Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Media Music The Almighty Buck News Your Rights Online

How RIAA Case Should Have Played Out 296

Posted by Soulskill
from the i-hope-it-involves-clowns dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "If a regular 'country lawyer' like myself had taken a case like the RIAA's in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset to court, he or she would have been laughed out of the courthouse. But when it's the RIAA suing, the plaintiffs are awarded a $1.92 million verdict for the infringement of $23.76 worth of song files. That's because RIAA litigation proceeds in a parallel universe, which on its face looks like litigation, but isn't. On my blog I fantasize as to how the trial would have ended had it taken place not in the 'parallel universe,' but in the real world of litigation. In that world, the case would have been dismissed. And if the Judge had submitted it to the jury instead of dismissing, and the jury had ruled in favor of the RIAA, the 'statutory damages' awarded would have been less than $18,000."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How RIAA Case Should Have Played Out

Comments Filter:
  • Makes sense (Score:5, Funny)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @01:51PM (#28412037)

    The RIAA represent imaginary goods, so their cases take place in an imaginary land.

    • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella (173770) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @02:10PM (#28412195) Homepage

      Now if only I could use the imaginary money from my monopoly set to pay them off too, all would be well...

    • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jedidiah (1196) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @02:50PM (#28412559) Homepage

      I've started to wonder what the real value of "Jamie's playlist" really is.

      If she would have had the option of "buying these works outright" what would
      their appraised value be based on actual current revenue? What might the
      asking price for those works be when compared to something like commercial
      real estate?

      I suspect that the RIAA made out like bandits and they got a payday for these
      works that dwarfs their actually real value by far.

      Really. How many copies of "Pour Some Sugar On Me" were moved in 2004 or even
      today? This could be relevant Album sales, singles sales or tracks on iTunes.
      This is information that seems to be sorely lacking from this discussion.

      What is the actual value of a 25 year old Journey song?

      How does this jury award compare to the actual annual revenue recieved from these works?

      • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gnasher719 (869701) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @04:30PM (#28413287)

        I've started to wonder what the real value of "Jamie's playlist" really is.

        Maybe some interested investigative journalist can find out how much money a British newspaper typically pays for the right to add a CD with say twenty similar songs to each single copy of their newspaper. Distribution of about one million. That is one million real copies, not one million imaginary copies.

        Now I would say that if some newspaper made such a CD without permission, then we could take the customary rate, maybe double it, and that would be a fitting punishment for making a million copies. Now adjust that for the best estimate of the number of copies that were actually made of "Jamie's playlist".

    • by 32771 (906153) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @05:01PM (#28413535) Journal

      So she will now pay sqrt(-1)*$1920000 ?

  • While it may be depressing about the RIAA getting away with it's imaginary world crap, it is good to see that, for everyone else, ridiculous claims are generally seen as such in the court of law. It's good to get some of that perspective back on /.; now all we need to do is figure out a way to snap the RIAA and it's litigation machine back into the real world.

  • RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bbroerman (715822) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @02:04PM (#28412151) Homepage
    Personally, I have not purchased a CD in almost 10 years, and I will not purchase another CD from an RIAA label EVER. That is the only way we can make our voices heard... DO NOT BUY FROM THEM.
    • by evilviper (135110)

      Personally, I have not purchased a CD in almost 10 years, and I will not purchase another CD from an RIAA label EVER.

      Ditto. And yet the RIAA stubbornly refuses to cease to exist...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417)

      Doesn't work. I've been trying for longer than you do. All that happens is that they look at the declining sales and claim that you must be copying since you bought before and now you don't. It can't be that the crap ain't worth your money. It can't be that you refuse to buy DRMified content. It can't be that you are fed up with their behaviour. It must be that you're copying.

