well now the entrapment,,,,,, oops i mean the entertainment industry better start making sure they have conclusive evidence before they try to squeeze as much cash as they can by threatening people, i think were in need of a protection racket to combat this one!

wow, absolutely no notes and no scientific backing. couple this with the "csi affect" that is sweeping juries these days and you have a recipe for the riaa getting there asses handed to them.

Man are they stupid to go before a jury trial. They are going to lose on both fronts a major judgement and large attorney fees. I am the person that was made an example of about copyrighted materials and all Federal cases are viewed upon.

Here is the link to the case study that started it all. Playboy tried to go after Compuserve and AOL but they had deep pockets to fight the case in court so they went after a little person (me) and got the laws on the books.

http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Playboy_v_Frena.html

Lol, have they ever successfully sued a person who took there case to the courts?

No if you read the article this is the first one to go to court as most of the suits were settled out of court by paying a low amount agree upon by the record companies. Playboy tried to sue me for $6 million dollars and all they got was $50,000.00 to settle the case. They want to win this because they will be in total control and will make an example of this person.

Originally posted by duke8888:

---

They want to win this because they will be in total control and will make an example of this person.

---

they can't be allowed to set precedent w/this! they must be defeated in every case.

Thats what I said about Playboy to no avail. Its a done deal now all of the cases they bring forward will be no brainers for them Dowbloaders better be ready to pay the piper. When Playboy won its case everybody pulled their stuff offline and they went after one of their own big time playmates who had her pictures on her web page.

Here is the link to that case

http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Playboy_v_Wells.html

I saw all of this coming down as I really didn't thing someone would stupid enought to go to trial they got some bad info probaly from a scambag lawyer as that is who makes the money. Playboy case against me cost them $400,000.00 in fees and my insurance company paid $250,000 to defend the case so like I said the only winners are the attorneys.

Originally posted by duke8888:

---

Its a done deal now all of the cases they bring forward will be no brainers for them Dowloaders better be ready to pay the piper.

---

This is NOT a "done deal"! You already have the RIAA winning...when their "expert" testimony was torn apart in court!

You can think what you want, but it ain't over yet.

The playboy case has NOTHING to do with this case!

You know nothing about the federal system I have been through it studied it and learned from it, it is a done deal and all this is a formality you will see judgement by jury a no brainer! The begining of the end for P2P downloaders and music downloaders. And yes the Playboy case does have something to do with it it defined copyright laws on the internet so please don't show your ignorance by saying it doesn't. Federal courts are going to be tied up for years with future cases when the ruling comes down after the trial..... Subscribe to SysLaw you can learn alot about these new copyrighted cases popping up.

Originally posted by duke8888:

---

You know nothing about the federal system I have been through it studied it and learned from it, it is a done deal and all this is a formality you will see judgement by jury a no brainer! The begining of the end for P2P downloaders and music downloaders. And yes the Playboy case does have something to do with it it defined copyright laws on the internet so please don't show your ignorance by saying it doesn't. Federal courts are going to be tied up for years with future cases when the ruling comes down after the trial..... Subscribe to SysLaw you can learn alot about these new copyrighted cases popping up.

---

You apparently know absiolutely NOTHING about the p2p cases that have gone before a judge or you would not be spouting such idiotic comments.

I see you apparently have not been following p2p cases and their implications.

I could care less how much you "think" you know OR where you "subscribe" to, this case has not even been decided yet!

And NO....the playboy has absolutely nothing to do with this case! Get that through your head! How you make that assumption astounds me.

It is YOU who need to learn about the p2p cases before going off and making dumbass remarks.

In the first place, NO CASE HAS EVER GONE TO COURT because the RIAA did not want it to go that far! They would rather opt for a quick settlement. Now they have a real chance to lose.

But according to YOU, they already won and are unstoppable....if that is the case, then tell that to people like Mrs. Santangelo! The RIAA CAN be beat, weather you want to admit it or not!

double post

You will see when a decsion is made............. This case basis is COPYRIGHT Infringement of downloading sharing copyrighted material. Wheter or not it is transmitted or posted it has the same ending COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!

In my copright infringement case Playboy called in several expert witnesses to backup their claim. These experts made the picture very clear to the neofytes of electronic methods. I had a Judge who was in thedark until the experts spelled it out for them.

Also it took 3 years for my case to be decided and in the three years I have learned a lot pertaining to COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. I spoke to my attorney who defended me and he said the same thing I am saying here a Judgement will be rendered for the music business and it will carryover and the floodgates have been opened.

Pirating won't ever stop just as RL thieves never cease to steal even though they have had many examples of conviction to look upon.

When are these people going to learn that in most cases the people uploading stuff are usually fans. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't upload stuff I don't think is worth the time.

webe123 I 100% agree with you!

duke888 what are you on? It seems you are proud of your lawsuit, although you may have gone through the process you in fact have no idea what you are talking about.

Read the article, the RIAA has no TRUE evidence to take the defendent down. The point I take from all this is that this case can set a unparalleled precedent for future cases. If you have read up on all this, you would have known that the RIAA practices in a very illigiamite way. From accusations based on no evidence to acting like a family member of the accused in a rouse to obtain information to be used in court, the RIAA does more wrong then those those they go after. By losing this case, the RIAA will suffer a painful kick in the gonads.

THINKING you know law does not mean you KNOW law. Your case is neither here nor there, it has nothing to do with the case at hand.

Duke you are correct the issue is copyright laws and how they need to be inforced. To do so a case has to be on the books for a foundation. This case is about copyright infringement, I have read your case and yes they teach this case to all law students in all of the colleges. I am a Corporate attorney who works for major companies and knows how this is going to affect the future protection of rights for owners of the property in question. As for the remark the other fellow made that they didn't want to go to trial is totall bogus as he really doesn't understand copyright infridgement protection and enforcement! This case will have a major impact on file sharing as we know it.

