Originally posted by: MrCodeDude
It's not like she has much to lose.
It said she's disabled and her and her child are already leeching federal funds. Nothing like scum suing scum.
Originally posted by: cRazYdood
Originally posted by: MrCodeDude
It's not like she has much to lose.Originally posted by: toekramp
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: jonessoda
My main hope coming out of this case is not so much that she, in particular, wins, because although hers is a sad case, what I think is much more important is that precedent is set. The RIAA cannot be allowed to continue to invade our privacy in the manner which they do.
I don't understand how they're invading anyone's privacy. If you're sharing music with a P2P app, do you expect that to be private?
But she didn't share music...
She didn't. I didn't read the entire page, but I didn't see where they asserted that her daughter didn't.
I did read the entire thing, and it never mentions the possibility of the daughter, only that the woman isn't awake at 4am listening to gangsta rap under some screenname...
It said she's disabled and her and her child are already leeching federal funds. Nothing like scum suing scum.
I highly doubt you know enough about the nature of her disability to call her scum...
Low blow? She's the one that got knocked up when she probably couldn't even support her self. And she's disabled. If she were working a legitimate job, she would have received workers comp.Originally posted by: toekramp
Originally posted by: cRazYdood
Originally posted by: MrCodeDude
It's not like she has much to lose.Originally posted by: toekramp
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: jonessoda
My main hope coming out of this case is not so much that she, in particular, wins, because although hers is a sad case, what I think is much more important is that precedent is set. The RIAA cannot be allowed to continue to invade our privacy in the manner which they do.
I don't understand how they're invading anyone's privacy. If you're sharing music with a P2P app, do you expect that to be private?
But she didn't share music...
She didn't. I didn't read the entire page, but I didn't see where they asserted that her daughter didn't.
I did read the entire thing, and it never mentions the possibility of the daughter, only that the woman isn't awake at 4am listening to gangsta rap under some screenname...
It said she's disabled and her and her child are already leeching federal funds. Nothing like scum suing scum.
I highly doubt you know enough about the nature of her disability to call her scum...
no kidding, that was a pretty low blow for something you have no clue about
Originally posted by: Firus
Ya, it would be cool, but none of that will hold up...ignorance is not a defense, even if her computer was hijacked and someone was using it to download, it's still hers and that's all that matters. I highly doubt that they use anything to "invade" your computer to see if you are downloading...they can just look at IP's.
Originally posted by: MrCodeDude
Low blow? She's the one that got knocked up when she probably couldn't even support her self. And she's disabled. If she were working a legitimate job, she would have received workers comp.
The cretins just keep eating and breeding, increasing the SS defecit.
Originally posted by: Cooler
gotenkito
sounds like DBZ to me. I dont think it was her.
Originally posted by: MrCodeDude
Low blow? She's the one that got knocked up when she probably couldn't even support her self. And she's disabled. If she were working a legitimate job, she would have received workers comp.Originally posted by: toekramp
Originally posted by: cRazYdood
Originally posted by: MrCodeDude
It's not like she has much to lose.Originally posted by: toekramp
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: jonessoda
My main hope coming out of this case is not so much that she, in particular, wins, because although hers is a sad case, what I think is much more important is that precedent is set. The RIAA cannot be allowed to continue to invade our privacy in the manner which they do.
I don't understand how they're invading anyone's privacy. If you're sharing music with a P2P app, do you expect that to be private?
But she didn't share music...
She didn't. I didn't read the entire page, but I didn't see where they asserted that her daughter didn't.
I did read the entire thing, and it never mentions the possibility of the daughter, only that the woman isn't awake at 4am listening to gangsta rap under some screenname...
It said she's disabled and her and her child are already leeching federal funds. Nothing like scum suing scum.
I highly doubt you know enough about the nature of her disability to call her scum...
no kidding, that was a pretty low blow for something you have no clue about
The cretins just keep eating and breeding, increasing the SS defecit.
21. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to break into Ms. Andersen?s personal computer (and those of tens of thousands of other people) to secretly spy on and steal information or remove files. MediaSentry did not have Ms. Andersen?s permission to inspect, copy, or remove private computer files. If MediaSentry accessed her private computer, it did so illegally and secretly. In fact, Ms. Andersen was unaware that the trespass occurred until well after she was anonymously sued.
Originally posted by: Future Shock
So let's see if I have it right from TFA:
1) She is alleging that an employee of the collection company (probably a pimply-faced 25 year old call center operator) "told her that MediaSentry hacked" into her computer. As if call center operators for another company know jack diddly about the technology used by a 3d party technology company - and even then, it is just her word that they told her that. MediaSentry itself says that they set up fake severs and monitor IPs and requests...like a honeypot. That is NOT hacking - the computer with that IP has to actively submit a request for the materiel, and the request is monitored. AFAIK, MediaSentry does nothing illegal - and I'll bet $5 that the RIAA checked that at length with several lawyers before hiring them.
2) At NO POINT in the lawsuit does it deny that her live-at-home daughter did NOT download said music. The ONLY reason that I can think of is that she would be perjuring herself to claim that, i.e., there is a good probability that it might be the case it was her daughter.
3) The rise in braodband has resulted in many more static IP addresses - and it looks as if hers was consistently used over the course of weeks. Again, no one has to hack to determine that - the MediaSentry server can prove that from their own logs, and corraborate that by subpeoning her ISP details (ie, that she has a static IP, or if dynamic what it was on a given day).
4) Her lawyers are idiots (anyone else see the spelling and formatting mistakes?), hoping for a sympathetic jury, some crying from the defendant, and a total ignorance of technology by the average juror. IMHO, this is NOT how we technophiles should be wishing society to turn out...blind ignorance of technology and lawsuits that exploit it are more long-term harmful to us than the RIAA.
Opportunistic, conniving biotch, if you ask me...
Future Shock