      So clearly we need tougher DRM, more privacy invasion, and capital punishment for copyright offenders. THAT will teach you to buy aga

  • by VinylRecords (1292374) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @02:08PM (#28412179)

    I purchased the full albums (and a few singles) of the songs that she downloaded and put them on eBay in one single auction. I put the listing at $1.92 million for the starting bid. However, eBay took my listing down, thinking it was a fraudulent listing. I tried explaining to them on the phone that these 19 CDs worth of music were worth $1.92 million, I even linked them THREE DOZEN news articles reporting the value.

    Here's a list of the songs she downloaded.

    http://www.p2pnet.net/story/23534 [p2pnet.net]

    • Outside of an actual transaction, the value of anything is nebulous. Obviously, some things such as commodities that are actively traded can be more accurately estimated in the short-term. However, if you change the trading space, the price can go anywhere. The RIAA arguments are based on one trading space (where a song is on a CD that retails for ~$10), a defense lawyer might argue for an online trading space where most songs are free or at most a dollar. For something with tangible intrinsic value, su
    • Kudos, you're fighting the fight the right way.

      You're not doing vigilantism (we have enough of that), you're telling the truth to counter misinformation.

      We need more of that!

  • "Work" is an Album (Score:2, Insightful)

    by WizardOfFoo (639750)
    As much as I would like to hold that infringing multiple songs off an album constitutes a single infringement, I don't see how that can be reconciled with the fact that each song may have different lyricists, composers, singers, etc - each of which have their own part of the bundle of sticks that constitute the copyrights in a song (god save you if it is a sound recording). Even if one were to take that the band (and by extension the RIAA) has assignments of copyright from all the various people who have a
  • by AmigaHeretic (991368) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @02:23PM (#28412329) Journal
    ...Just go into Wal-Mart and steal the damn CDs!

    I mean seriously don't do that, but if you go into Wal-Mart and steal a CD most likely nothing is going to happen to you if you get caught with one CD on you. Maybe they'll call the cops to come scare you, and that's a maybe.

    Just getting a copy off the internet though (not even depriving another person or store of the actual CD even) will cost you MILLIONS. I mean really, 1.92 million? I mean if she gave 100% of every paycheck she ever makes, even at a decent wage, she probably won't make that much money in her LIFE. So destroying someones entire existance because they downloaded some songs? Does that seem just?

    In Lane County, Oregon (google about our Jail situation, where they have a comuter program to determine who gets released early based on certain criteria) a guy was sentenced to 1 year in jail by a judge for rape. The jails are so over crowded that they (the computer program) let him out after 3 hours!! 2 weeks later he raped and murdered some other lady. (We're all hoping they keep this guy in next time for at least a week :rolls eyes:)

    So a rapist gets 3 hours of Jail time, and someone who DL'ed Kazaa to her computer gets their life ruined?

    The RIAA are pulling some strings behind the scene I think it's obvious to say.
    • by selven (1556643)
      This case is about uploading, not downloading. Downloading is harmless - the effect is the same as not downloading. Uploading causes damages, because it's unfair competition. Stop spreading this misinformation so we can discuss the actual issues, not some arguments founded on faulty premises.
      • by MaskedSlacker (911878) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @02:46PM (#28412535)

        Speaking of misinformation, you're full of shit.

        She was only uploading BECAUSE she downloaded the song, and the software defaulted to uploading it for her without intervention. Technically you are right that the case is about uploading, but there was never any intent to upload on the defendant's part.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          LMAO. Yeah. Because Kazaa didn't tell you at the start of the install that files on your computer will be shared with other users unless disabled. Oh wait, it does.

          You know, this is a civil case. I find the preponderence of belief that she didn't have any intention to do any such thing really quite high. You know, what with the perjury she committed, the fact that she replaced the hard drive after being caught, and lied about that, etc, etc.

          Let's be honest here. Whatever you think or don't think of the RI

          • by hitmark (640295)

            how many users have you seen that keeps hitting next without looking at info presented?

        • by selven (1556643) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @04:32PM (#28413307)
          Lack of intent doesn't mean you don't pay damages - it restricts punitive damages, but that's it.
        • Speaking of misinformation, you're full of shit.