Originally posted by svtstang:

---

webe123 I 100% agree with you!

duke888 what are you on? It seems you are proud of your lawsuit, although you may have gone through the process you in fact have no idea what you are talking about.


I am not proud of my case as I had people uplaoding the images to my service just like the p2p I wasn't the one who posted playboy images but users to the system. It is the same in this case except they have logs of people who have downloaded their files. Also dvd movies are being tracked as well on the internet and a large landmark case in this area is coming down the road. All I am saying is this case is a case of copyright infringement its that plain and clear no questions about it. Thats what I am saying! The attorney who left a remark backed my comments up so maybe you don't understand what it is they are trying to do I do and don't want to go down that road ever again its not worth the time, money and possiblt the lost of freedom.

Read the article, the RIAA has no TRUE evidence to take the defendent down. The point I take from all this is that this case can set a unparalleled precedent for future cases. If you have read up on all this, you would have known that the RIAA practices in a very illigiamite way. From accusations based on no evidence to acting like a family member of the accused in a rouse to obtain information to be used in court, the RIAA does more wrong then those those they go after. By losing this case, the RIAA will suffer a painful kick in the gonads.


I agree if they lose but they will not!

THINKING you know law does not mean you KNOW law. Your case is neither here nor there, it has nothing to do with the case at hand.

---

I have no beef with you duke, I was more or less trying to seperate your case from this. Although both cases involve copyright infringement, there differences as I am sure you can also point out. The fact that the RIAA did not report the forensic results since "there were no files on the hard drives hence nothing to report" says enough for me.

The bottom line is our government is destroying our rights. Fair use does not exist. It is ok to use a dvr to record tv show but it is illegal to download, downloading can get you classified as a terrorist and you can be further scrutinized thanks to the lovely patriot act. We live in the United States of Corporate America, us consumers are nothing more then a mean to big buiness's (grammar) end......a new boat.

All the luck to the defendant in this case.

Thanks for getting back. The same thing is true with me they had no proof of files on hard drive only a forsenice report from a consultant and with that and the expert witness they were able to win a judgement against me. As long as a fronsenic report was available example download info that is evidence enought. In my case I was lucky that I didn't lose my business or home because they could have done so. I agree about the feds getting involved and its getting worse everyday. A couple of years ago the local feds here in Pittsburgh went all the way to California and indited Tommy Chong and convicted him and sent him to jail ro 1 year and a day just for having a website selling bongs no drugs. He had to pay a million dollar fine and shut down his web site which his son was running just using his name. That goes to show you if they want to get you they will. Its getting worse everyday. I won't download music but pay for the music I want from paid download sites. I won't download dvd movies any longer as they are tossing people in jail everyday for that. So we have to be very careful what we do on the internet big brother is in the house and watching our every steps thanks to the Patriot act!

a lawyer who cannot spell enforced.

Originally posted by AtLaw51:

---

Duke you are correct the issue is copyright laws and how they need to be inforced.

---

Originally posted by AtLaw51:

---

Duke you are correct the issue is copyright laws and how they need to be inforced. To do so a case has to be on the books for a foundation. This case is about copyright infringement, I have read your case and yes they teach this case to all law students in all of the colleges. I am a Corporate attorney who works for major companies and knows how this is going to affect the future protection of rights for owners of the property in question. As for the remark the other fellow made that they didn't want to go to trial is totall bogus as he really doesn't understand copyright infridgement protection and enforcement! This case will have a major impact on file sharing as we know it.

---

Your grammar is poor and YOU expect me to believe you are a LAWYER?

And then you want to talk BULLSHIT about me not knowing what is going on?

At least I can spell. You apparently cannot and leaves me doubting you are what you SAY you are.

I mean come on, THREE typos?

"inforced" is ENFORCED "totall" is TOTAL And last..."infridgement" is INFRINGEMENT!

Go back to school and learn to spell and maybe then I will believe the "lawyer" part!

And as far as the law is concerned, you apparently have not followed this case very well:

On April 9th, 2007, a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice was entered, which means that Santangelo is the prevailing party and therefore eligible to file a motion to recover attorneys' fees.[16]


SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santangelo_v._RIAA

And as far as the law goes, you also are just taking potshots and not calling any particular cases to mind...not very "lawyer" like if you ask me.

Originally posted by duke8888:

---

You know nothing about the federal system I have been through it studied it and learned from it, it is a done deal and all this is a formality you will see judgement by jury a no brainer! The begining of the end for P2P downloaders and music downloaders.

---

I know what your saying it's a simple case of the law and how you take it.

You simply need to be sending something copyright and your breaking the law, simply listening to copyrighted stuff is also breaking the law even if you do buy it.

anyway, the problem with P2P cases is that 9 times out of 10 there's no evidence to back up the RIAAs case, you can't keep suing people and keep winning if you don't have any evidence.

In your case I take you had pictures posted them up but I'd also hazard to say you still had the files on your HD deleting doesn't delete a file, it simply changes the first hex code to 00 meaning it doesn't exist to the OS but the rest of the file sits there until it's writen over.

which if the files were found on your HD then yeah you could be busted for posting the pics seeing as you have them on your HD.

In these cases, the expert couldn't provide any evidence plus has nothing to basicly show if there is or isn't any evidence at all and so his expertness will be questioned in a court of law.

Cases have been dumped because of that alone.

The other problem is that there's no P2P software there's no copyright files and there's no logs etc of this person even sending these copyrighted files out to someone else.

So again you do need evidence to prove as the RIAA need evidence to prove they did send the files.

and the sued people need evidence to prove they didn't send them and in this case it's seem the sued people are able to proive they didn't send them out.

it's a big differance.