Badmovies.org Forum

Contest our subpoena and we'll charge you double.

Why the hell can't these morons learn how to sell music online and start going after the real bootleggers that are harming their business.

And oh wait if they get to the Senate to go along with the house bill (http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,119600.0.html) the feds will be doing their bidding by confiscating everyone's computers.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080611-riaa-doubles-settlement-cost-for-students-fighting-subpoenas.html

Gotta love that reasoning. They win most of the time in these cases, therefore they are always right and defending yourself is a waste of their time and money.

It just baffles me that they can just send out a letter without even knowing someone's identity and expect to get paid $3,000, no questions asked. That's insane. And when you either pay up or pay more, that's extortion.

Here is an idea, stop buying there crappy ass music and go with independents ...

As Andy suggested, I'd represent myself and drag it out as long as I could and I know enough about the legal system to be dangerous.

I'd argue that if I own any one form of media of a song then by that virtue I have the legal right to convert it into any other media for personal use. Kind of hard to go jogging with a 8 track ... not that I ever jog.

Yeah, but how many of the rest of us do?  Most of us would just have to roll over and accept it, or else pay hugeass chunks of money to pay for defense lawyers.

That's the great thing about the legal system, you can get sued and, even if you're 100 percent in the right, you can still get f**ked if you don't have legal representation on side (which costs an arm and a leg to get.)

Lawyers had a large part in designing our system, and it seems much of it is tailor-made to suit them. One of the few times I've had an issue that required me to go to court, the judge made it VERY clear he didn't approve of me not hiring a lawyer. He REALLY didn't like it when I asked if his position on that issue had anything to do with the fact HE started off as a lawyer, as did most of his colleges, and the fact that many of the people he associated with while working his way to being a judge were STILL lawyers.

I had to talk to another judge to get a temporary order of protection on another person and THAT judge suggested I hire a lawyer to better understand the situation. I guess he figured if you couldn't afford a lawyer, your rights weren't worth protecting. .

I did deal with a lawyer once that made a quick phone call and got me a world of action and didn't even charge me a dime though. That was weird. .

Legal system's great for me!  In a few months I'll be able to go into a courtroom and get paid an exorbitant to do what any reasonably intelligent person could do for themselves with a little study!

But in general, yeah, it's a cartel.  I can't wait to learn the secret handshake hen I'm sworn to the bar!

Honestlt, Ghouk, if I was on the bench and saw that afro-mullet staring up at me, I'd recommend yoiu hire counsel... hairstyle counsel, at the very least.   :wink:  (Kidding: love the afro-mullet!)

Well think about it, the prosecution has the burden of proof. Prove I downloaded a song ... ISP, DNS, can these not be easily spoofed ... well I'm a victim here of a evil hacker who spoofed my IP and corporate greed.

Da Law (Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer.) is all about language and being smarter than the other side, trust me I know A LOT of lawyers and most of them aren't that sharp. Say they put on a expert witness that says you did X,Y and Z. You ask if it's POSSIBLE for X,Y and Z to be don't remotely by a hacker who covers their track well. If he says "No" you query them in saying "So with all the technology in place, all the safe guards the the US Governments invest in security and yet people still get through it's not POSSIBLE for a hacker to access a home computer unbeknown to the owner? Is that what you're saying?"
Well they'd have to say "Yes it's possible."
BOOM you've got reasonable doubt and that's what you need.

It's not about guilty it's all about getting a likely computer un-savvy jury to believe it's possible. So closing arguments are key, "Who here hasn't had a virus? Who here hasn't got something on their computer they don't know how it got there? Who here hasn't felt violated by the internet? I ask you, is it not possible the defendant is nothing but a victim? Why the prosecution's own expert says it possible. I'm not telling you it's possible, I'm telling you it happened and can we be guilty of what we did not do? No! Not guilty is the only POSSIBLE verdict."

Granted that's a nutshell, but you see it's not that hard. If you can put a juror in your place you'll win. Regardless of the side your on. At least that's what I think, but as I've said before I'm just a guy that swings a hammer.

If I'm not mistaken, these are civil suits, which don't work quite the same as criminal. Rather than guilt, it's about legal liability, and the standard of proof is different. While a criminal prosecutor must prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a civil case has more to do with weighing both sides and deciding who is in the right. This is how O.J. Simpson could be successfully sued over a murder after the criminal court acquitted him.

Well, if everybody would just follow my lead and quite buying this crap, the record companies would all be broke and the indie labels would be in charge of the industry, and right now we'd have a huge HUGE variety of stuff to listen to.  Entire new genres would be born, maybe a person could even start listening to the radio again, and actually enjoying it. 

But no, everybody keeps putting money in the pockets of these people who have dragged popular music to it's lowest point in half a century, and then complaining when their actions get even more outrageous than before. 

See I don't know the difference, between civil and criminal so I ask you my fellow citizen could I be savvy enough to cause finical harm to the recording industry ... I think not this is nothing more then a greedy grab for money someone that clearly has no dollars or sense.

Yeah, I believe you're right, but it could be criminal if you charged you with theft or piracy.

Civil case they must prove damages, so the RIAA would have to show that your actions had a direct result on their business and that's still can be tricky. Civil cases still have a jury and getting them to side with the little guy is shouldn't be that hard. It seems to me the RIAA is biting the very hand that feeds them.

I don't know ... I haven't bought a CD in over 10 years maybe longer. There is very little music I can even identify recorded after 1990. Nearly all the mp3's I have I've downloaded, but I can say that I also own the album, tape or cassette of the same song. And the way the RIAA acts these days, it will be a cold day in hell before I put money in their pocket.