save all that money on attorney fees. Just that drop in expenses would probably make up what the Music Distributing industry REALLY lost (if anything), and I mean REALLY lost, not some “Oh every download is a lost sale BS.” type of ersatz-pseudo loss.

Then perhaps you could stop worrying and get to the gym. God, have you gotten fat.

–Binky

I share your dream, along with many others I’m sure:)

The most interesting thing about this case was the fact that they
initially tried to sue for over 1000 songs, then DROPPED all the
counts in which she had a corresponding CD. The RIAA claimed
that they did it out of “kindness”. It was actually precedent that
they feared in this case. They didn’t want a judge to rule, once
and for all, that having mp3 files is fair use, REGARDLESS of the
source, as long as a person has purchased copies.

They got one favorable precedent, didn’t wish to risk another
unfavorable one.

Shitheads.

but yes I agree they have been slowing down - I had earlier questioned whether this was just because they were changing law firms, or whether it was because some people had started fighting back but it seems for some reason anyway that there has been some reduction in numbers.

I frequently dream oneday a judge will throw out one of these cases and make RRRRRIAA pay back all the money it has taken from its victims - that would be ohhhh so nice…

No they can’t. That would be an admission of defeat which they are much to arrogant to do, BUT they can quietly stop pursuing the lawsuits. There hasn’t been a major round of lawsuits launched since Feb.

Words fail me.

Second, in relation to “not one of the RIAA victims has ever appeared before a judge in a civil trial” - this is not quite right as there was the case of BMG Music et al v Gonzalez 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 910 (District Court For the Northern District of Illinois, 2005) which was appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal, and a woman was held liable for 30 songs and ordered to pay $22,500 setting the precedent in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin that sampling for future purchase was not fair use…. NEVER mind the fact that she had already purchased 250 CDs - idiots - now she will probably buy none…

And in relation to a comment above “they are not locked into such an action” - BS - they have backed themselves into a corner - they can’t very well come out an announce that they arent going to sue anyone anymore - they cant win against the architecture and they wont change their business model so they have to sue the crap out of users: “Anyone who claims you’re going to win the war on piracy is a very foolish person. But if you don’t fight the war, it gets worse.” John Kennedy, Chairman and Chief Executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.

This is just like the Iraq War - a BIG MISTAKE - with no exit strategy.

Sal

It is very common in corporations, where face saving and apperances are everything to do such. Making it sound as if it’s a done deal and all was accomplished. It is hoped by them that doing so, convences the public to follow suit and leave p2p. In the real world, that doesn’t work nor does it float.

It looks to be like Hillary Rosen paved the way for them. By her saying the cartels should rethink their stradegy of sue ‘em all, they are not locked into such an action and yet the door is opened for them to make that move. By her no longer being in association with the cartels by being under employement, she is not held responcible should the cartels move this way and fail.

We all know the real truth, that enspite of the best efforts of the cartels to stem the flow of free flowing data they don’t control the gates to, it has and continues to slip through their fingers. Responding far too late and without good alternatives, they have in the world of the public, put their heads in the sand and refused to deal with real world issues and business models that don’t fit into the digital world. The idea that they can protect digital with locks both kills the ownership reason to buy and at the same time turns customers away from their offerings with over-restrictive terms and outragous prices. We all know what happens when customers no longer see the value in a product for the price. It is one of the main reasons they can’t really get a good music or movie on-line service off the ground, despite all the claims to the contrary.