Single Mom sues RIAA

[Firus]

Ya, it would be cool, but none of that will hold up...ignorance is not a defense, even if her computer was hijacked and someone was using it to download, it's still hers and that's all that matters. I highly doubt that they use anything to "invade" your computer to see if you are downloading...they can just look at IP's.

 

[slpaulson]

Originally posted by: MrCodeDude
It's not like she has much to lose.

It said she's disabled and her and her child are already leeching federal funds. Nothing like scum suing scum.

I highly doubt you know enough about her to call her scum...

For all you know she was in a car accident that left her paralyzed from the neck down, and killed her husband. Should we just let her and her daughter die?

 

[toekramp]

Originally posted by: cRazYdood

Originally posted by: MrCodeDude

Originally posted by: toekramp

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: jonessoda
My main hope coming out of this case is not so much that she, in particular, wins, because although hers is a sad case, what I think is much more important is that precedent is set. The RIAA cannot be allowed to continue to invade our privacy in the manner which they do.

I don't understand how they're invading anyone's privacy. If you're sharing music with a P2P app, do you expect that to be private?

But she didn't share music...

She didn't. I didn't read the entire page, but I didn't see where they asserted that her daughter didn't.

I did read the entire thing, and it never mentions the possibility of the daughter, only that the woman isn't awake at 4am listening to gangsta rap under some screenname...

It's not like she has much to lose.

It said she's disabled and her and her child are already leeching federal funds. Nothing like scum suing scum.

I highly doubt you know enough about the nature of her disability to call her scum...

no kidding, that was a pretty low blow for something you have no clue about

 

[MrCodeDude]

Originally posted by: toekramp

Originally posted by: cRazYdood

Originally posted by: MrCodeDude

Originally posted by: toekramp

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: jonessoda
My main hope coming out of this case is not so much that she, in particular, wins, because although hers is a sad case, what I think is much more important is that precedent is set. The RIAA cannot be allowed to continue to invade our privacy in the manner which they do.

I don't understand how they're invading anyone's privacy. If you're sharing music with a P2P app, do you expect that to be private?

But she didn't share music...

She didn't. I didn't read the entire page, but I didn't see where they asserted that her daughter didn't.

I did read the entire thing, and it never mentions the possibility of the daughter, only that the woman isn't awake at 4am listening to gangsta rap under some screenname...

It's not like she has much to lose.

It said she's disabled and her and her child are already leeching federal funds. Nothing like scum suing scum.

I highly doubt you know enough about the nature of her disability to call her scum...

no kidding, that was a pretty low blow for something you have no clue about

Low blow? She's the one that got knocked up when she probably couldn't even support her self. And she's disabled. If she were working a legitimate job, she would have received workers comp.

The cretins just keep eating and breeding, increasing the SS defecit.

 

[Ronin]

I hope she wins....a precedence is needed in this farce of a organization called the RIAA.

 

[beach2nd]

I hope she wins...screw the RIAA

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: Firus
Ya, it would be cool, but none of that will hold up...ignorance is not a defense, even if her computer was hijacked and someone was using it to download, it's still hers and that's all that matters. I highly doubt that they use anything to "invade" your computer to see if you are downloading...they can just look at IP's.

Uhhh are you stupid? Oh course it would hold up in court. If your car is stolen and is used to rob a bank you don't get sent to jail for commiting a crime because it was your car. Same thing here. If your computer becomes hijacked (ie STOLEN) for use in a crime you aren't liable for the actions of the criminal. Please, use your brains here.

 

[FoBoT]

maroons


invasion isn't necessary to see what you are doing

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: MrCodeDude
Low blow? She's the one that got knocked up when she probably couldn't even support her self. And she's disabled. If she were working a legitimate job, she would have received workers comp.

The cretins just keep eating and breeding, increasing the SS defecit.

Are you really so clueless? Do you understand that disabilities are not always the result of an injury? She could have M.S. for all you know. And she could have had the kid before she was disabled. She could have been married before, her husband could have supported her and the daugher. You have no clue what her situation is. So please, STFU.

It's funny, most of the people here who piss and moan about the leaches living off the government are angsty teens who hardly pay a dime in taxes.

 

[BriGy86]

any update one lawsuit?

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Cooler
gotenkito
sounds like DBZ to me. I dont think it was her.

It's not, period. Maybe goten? but no such thing as gotenkito....

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: MrCodeDude

Originally posted by: toekramp

Originally posted by: cRazYdood

Originally posted by: MrCodeDude

Originally posted by: toekramp

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: jonessoda
My main hope coming out of this case is not so much that she, in particular, wins, because although hers is a sad case, what I think is much more important is that precedent is set. The RIAA cannot be allowed to continue to invade our privacy in the manner which they do.

I don't understand how they're invading anyone's privacy. If you're sharing music with a P2P app, do you expect that to be private?

But she didn't share music...

