VE3OGG writes "Debbie Foster, one of the many caught-up in the RIAA's drift-net attacks who was sued back in 2004 has recently seen yet another victory. After having the suit dropped against her "with prejudice" several months back, Foster filed a counter-claim, and has just been awarded "reasonable" attorney's fees. Could this, in conjunction with cases such as Santangelo, show a turning of the tide against the RIAA?"
Sadly, from the article, it looks as though this will not set a precedent that will discourage the RIAA from doing this sort of thing - the judge indicated that the fact the RIAA kept her on as a co-defendent (after they went after her daughter instead) was important in the decision to award costs to Debbie. The strong-arm tactics backfired badly for this particular case - good for her, but not something to discourage the RIAA in general, they'll just have to be a bit less aggressive to defendants.
However...
The bit that caught my eye, though, was the quote
Judge Lee could find no case "holding the mere owner of an Internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons."
Me like. If that can be said to be a precedent, it means anyone with an unsecured WiFi network has a strong argument for not being held liable for anything done on that network - it's open, after all. Anyone could drive by, park, download [insert bad stuff here], and drive off. Unless the prosecution has video surveillance of your house/apartment, it'll be very hard to *prove* who did what.
It seems the best protection may be none at all. How very Zen.
That is a very intruiging thought, and counters what many of the people I know fear the most - getting dragged to court for something they haven't done. One problem is though, such a precedent can also be used to protect criminals such as spammers, frauds, and so on.
While it may be true that the computer illiterate probably won't be held liable for their unsecured network, if the **AA can prove you DO know what you are doing, you won't be able to get away with it. Particularly, if you found out how to secure your system and didn't act on it within a reasonable amount of time.
While it may be true that the computer illiterate probably won't be held liable for their unsecured network, if the **AA can prove you DO know what you are doing, you won't be able to get away with it. Particularly, if you found out how to secure your system and didn't act on it within a reasonable amount of time.
Why is that? Is it illegal to have an open access point?
I definitely know how to secure my wireless network, but I choose not to. I want people visiting my place to be able to easily connect to my network and the internet. Exchanging lengthy WPA keys every time is too much of a hassle.
Even if its secure, its not that hard to break into it anyway.. or just directly compromise your pc with a trojan.. So really in ANY situation you can claim it wasnt you, quite reasonably.
Now, that said, if they get a search warrant and strip your house bare and find that 'backup' cd hidden away with one of the files in question, your quite logical defense melts away like an ice cube in hell.
Perjury is selectively prosecuted because of the huge penalties it can have relative to the actual "crime". Typically, if perjury is committed on matters peripheral (at best) to the actual case, it's not perjury. If it's used to cover up an affair, ditto on that.
And the reason Bill Gates, etc didn't get convicted of perjury is because of the same reason that every convicted "not guilty" defendant isn't charged with perjury - clear fifth amendment problem.
Judge Lee could find no case "holding the mere owner of an Internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons."
I can see next year, really early
HR 2008 - 0002 "Secure Communication Relating to Existing Wireless Environment Detection" Act.
(i) Owners of a wireless network will be held accountable for all civil and criminal liabilities associated with any unauthorized copyrighted materials on the network....
I'm not sure if the author intended parent to be funny or not, but its definately more of a serious concern than a joke. We all know congress has a propensity for knee-jerk legislation with poorly thought out long term consequences... I'd say more scary than funny.
Neat. I just have to drive by the headquarters of some large company, poke around for an unsecured or poorly secured WAP, send massive amounts of spam with, oh, say pictures of kiddy porn with the subject "I know you'll like this!", and the company will be held liable for the criminal activities. Let's see them modify the law to state "...will be held accountable unless you're a big company".
I guess that's ultimately what will happen, only with wording that will make it less obvious. Sadly, the United Stat
Sadly, from the article, it looks as though this will not set a precedent that will discourage the RIAA from doing this sort of thing
Nope. From Yesterdays Portsmouth Herald [seacoastonline.com], an Augusta, Maine man has been sued by the RIAA for distributing 5 allegedly pirated songs. The article says 18,000 lawsuits have been filed since 9/03, 6 of them in Maine.