          Please.

          Kazaa is a file-sharing program.

          Downloads default to your "shared files" folder. Shared files default to "share."

          Which to a jury means exactly what you think it does.

          There is neat little progress graph which shows which files are on the move and which are waiting in line.

          You have a nickname.

          You can chat with other users.

          There is an option to scan the shared files of other users - and scoop up all you can eat.

          There are options to set limits on your up

    • Dammit. I had mods in this thread, but this typo is too funny to ignore:

      google about our Jail situation, where they have a comuter program...

      That is a bad overcrowding problem, indeed, if measures like that need to be taken.

    • I'm honestly waiting for the first to follow this train of thought:

      1) My life is ruined.
      2) I have a gun.
      3) I know where that company that ruined my life has its headquarters.

  • by SexyKellyOsbourne (606860) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @02:25PM (#28412353) Journal

    If you're ever on a jury in the United States, the legal system will wrongly try to convince you that they're either guilty or not guilty, but there is a third way: nullification or veto powers.

    This is when you think the law is bad, or you otherwise cannot convict them under it by your conscience. It still exists to this day, but simply remains mostly unknown.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification [wikipedia.org]

    In this case, I would have absolutely nullified a potential $2 million fine. Did she do it? Sure. But it's a bad law resulting in excessive fines.

    It only takes one juror who knows his or her rights to stop this kind of crap. For more information as your rights at a juror, see the Fully Informed Jury Association.

    http://fija.org/ [fija.org]

    -SKO

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kyaphas (30519)

      If you know enough to nullify it, odds are extremely good that you'll be dismissed during the selection process. As much as we here on slashdot love to poke fun at lawyers, they're usually pretty smart, and will pick a jury they feel will get them the verdict they desire.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

        Lawyers only get a limited number of "rejections" in a court case, they don't get to go through and reject anyone they don't like - that would violate the right to trial by a jury of your peers. They have to be careful about who they pick, and if they have a concern about someone they generally all go into a back room - sometimes with the proposed juror - and discuss the issue before deciding.

        So no, the odds are not extremely good, I am very surprised that there was apparently nobody on the jury who had a

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Joe Jay Bee (1151309)

          She lied in court and destroyed evidence, plus she was quite simply undeniably guilty of what she was accused of. That tends to piss juries off, as far as I can tell.

    • You Bet Your Life (Score:3, Interesting)

      by westlake (615356)

      If you're ever on a jury in the United States, the legal system will wrongly try to convince you that they're either guilty or not guilty, but there is a third way: nullification or veto powers.

      God.

      This is dumb.

      In a civil trial the jury makes a simple finding of fact for the plaintiff or defendant.

      The entire process of a modern jury trial is intended to strip a case of its emotion. It doesn't always work that way, of course.

      But Hearts and Flowers it ain't.

      The juror will be typically be middle aged, middle

  • The judicial system deserves more blame the RIAA for this. The judicial system is setup, guided and managed purely to serve the interests of the lawyers.
    And they do everything to make it complicated, slow and expensive. They make the laws and they get paid to fight for/against it as well.
  • by Grond (15515) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @02:29PM (#28412393) Homepage

    The blog post ignores the fact that a trial is a dynamic process. Had he made the arguments he lists, then RIAA lawyers would quite likely have countered them with appropriate arguments and evidence. For example:

    Liability-Reproduction right
    Plaintiffs failed to introduce an iota of evidence that Jammie Thomas-Rasset had made a single copy using Kazaa.
    Result: directed verdict on reproduction right.

    If he made that argument at trial, the RIAA would almost certainly have introduced evidence that bit-for-bit identical copies of the songs in question are available on Kazaa, that such an identical copy is unlikely to have occurred if she ripped the song herself, and that she didn't own the albums in question. Circumstantial evidence, perhaps, but probably enough to get the issue to the jury instead of a directed verdict.