She didn't. I didn't read the entire page, but I didn't see where they asserted that her daughter didn't.

I did read the entire thing, and it never mentions the possibility of the daughter, only that the woman isn't awake at 4am listening to gangsta rap under some screenname...

It's not like she has much to lose.

It said she's disabled and her and her child are already leeching federal funds. Nothing like scum suing scum.

I highly doubt you know enough about the nature of her disability to call her scum...

no kidding, that was a pretty low blow for something you have no clue about

Low blow? She's the one that got knocked up when she probably couldn't even support her self. And she's disabled. If she were working a legitimate job, she would have received workers comp.

The cretins just keep eating and breeding, increasing the SS defecit.

Some one could use a nice whipping from the 'ole BANNAGE stick... God, I may hate the fact that people are leeching of "the system" but I wouldn't ever jump to conclusions on people I've never met, some people truely need those services. Don't be such an as$hole...

 

[blahter]

21. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to break into Ms. Andersen?s personal computer (and those of tens of thousands of other people) to secretly spy on and steal information or remove files. MediaSentry did not have Ms. Andersen?s permission to inspect, copy, or remove private computer files. If MediaSentry accessed her private computer, it did so illegally and secretly. In fact, Ms. Andersen was unaware that the trespass occurred until well after she was anonymously sued.

wth?

 

[Future Shock]

So let's see if I have it right from TFA:

1) She is alleging that an employee of the collection company (probably a pimply-faced 25 year old call center operator) "told her that MediaSentry hacked" into her computer. As if call center operators for another company know jack diddly about the technology used by a 3d party technology company - and even then, it is just her word that they told her that. MediaSentry itself says that they set up fake severs and monitor IPs and requests...like a honeypot. That is NOT hacking - the computer with that IP has to actively submit a request for the materiel, and the request is monitored. AFAIK, MediaSentry does nothing illegal - and I'll bet $5 that the RIAA checked that at length with several lawyers before hiring them.

2) At NO POINT in the lawsuit does it deny that her live-at-home daughter did NOT download said music. The ONLY reason that I can think of is that she would be perjuring herself to claim that, i.e., there is a good probability that it might be the case it was her daughter.

3) The rise in braodband has resulted in many more static IP addresses - and it looks as if hers was consistently used over the course of weeks. Again, no one has to hack to determine that - the MediaSentry server can prove that from their own logs, and corraborate that by subpeoning her ISP details (ie, that she has a static IP, or if dynamic what it was on a given day).

4) Her lawyers are idiots (anyone else see the spelling and formatting mistakes?), hoping for a sympathetic jury, some crying from the defendant, and a total ignorance of technology by the average juror. IMHO, this is NOT how we technophiles should be wishing society to turn out...blind ignorance of technology and lawsuits that exploit it are more long-term harmful to us than the RIAA.

Opportunistic, conniving biotch, if you ask me...

Future Shock

 

[DaShen]

Screw the RIAA. I stopped buying CDs and mp3s and just started listening to internet radio and regular radio because of those bastards. They would have made a lot of money off of me otherwise. Bastards :|

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
So let's see if I have it right from TFA:

1) She is alleging that an employee of the collection company (probably a pimply-faced 25 year old call center operator) "told her that MediaSentry hacked" into her computer. As if call center operators for another company know jack diddly about the technology used by a 3d party technology company - and even then, it is just her word that they told her that. MediaSentry itself says that they set up fake severs and monitor IPs and requests...like a honeypot. That is NOT hacking - the computer with that IP has to actively submit a request for the materiel, and the request is monitored. AFAIK, MediaSentry does nothing illegal - and I'll bet $5 that the RIAA checked that at length with several lawyers before hiring them.

2) At NO POINT in the lawsuit does it deny that her live-at-home daughter did NOT download said music. The ONLY reason that I can think of is that she would be perjuring herself to claim that, i.e., there is a good probability that it might be the case it was her daughter.

3) The rise in braodband has resulted in many more static IP addresses - and it looks as if hers was consistently used over the course of weeks. Again, no one has to hack to determine that - the MediaSentry server can prove that from their own logs, and corraborate that by subpeoning her ISP details (ie, that she has a static IP, or if dynamic what it was on a given day).

4) Her lawyers are idiots (anyone else see the spelling and formatting mistakes?), hoping for a sympathetic jury, some crying from the defendant, and a total ignorance of technology by the average juror. IMHO, this is NOT how we technophiles should be wishing society to turn out...blind ignorance of technology and lawsuits that exploit it are more long-term harmful to us than the RIAA.

Opportunistic, conniving biotch, if you ask me...

Future Shock

But she's a SINGLE MOTHER! Think about the children! 😛

 

[Accipiter22]

worst. lawsuit. ever.



the lady has no idea what she's talking about, nor does her legal team...uuuuugh.


mp3's=stealing. get over it.