However, this has no bearing on direct infringement.
Leaving a WAP open for anyone to use is not a viable way to defend yourself from infringement suits concerning your direct infringement (as opposed to indirect infringement, which is what the court was talking about). This is because in civil copyright suits there is no such thing as 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' The standard of proof is 'on the balance of probabilities,' i.e. whatever is most likely (even if only 51% likely as compared to 49% likely), is what happened.
In fact, in order to use the open WAP to help yourself, you'd have to prove that someone else probably is the infringer, and not you. The plaintiff can get a lot of help from the fact that you, as the owner of the WAP, a person who is very often in its range, and probably a frequent Internet user, probably do use it the most and probably are the infringer. It's tough for you to argue that someone else did the deed, especially if you don't have anything to point to other than that it's open. In fact, just because it's open doesn't even mean anyone else ever uses it.
I live in an apartment. My open WAP could (and has) been used like a cheap whore by many people. Alas, the transparent proxy has thwarted many attempts at pure stupidity (using my WAP to do your banking is asking for it), thus https is blocked by default (as is port 21, and 25, and bittorrent).
unless it's that few actually check the ssl certificate to see if it's signed by someone trusted...
I could have my proxy request the page, accept the bank's cert, then issue a cert with the bank's name in the cert. the average user wouldn't notice, they're conditioned to just check the YES box. -nB
no, just braindead users. Human stupidity knows no bounds. We all know that, and frankly I just don't want to worry about it. My setup is as follows: 2Wire ADSL modem/router WPA enabled, wireless on. The linksys is configured to use a static IP outside of my local subnet (linksys WAN 192.168.0.1, local 192.168.49.x both mask 255.255.255.0, thus invisible to each other). Linksys WAN connects to the proxy server eth2, which then connects to the 2wire router in the DMZ zone rather than the normal LAN zone. This a
Well, that's part of the calculus. If you're a 75-year-old grandmother with an open network, chances are that no jury is going to think that it's more likely than not that you were the one downloading gangster rap.
In any case, I don't think "We noticed somebody from this IP address sharing this song at XX time, and the ISP's logs said that was the defendant" is enough. That's why, after all, the RIAA subpoenas the disk drives.
Wait a minute, wouldn't you only have to prove that you are not likely the offender, not that some particular person else is? For instance, wouldn't being a 72 year old grandmother who regularly had numerious neighborhood kids over be a defense, even if you couldn't say "this particular kid probably did it"? I think any reasonable jury would agree to that. Perhaps leaving your WEP open isn't enough, but making sure that people more likely than you use it is.
Wrong. In a criminal trial, a jury must find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in a civil trial, which is what 99.44% of all copyright infringement suits are, a jury need only find a defendant liable on the balance of the probabilities. It is a much, much lower standard.
A good example would be the criminal and civil trials of OJ Simpson. In his criminal trial, he was able to cause the jury to have a reasonable doubt, and so was found not guilty. But a reasonable doubt is not sufficient in a c
Me like. If that can be said to be a precedent, it means...
Some explaining is in order.
I know y'all aren't lawyers, so I shouldn't expect you to get the lawyer-speak right, but I have noticed lots and lots of misuse of this term.
"Precedent" in the context of a court's decision doesn't mean much at the trial court level.
That's because a court is only bound by the decisions of the courts ABOVE it. Since a trial court is basically the lowest court, you don't have trial courts setting "precedents" that anyone has to follow.
Appeals courts set precedent that the trial courts (aka district courts) must follow within their circuits. The Supreme Court also sets precedent that the Courts of Appeal and district courts must follow. But district courts do not set precedent that anyone else must follow.
I suppose any time someone decides something it can be called a "precedent". But usually, when we say that about courts, we are talking about something that has to be followed.
A court does not have to follow its own precedents, though they tend to do so, absent a good reason to change course. This tendency is called stare decisis [wikipedia.org], and it is not a requirement. The Supreme Court reverses itself fairly regularly, and that's why some people worry that Roe v. Wade (or another decision) might get overturned.
While a district court sets precedent in the sense that decisions in that same court will probably follow it, they do not set precedent that anyone outside of that court's jurisdiction needs to follow. Someone else may or may not find that judge's reasoning persuasive.