    Some of his statements are questionable as a matter of law:

    The jury should have been instructed that a "work" is an album, and that multiple mp3's from one album constitutes a single "work".

    There is not particularly strong precedent on this issue. Some courts have held that this is the case, it's true, but as best I can find they were only district courts and not in the same circuit as Minnesota (where the Thomas case was held), further diminishing their already merely persuasive authority. I do not believe there is any mandatory authority on this point for the District of Minnesota, which means that the RIAA lawyers may well have been successful in persuading the judge to adopt a one song, one work basis for calculating statutory damages.

    Some of his statements sound impressive but wouldn't have made a difference:

    The jury could have been instructed that no statutory damages could be awarded as to any work whose copyright registration effective date was subsequent to the date of defendant's commencement of use of Kazaa

    A quick check at the US Copyright Registry of a random selection of the songs that Ms. Thomas infringed shows that they were registered many years ago, in some cases over a decade ago, and easily predated any infringement by Ms. Thomas.

    Ultimately, this is about drumming up interest in his law firm and ad revenue from his blog, which Slashdot happily hands him about once a week or so. It also does a lot to poison the potential jury pool for future copyright litigation, which is of great interest to a lawyer who works those kinds of cases on the side of the defense. One should take everything Mr. Beckerman says about these issues with a grain of salt appropriate to the magnitude of his self-interest.

    In short, this is nothing but Monday morning quarterbacking, and not particularly good quarterbacking at that. It should also tell one something that most of his legal arguments are not backed up by citations to relevant authorities.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jeffliott (1558799)
      I think your analysis is fair, but I also think it totally disregards one of the most important points which IMHO is the unrealistic ratio of the judgment to actual proven damages. However, since anyone with a fair bit of knowledge of the case and the issue in general could have told you that, I can't help but agree that it is at best gratuitous and at worst, advertising.
    • by Moryath (553296)

      Bullshit.

      If he made that argument at trial, the RIAA would almost certainly have introduced evidence that bit-for-bit identical copies of the songs in question are available on Kazaa, that such an identical copy is unlikely to have occurred if she ripped the song herself

      Digital technology is digital technology. Rip the same track, compress with the same software algorithm and bitrate, and you will get the same output every time. If there's one thing digital tech is good at, it's being consistent.

      I do not be

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mr_matticus (928346)

        Bullshit.

        Reactionist.

        Digital technology is digital technology. Rip the same track, compress with the same software algorithm and bitrate, and you will get the same output every time. If there's one thing digital tech is good at, it's being consistent.

        Try it yourself. Rip a song several times. You will see that in fact, the copies will not be bit-for-bit identical. Consistently very close, but not identical.

        If the "single" even still existed, I'd be tempted to give you benefit of the doubt. The MafiAA has been doing their best to sell "album only" setups for over three decades now.

        He actually overstated the support the other way. No one who actually litigates in this area would be so downright dishonest as to claim that an individual song does not constitute a work. It's not an either/or situation. Both the individual tracks and the album are creative works. Even if you were to consider the record label copyr

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by eison (56778)

      Google "AccurateRip". Exact Audio Copy plugin that compares checksums of your rips against other rip checksums so that you can re-rip if you have an error.
      CD audio is digital, different rips *should* be bit for bit identical, if not there was an error.

  • by whiledo (1515553) * on Sunday June 21, 2009 @02:30PM (#28412397)

    I'm sad to see this judgment turn out the way it did. But I can't help but wish Ray had reported with a little bit less spin. Every time he had a story submission, it was like it was a guaranteed fact that the RIAA was on the ropes and there was no way Thomas would lose. I understand the PR world and how you want to leave the overwhelming impression that there's no way you can lose because sometimes that actually helps you win. But I don't think the slashdot crowd was very well served. I would have liked a more neutral point of view where from time to time they said things like, "yes, this bit DOES suck but it's likely it will apply based on other court judgments."

