Fight Goliath

Jack Ruby · Post by **Jack Ruby** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:50 pm

I like this lady:

http://www.fightgoliath.com/

tltrude · Post by **tltrude** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 6:30 pm

This money-begging web page is confusing and poorly written. I read the whole thing and still don't know what RIAA stands for or why she is being sewed by the big recording indistries, although I can guess. I know for a fact that children under 18 in the US can not be sewed--only through their parents. So, the mention of suffering school kids on a web page asking for money, makes me question its validity.

lizardkid · Post by **lizardkid** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:23 pm

they need to take sort elementary essay writing courses and learn how to construct a well-written argument with valid points and facts. All i saw was that she "wasnt backing down to" all those music companies who were "trying to blackmail" her...

If she were going for a dramatic opening, she missed the story.

Jack Ruby · Post by **Jack Ruby** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:16 pm

I found a brief story about her on another site that linked me to that one, apparently she is being sued for file sharing when she is computer illiterate, reckons one her kids friends downloaded some songs, you may well be right Tom that its a little shady, I usually like to think the best of people though.

lizardkid · Post by **lizardkid** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:26 pm

i can foresee computers having basic tests before being able to own one so you don't get situations like this. you need to take a basic test showing that you know how to use one and the laws against certain actions and programs.

sorta like driving, they're not going to give you a car with no experience under your belt.

Splaetos · Post by **Splaetos** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:25 pm

OK im not positive this is the same case I was reading about, but im 99% certain(woman in NY, not computer savvy, being sued by recording industry thugs after they looked around her personal property with no permission)

Basicaly, someone got into her computer remotely on easter sunday, saw some mp3's and added her to the list of people being sued.

The reason most people settle is perjury....

'Have you downloaded music online?'

'No' --- if your lieing, its a felony.

However, there is no direct evidence to support these cases. ala 'You downloaded 'such and such' by 'random artist' on 'someday in the year'.

The proof is that music files were found on the computer.(and possibly sharing(legal) software) Basicaly in these cases, everyone is guilty until proven innocent. 'How did you get these music files on your computer if not illegaly?'

In this country(and often in state laws) there are certain things that are illegal to buy or obtain, but legal to possess. This is the best analogy(I can think of) for cases like this... It is not illegal to have anything they found on her computer. It is illegal to aquire it in a certain manner. There is little proof to how any of it was obtained at all, but swarms of coroporate jackals, err sorry, lawyers, with unlimitted financial backing are paid to extort settlements and discourage people. It is cheaper to settle the case, her court costs have already exceeded(i think by far) the typical settlement.

So she is being sued for having mp3's on her computer, but what about whoever was paid to invade her privacy? Is there some law I'm not aware of that lets a corporation pay someone to remotely access your computer and have a look around?

hogleg · Post by **hogleg** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:47 pm

fools be scrambling for the allmighty dollar

So if thats the case, posting a link to a song is illegal....right?

Did Napster, Kazaa, limewire, etc get sued?

Where does it stop?

I'm sueing PKM for using my sig lol, that should be worth a couple mill

lizardkid · Post by **lizardkid** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:56 pm

Napster, Kazaa, etc were NOT sued, they got a technicality.

They didnt even distribute it, they managed to convince the courts that since it was pure p2p, that they had no part or even knowledge that illegal trade would happen like that, they got off but i believe they dumped a load of logged ip's in court to compensate and a bunch of other people got busted.

in short you have to have and distribute it, Kazaa and them didn't get a penny of suit because they didn't distribute it, they only provided a means to download it.

PKM · Post by **PKM** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:07 am

lizardkid wrote:Napster, Kazaa, etc were NOT sued, they got a technicality.

They didnt even distribute it, they managed to convince the courts that since it was pure p2p, that they had no part or even knowledge that illegal trade would happen like that,

odd they had now clue since the search tab has the words ''audio'' ''video'' ''images'' & ''software'' as options to search under.

Splaetos · Post by **Splaetos** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:48 am

p2p is compeltely legal.

Audio, Video, Images...

these things all exist in freely distributable, un-copyrighted forms...

The only issue with a p2p client is if they intend the software to be used to violate copyrights...

I dont remember what actualy happened with Napster, but for the most part, no court(not only US) will rule that the technology involved in p2p was created explicitly for violating copyrights.

There were some court cases with bittorrent... where it was compeltely vindicated, because there is no way to proove that it was intended to break any laws. Newer, faster ways of sharing information are intended only to share information faster, regardless of the information. Just because something is invented that helps people commit a crime does not make it illegal. Kinda like the reverse of my last analogy... purchasing certain things is compeltely legal, using them in certain ways compeltely illegal(see cable descramblers, radar detectors, etc)

And those examples are far more blatant in thier intention to break laws, at least in my opinion.