Sure you are a lawyer? You are looking up the wrong tree and missing what the RIAA *really* fears. "Non Mutual Collateral Estoppel" means the judge's decision is binding in any case in the future the RIAA brings. Once a party loses a legal argument, it is stuck with that outcome, and can't keep relitigating the same question. To avoid this, they will have to appeal, and while the case is under appeal, get the plaintiff to settle the appeal with a "vacatur" to vacate or "erase" the trial court's opinion.
While I agree with most of what you said, federal district court decisions, while not binding precedent, are useful. So I would classify them as being significantly more valuable than "don't mean much", though obviously they're still just persuasive.
I see them cited frequently, especially in support of issues of law that haven't been determined at an appellate law. Judges tend not to like to go out on limbs, if you can show them where another judge did something similar, it can make them feel more comfortable about ruling.
And if you're planning on killing somebody, just leave a loaded gun on your front porch. Then anybody could have done it! An airtight defense if I ever saw one.
If it was even suspected that you were hosting an open WiFi point to engage in, or encourage others to engage in an illegal activity I think they could find many ways to make your life miserable. I'm fairly certain that giving others the tools to commit a crime and then standing idly by while they commit it is, in itself, illegal. Maybe harder to prove, seeing as how they would have to prove intent, but still enough to get you in trouble. Especially if they could show that you were knowledgable enough to know what an unsecured network could be used for.
+5 Insightful ? A gun is not a Wifi connection, the sole purpose of a gun is to shoot and kill things ( which in some cases may be legal but in the majority of cases is not ) whereas a Wifi connection is a perfectly reasonable thing for anyone to run perfectly legal.
I would imagine that leaving your guns lying around on your porch is already illegal in most places whereas there is nothing illegal about running Wifi hubs. You are basically suggesting that accidentally leaving your car unlocked and it then bei
Could/. posters stop asking other/. posters to stop summarizing articles with "Could this be the end of ?"?
Mod parent Funny, by all means, but the previous poster raises, IMO, a valid point.
A quick scan of the front page shows two stories with a "could this mean..." summary endings.
IMO prose like this is redundant at best, and anywhere from condescending (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/07/23 16201 [slashdot.org]) to outright misleading (this article) at the worst, and reads like tabloid journalism and sensationalism at its finest.
I think it rarely adds anything interesting to the article in question, and can be done without.
Great news, I just wish she had gone for pain and suffering, harassment, and libel (or something like it). Get those greedy bastards to set her up for life and we'll see how many more suits they file. Fuck you RIAA!
You are so wrong. This is huge. It will encourage other people to fight back, rather than settle.... will encourage lawyers all across the country to jump into the fight... will encourage lawyers who are already handling one of these cases to take on more cases.
If Ms. Foster gets an award of $55,000, that's an expense on top of the $100,000 or so the RIAA has spent on the case. That's a net loss on this one case of, let's say, $155,000, which would wipe out all the profit from probably a hundred settlement
They love big and overly-inflated numbers when they cite losses. They might as well hand over a big and overly-inflated number to this lady in damages.
Do you honestly think the RIAA gives a damn? They would rather win, yes, but this isn't about the relatively trivial (to them) judgements and legal costs. This was a P.R. campaign. They wanted parents to stop their kids from downloading gig upon gig from Kazaa. They wanted colleges to monitor what their students were up to on the networks. They wanted the average user to always have a nagging fear every time they went to Limewire.
I think it's pretty despicable*, but it was (unfortunately) very effective, much more so (and probably cheaper than) a typical ad campaign. Yes, there are other ways they could have done it, I am not saying it was right; but to think any legal setback (other than something extremely catastrophic, such as ordering them to pay ALL legal fees for all past cases plus emotional distress or something like that) will make them consider the campaign a failure is just foolish. If they lose a case there is nothing to stop them from filing more; it's the front-page news alerts that another thousand have been served that they are after, not the judgements themselves.
And anyway, even if they were to stop tomorrow, they could do so comfortably knowing that they already won-- "piracy" has been stygmatized, and casual users are afraid.
* I would go so far as to say no corporation should be able to sue an individual under any circumstances, but that is a different discussion.