    I know Ray pointed out several things that he thought were just plain wrong, but I start feeling like I'm not sure if I'm reading the neutral factual opinion or the press release version. As it stands, the laws are pretty stacked against the way most of on slashdot wish it was. Until we get those changed, I see little hope for courtroom victories.

    • by dissy (172727)

      But I don't think the slashdot crowd was very well served.

      I am very sorry you are unhappy with what you have gotten for free.

      • by whiledo (1515553) *

        I am very sorry you are unhappy with what you have gotten for free.

        Actually, I'm a subscriber. Thanks for the free attitude, though.

        • by dissy (172727)

          Actually, I'm a subscriber. Thanks for the free attitude, though.

          My mistake. I didn't realize Ray was involved with that.

          I guess I don't know what financials for all involved are going on, so I'm going to back out now.

          PS, my services for free attitude are always available! (Except holidays and standard blackout dates)

    • by phantomfive (622387) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @04:57PM (#28413499) Journal
      I think NYCLawyer was caught by surprise as well. The trial ended quickly and it was almost as if the defense didn't put up a fight. His blog is really like a rebuke of the poor showing of the defense lawyers at the trial, worded in a way that avoids directly insulting someone who is offering their services for free, and probably doing the best they can. The closest he got to a direct condemnation was, " the plaintiffs are overlawyered, the defendants underlawyered, and the Courts misled by both" but a careful reading shows he is unhappy with how the defense proceeded, he thought they could have done a lot better.

      The major roadblock that I see is the RIAA has no evidence that she actually shared the files with anyone, other than mediasentry. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely she knew that she was actually offering to share those files with anyone. Is she guilty of illegally copying music? Yes, probably so (but the RIAA should be required to show that!). Is she guilty of purposely distributing millions of songs? Probably not. Did she actually distribute those songs? Probably, since that's how Kazaa works (besides being something of malware), but probably not millions of copies, and she probably wasn't aware of what Kazaa was doing. She probably wasn't aware of the other bad things Kazaa was doing, either.
  • Advertise (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Son of Byrne (1458629) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @02:42PM (#28412507) Journal
    Hey NYCL, maybe you'd be interested in heading up a campaign to collect some funds from those of us in the know to educate the masses. I know from experience that the biggest problem with these court cases is ignorance. The judges sound like they're catching up, but I believe the persons on jury panels are still ignorant of the real dollar values involved and the facts surrounding the RIAA's abuses of the judicial system.

    The first thing that comes to mind is that there are scads of advertisements from the MPAA and the RIAA that go to great lengths to equate copyright infringement with criminal theft (a very successful campaign I might point out based upon ignorant comments on this very website). What the world needs right now is not love, but balance. We're lacking *any* kind of counterpoint regarding consumer digital rights. I'd be thrilled to pieces to see one shred of advertisement (a billboard ad, paid ad time on network TV, etc.) that presented the opposition to the RIAA and the MPAA.

    In short, if someone were to take the lead and head up a group that took funds from the public that were then used in a campaign of this sort, then I would be the first person in line to donate some cash.

    I know, the EFF is *supposed* to be leading the charge on this, but I've seen not one physical manifestation of their efforts. Advertising on the Internet is cheap...but obviously not as effective as a commercial that equates stealing a car with downloading a song.

    Anyone?
    • You will find that it's more effective to work together with others. Even if you do want to start a separate organisation, get in touch with the EFF; start working with them and see if they can give you advice and help. See what you can do for them. Maybe they want to do what you want to do but just don't have a volunteer who is able to do it or get the money together?

