RIAA tries forcing settlement out of a woman despite no PC

I just posted the article RIAA tries forcing settlement out of a woman despite no PC.

  No matter 

whom the RIAA suspects of file sharing, whether they are dead or alive or even without a PC, they will try their best to force settlements out of the person. …

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11459-RIAA-tries-forcing-settlement-out-of-a-woman-despite-no-PC.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11459-RIAA-tries-forcing-settlement-out-of-a-woman-despite-no-PC.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

This woman is in a prime position to grandstand and make a mockery of all RIAA legal extortion. Here’s hoping she doesn’t back off because this could be a serious stake through the heatt of the entertainment industry and set the precedent that will call into question ALL of that industry’s online allegations.

Now I’m confused, please help me out here. How can they sue you for “downloading” a file? How do they know what you have downloaded from some P2P network onto your own hard drive? I can see them going after someone offering stuff on a P2P network for upload, but how do they monitor what is actually downloaded and who the actual downloaders are? Seems it would be easy to identify those offering uploads, but how the hell to monitor downloads? Help me understand this please.

What I think they are doing is tracking down IP’s of people they believe have been “sharing” more than 1000 files. They then suboena the ISP that covers that IP to get the identity of the person attached to it for that time period then launch the lawsuit. How they are “tracking people down” I don’t know but it seems like once you are served with the papers, the onus is now on YOU to prove you didn’t do it instead of how the US law really works and they have to prove their case. They are counting on people’s ignorance and the bully tactics they use to get people to submit to the settlement. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Whoever leases the wireless connection is responsible for ensuring it’s used by authorised people only. If they’ve set up an unsecure connection, they have no way of preventing illegal use of the link, whether the person living there had a computer or not.

Please delete :slight_smile:
[edited by TigerZai on 05.02.2006 01:52]

well, it appears that us is going for guilty until proven innocent instead of “innocent until proven guilty” however, this “innocent until proven guilty” only valid in criminal cases NOT in civil cases. i think riaa is using this to take people to the civil cases & do the “extortion” what they really do is make their product competive by offering extras (posters booklets, or quality case & disk cover design for example) & lowering the price; they would save tons of money if they don’t make so many cases

when WEP is used, it can be easily broken; nothing is really secure. in that sense, riaa should have ensured their IP to be secure that unscrambled contents should have not been out there. when riaa noticed the violations, they should have contacted isp to take actions rather than tracking them down to bring the suit. riaa might just want to get settlement to cover their legal fees

Since she is a New York resident, she should make a formal complaint to Eliot Spitzer in the AG’s office, for here is man who takes a very dim on all illegal scammers like the RIAA’s riff raff members like SONY BMG big time!(every time they have tried to fight him they lost and have been fined accordingly, from illegally withholding artists royalty payments to payola scams!) Oh well, if this information is accurate, this puts the RIAA’s lawyers in breach of the RICO laws as well! Oops!, it would be fun to see them disbarred for this one as well!:X

What about the ISP who provided her identity, are they not to be held accountable for the error? Without their mistake there could be no suit?
[edited by HudZon on 05.02.2006 02:58]

That’s why Canadian ISPs came right out and said they couldn’t guarantee the accuracy of that information. The bastards from the RIAA tried to establish a precedent here and Canuck ISPs went to court and got them tossed. Obviously American ISPs are a lot more pussy-whipped.

well i think thats what RIAA wants is to make it public. and to proove to people that they will do anything, no matter how stupid it is to enforce theyr sht because i bet after people read about this they ll think if they go after a person that doesnt even have a computer that makes rest of people even easier target and other big thing is theres noone there to stop it people are useless they dont fight anymore they just sit and watch tv commercials and some people put the vote for soemthing online and hope that helps.

I dont reply much and nor do I believe the RIAA is the angel they are, nor am I defending them or the Woman, and here is why: 1 thing that bothers me about this all. She claims (or whomever) that she has no computer, never turned one on, or knows how. Okay I’ll give her that. But if thats the case, then why would you have a wireless router in your home IF you have no computer?? Last I checked, you have to request internet access, and 100% of all ISP providers do not connect a wireless router to your home, UNLESS you ask for one if they have. Again, I hate the RIAA and what they stand for, but there is also more to this story then being lead to believe. I hope she wins, cause I hate the RIAA, but as a judge, my first question would be: “If you have no computer, never owned one, and dont even know how to turn one on, How come you have a Wireless Router with Internet Access?”

The RIAA employee’s should be serverly beaten with a stick! Bastards!

These worthless pricks are just trying to use gestapo tactics to bully/intimidate innocent people. I thought guilt had to be PROVEN first before punishment could be determined, not the other way around. I’ll bet the majority of the people sued are probably innocent of any wrong doing, and on top of that, these lawsuits aren’t even slowing down (much less stopping) the downloading of music files, even the RIAA has admitted fairly recently that the lawsuits are not having the desired effect, if that’s what they really think, then why are they continuing with this crap? :r

The apartment might have a wireless connection as a feature; in other words owned by the landlord or perhaps the building factor. I don’t know for sure as the article isn’t clear in that respect.

I’m still fuzzy… a) Why would she have a wireless router if she doesn’t have a computer? b) Why would she have an Internet account (which is the data someone’s ISP gave the RIAA) if she doesn’t have a computer? Someone’s data harvesting methods need a little work.

Maybe they had X-box connected for gaming or something… at any rate, this shows the total BS going on within the RIAA. Any court or judge going along with this has obviously been payed off.

Have you ever heard of WebTV?:stuck_out_tongue:

Some apartments have wireless routers built in as a selling point. The router is wired to cable HSI. They probably just sued the cable company which lead them to that apartment complex and asked what apartment number and who lived there. These generic accounts just float to whoever is living in the apartment at the time. Makes it easy to manage for the Landlord.