Actually I think they do care. One of their tactics has been to drag things out to where people settle simply because it's cheaper. This decision hurts that tactic two ways. First, it calls into question the RIAA's assertion that merely being the registered owner of the IP address they claim was involved is sufficient. And second, it provides precedent a defendant can cite in future cases for making the RIAA pay defendant's attorney's fees if the RIAA can't prevail. Those two things make it more likely a defendant will take the "Prove it was me at the computer." defense further and go for a win instead of settling. And now it's on the record in an actual ruling by the court. It's a published ruling future defendants can cite as settled case law and which the RIAA will have to overcome. That's one of the things they really really didn't want to have happen, which is why they squirmed so hard to try and avoid a dismissal with prejudice.
The decision just came down yesterday afternoon, so definitely it's too early to say. But I guarantee you it will chasten them a bit. Every morning they have a telephone conference call about the nationwide cases. I have a hunch this morning's call wasn't too cheery.
I had an email exchange today with their head lawyer, and he seemed a bit confused.
Yes they're going to do things differently. For one thing, they are never going to try that stupid secondary liability argument again. For another thing, in most
Having said that, if they wouldn't charge so much it would kill piracy overnight - if I recall correctly that was proven in one country where they did just that. Literally overnight the market for pirated works collapsed.
Which is what used to be called "good business sense".
Oh, and the MPAA should shut up that one participant that still wants region limiting. I've heard of quite a few execs themselves that region limiting is stupid. Typically, people that travel (i.e. with money to spend) buy a lot of movies on the fly, but only the ones they buy legitimately won't play when they get home from another region. How stupid is that?
DRM, even of this basic kind means that the value of the product is lower to any potential customer. Increasing the potential market to pirates.
A couple points of note. First, we're talking civil cases, so everything I say will be in that venue. Second, parents are often responsible for their children's actions; if you're the kid of the RIAA gun owner, then yes, the family of the person you killed could sue your parents. This is not an absolute; parents are not always held liable for their kids' actions, but they often are.
Third, even with no relation, it's quite possible and reasonable that if the person you took the gun from didn't secure it prope
Open up your networks! (Score:5, Interesting)
However...
The bit that caught my eye, though, was the quote
Me like. If that can be said to be a precedent, it means anyone with an unsecured WiFi network has a strong argument for not being held liable for anything done on that network - it's open, after all. Anyone could drive by, park, download [insert bad stuff here], and drive off. Unless the prosecution has video surveillance of your house/apartment, it'll be very hard to *prove* who did what.
It seems the best protection may be none at all. How very Zen.
Simon
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Oh gods, not "think of the children" again! (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop thinking about the children. Think of the actual facts. If you apply more feelings than logic, you know you're on the way to do someone wrong.
Re:Oh gods, not "think of the children" again! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is that? Is it illegal to have an open access point?
I definitely know how to secure my wireless network, but I choose not to. I want people visiting my place to be able to easily connect to my network and the internet. Exchanging lengthy WPA keys every time is too much of a hassle.
Parent
unsecured WiFi (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, that said, if they get a search warrant and strip your house bare and find that 'backup' cd hidden away with one of the files in question, your quite logical defense melts away like an ice cube in hell.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:unsecured WiFi (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:unsecured WiFi (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And the reason Bill Gates, etc didn't get convicted of perjury is because of the same reason that every convicted "not guilty" defendant isn't charged with perjury - clear fifth amendment problem.
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see next year, really early
HR 2008 - 0002 "Secure Communication Relating to Existing Wireless Environment Detection" Act.
(i) Owners of a wireless network will be held accountable for all civil and criminal liabilities associated with any unauthorized copyrighted materials on the network....
Parent
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's see them modify the law to state "...will be held accountable unless you're a big company".
I guess that's ultimately what will happen, only with wording that will make it less obvious. Sadly, the United Stat
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:5, Informative)
Leaving a WAP open for anyone to use is not a viable way to defend yourself from infringement suits concerning your direct infringement (as opposed to indirect infringement, which is what the court was talking about). This is because in civil copyright suits there is no such thing as 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' The standard of proof is 'on the balance of probabilities,' i.e. whatever is most likely (even if only 51% likely as compared to 49% likely), is what happened.
In fact, in order to use the open WAP to help yourself, you'd have to prove that someone else probably is the infringer, and not you. The plaintiff can get a lot of help from the fact that you, as the owner of the WAP, a person who is very often in its range, and probably a frequent Internet user, probably do use it the most and probably are the infringer. It's tough for you to argue that someone else did the deed, especially if you don't have anything to point to other than that it's open. In fact, just because it's open doesn't even mean anyone else ever uses it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My open WAP could (and has) been used like a cheap whore by many people.
Alas, the transparent proxy has thwarted many attempts at pure stupidity (using my WAP to do your banking is asking for it), thus https is blocked by default (as is port 21, and 25, and bittorrent).
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
-nB
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Human stupidity knows no bounds. We all know that, and frankly I just don't want to worry about it.
My setup is as follows:
2Wire ADSL modem/router WPA enabled, wireless on.
The linksys is configured to use a static IP outside of my local subnet (linksys WAN 192.168.0.1, local 192.168.49.x both mask 255.255.255.0, thus invisible to each other).
Linksys WAN connects to the proxy server eth2, which then connects to the 2wire router in the DMZ zone rather than the normal LAN zone. This a
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:4, Insightful)
In any case, I don't think "We noticed somebody from this IP address sharing this song at XX time, and the ISP's logs said that was the defendant" is enough. That's why, after all, the RIAA subpoenas the disk drives.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In a criminal trial, a jury must find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in a civil trial, which is what 99.44% of all copyright infringement suits are, a jury need only find a defendant liable on the balance of the probabilities. It is a much, much lower standard.
A good example would be the criminal and civil trials of OJ Simpson. In his criminal trial, he was able to cause the jury to have a reasonable doubt, and so was found not guilty. But a reasonable doubt is not sufficient in a c
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Precedent" (Score:5, Informative)
Some explaining is in order.
I know y'all aren't lawyers, so I shouldn't expect you to get the lawyer-speak right, but I have noticed lots and lots of misuse of this term.
"Precedent" in the context of a court's decision doesn't mean much at the trial court level.
That's because a court is only bound by the decisions of the courts ABOVE it. Since a trial court is basically the lowest court, you don't have trial courts setting "precedents" that anyone has to follow.
Appeals courts set precedent that the trial courts (aka district courts) must follow within their circuits. The Supreme Court also sets precedent that the Courts of Appeal and district courts must follow. But district courts do not set precedent that anyone else must follow.
I suppose any time someone decides something it can be called a "precedent". But usually, when we say that about courts, we are talking about something that has to be followed.
A court does not have to follow its own precedents, though they tend to do so, absent a good reason to change course. This tendency is called stare decisis [wikipedia.org], and it is not a requirement. The Supreme Court reverses itself fairly regularly, and that's why some people worry that Roe v. Wade (or another decision) might get overturned.
While a district court sets precedent in the sense that decisions in that same court will probably follow it, they do not set precedent that anyone outside of that court's jurisdiction needs to follow. Someone else may or may not find that judge's reasoning persuasive.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't say I was a lawyer. I might be.
Regardless, it's quite obvious that YOU are not a lawyer.
"Non Mutual Collateral Estoppel" means the judge's decision is binding in any case in the future the RIAA brings.
Collateral estoppel refers to the principle that a party may not relitigate an issue that has already been determined in another case.
So, the RIAA will not be allowed to relitigate the question of whether Debbie Foster is entitled to attorney's fees.
Whoop-de-frickin-doo!
Re:"Precedent" (Score:4, Insightful)
I see them cited frequently, especially in support of issues of law that haven't been determined at an appellate law. Judges tend not to like to go out on limbs, if you can show them where another judge did something similar, it can make them feel more comfortable about ruling.
Parent
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:4, Interesting)
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
And now
Insecurity is protection
A few years late, but not unexpected..
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Sad but true - although Duke (the trainer) in Rocky IV lays it out pretty well..
"You cut him! You hurt him! You see? You see? He's not a machine, he's a man!" - Rocky IV
The same thing can now be said about the RIAA - they're not infallible and their BS can be given back to them, even with prejudice.
ummm... no. (Score:4, Insightful)
If it was even suspected that you were hosting an open WiFi point to engage in, or encourage others to engage in an illegal activity I think they could find many ways to make your life miserable. I'm fairly certain that giving others the tools to commit a crime and then standing idly by while they commit it is, in itself, illegal. Maybe harder to prove, seeing as how they would have to prove intent, but still enough to get you in trouble. Especially if they could show that you were knowledgable enough to know what an unsecured network could be used for.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A gun is not a Wifi connection, the sole purpose of a gun is to shoot and kill things ( which in some cases may be legal but in the majority of cases is not ) whereas a Wifi connection is a perfectly reasonable thing for anyone to run perfectly legal.
I would imagine that leaving your guns lying around on your porch is already illegal in most places whereas there is nothing illegal about running Wifi hubs. You are basically suggesting that accidentally leaving your car unlocked and it then bei
On Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Could
Re:On Slashdot... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:On Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod parent Funny, by all means, but the previous poster raises, IMO, a valid point.
A quick scan of the front page shows two stories with a "could this mean..." summary endings.
IMO prose like this is redundant at best, and anywhere from condescending (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/07/23 16201 [slashdot.org]) to outright misleading (this article) at the worst, and reads like tabloid journalism and sensationalism at its finest.
I think it rarely adds anything interesting to the article in question, and can be done without.
Just me $0.02
Parent
About time. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Ms. Foster gets an award of $55,000, that's an expense on top of the $100,000 or so the RIAA has spent on the case. That's a net loss on this one case of, let's say, $155,000, which would wipe out all the profit from probably a hundred settlement
We all know what "reasonable" means to the RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
RIAA already won (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's pretty despicable*, but it was (unfortunately) very effective, much more so (and probably cheaper than) a typical ad campaign. Yes, there are other ways they could have done it, I am not saying it was right; but to think any legal setback (other than something extremely catastrophic, such as ordering them to pay ALL legal fees for all past cases plus emotional distress or something like that) will make them consider the campaign a failure is just foolish. If they lose a case there is nothing to stop them from filing more; it's the front-page news alerts that another thousand have been served that they are after, not the judgements themselves.
And anyway, even if they were to stop tomorrow, they could do so comfortably knowing that they already won-- "piracy" has been stygmatized, and casual users are afraid.
* I would go so far as to say no corporation should be able to sue an individual under any circumstances, but that is a different discussion.
Re:RIAA already won (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I think they do care. One of their tactics has been to drag things out to where people settle simply because it's cheaper. This decision hurts that tactic two ways. First, it calls into question the RIAA's assertion that merely being the registered owner of the IP address they claim was involved is sufficient. And second, it provides precedent a defendant can cite in future cases for making the RIAA pay defendant's attorney's fees if the RIAA can't prevail. Those two things make it more likely a defendant will take the "Prove it was me at the computer." defense further and go for a win instead of settling. And now it's on the record in an actual ruling by the court. It's a published ruling future defendants can cite as settled case law and which the RIAA will have to overcome. That's one of the things they really really didn't want to have happen, which is why they squirmed so hard to try and avoid a dismissal with prejudice.
Parent
Re:RIAA already won (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I had an email exchange today with their head lawyer, and he seemed a bit confused.
Yes they're going to do things differently. For one thing, they are never going to try that stupid secondary liability argument again. For another thing, in most
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They give a damn.
Re:RIAA already won (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is what used to be called "good business sense".
Oh, and the MPAA should shut up that one participant that still wants region limiting. I've heard of quite a few execs themselves that region limiting is stupid. Typically, people that travel (i.e. with money to spend) buy a lot of movies on the fly, but only the ones they buy legitimately won't play when they get home from another region. How stupid is that?
DRM, even of this basic kind means that the value of the product is lower to any potential customer. Increasing the potential market to pirates.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, parents are often responsible for their children's actions; if you're the kid of the RIAA gun owner, then yes, the family of the person you killed could sue your parents. This is not an absolute; parents are not always held liable for their kids' actions, but they often are.
Third, even with no relation, it's quite possible and reasonable that if the person you took the gun from didn't secure it prope