    • Re:Advertise (Score:4, Informative)

      Hey NYCL, maybe you'd be interested in heading up a campaign to collect some funds from those of us in the know to educate the masses. I know from experience that the biggest problem with these court cases is ignorance. The judges sound like they're catching up, but I believe the persons on jury panels are still ignorant of the real dollar values involved and the facts surrounding the RIAA's abuses of the judicial system. The first thing that comes to mind is that there are scads of advertisements from the MPAA and the RIAA that go to great lengths to equate copyright infringement with criminal theft (a very successful campaign I might point out based upon ignorant comments on this very website). What the world needs right now is not love, but balance. We're lacking *any* kind of counterpoint regarding consumer digital rights. I'd be thrilled to pieces to see one shred of advertisement (a billboard ad, paid ad time on network TV, etc.) that presented the opposition to the RIAA and the MPAA. In short, if someone were to take the lead and head up a group that took funds from the public that were then used in a campaign of this sort, then I would be the first person in line to donate some cash. I know, the EFF is *supposed* to be leading the charge on this, but I've seen not one physical manifestation of their efforts. Advertising on the Internet is cheap...but obviously not as effective as a commercial that equates stealing a car with downloading a song. Anyone?

      Everything you say is right, except for the part about me being the one to do it. I'm a lawyer. That's all I am.

  • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @02:49PM (#28412557)
    It's the same problem in the US legal system that now is starting to infest other legal systems: the idea that the rights of a corporation take precedence over the rights of an individual, and that the scale of litigation and punishment should be related to the turnover of the corporation rather than that of the individual.

    As a Brit, I'm aware that my own country's legal system has gone rather downhill over the last 30 years. But the thing that strikes a European most about the US legal system is its cruelty. Punitive damages. Unconvicted defendants for white collar crimes going into court with wire ties binding their wrists. Three strikes and you're out for even a trivial third offense. "Humane" systems of execution where executioners spin out the proceedings for hours. Obviously practice varies greatly across the US States, just as some EU countries (ahem, Greece, ahem) have crap legal systems and others like Germany have good ones. But you only have to look at the outcome of the Pirate Bay case in Sweden, and this one, to see the disproportion involved. The effect of the Pirate Bay case on the European elections (and now a German MEP has defected to the Pirate Party) also shows the different levels of popular tolerance involved.

    US citizens need to start growing a backbone. You do not have to support criminal activity to demand that corporations not be allowed to take over and distort the legal system.

  • This is good (Score:3, Informative)

    by macemoneta (154740) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @02:54PM (#28412581) Homepage

    When your friend starts eating his toast with the buttered side down, he's just a little quirky.

    When he packages his hair and nail clippings and burns them on a toy boat in the backyard pool, he's eccentric.

    When he kills the neighbor's cat and wears the skin on his head proclaiming himself the beast master, he's bat-shit insane.

    We've reached stage three with the RIAA, and now everyone can see it. It's time for treatment.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @02:56PM (#28412591) Homepage

    I am sure I am not alone in wondering why NYCL hasn't taken up the cause directly. It is a problem of venue or being licensed somewhere specific? If the case could be won "easily" then I have to wonder why it isn't being done?

  • If we take as a given that this farce got as far as it has because the system is broken, then we must consider how to fix the system.

    So, how can this system be fixed, and what can I personally do to help?

  • Dred Scott (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bzipitidoo (647217) <bzipitidoo@yahoo.com> on Sunday June 21, 2009 @03:15PM (#28412703) Journal

    Outcomes like this $1.92 million in damages for nothing hurt and weaken our system. Whatever a person's stand on copyright and Thomas' guilt, I'm seeing agreement that the amount is excessive and unfair. It reinforces cynical ideas that the whole system is corrupt, shot full of bribery and payoffs. It's also, as everyone realizes, complete bull. The fine is uncollectable. She'll never have the money. She's stuck now for years more litigation, trying to appeal all this. If this fine is ultimately upheld or she feels that the agonies of further fighting are worse than giving up, she is stuck having her wages garnished for the rest of her life, or going through bankruptcy, or maybe fleeing to another nation and asking for asylum.

    Dred Scott was another unjust decision. That one lead to Civil War. Other issues have lead to civil unrest. The courts and lawmakers should think about such things when they do their work.

  • by Mal-2 (675116) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @03:59PM (#28413071) Homepage Journal

    First, note that a single download is worth 3 and a third dead people. [apina.biz] Obviously something is a bit out of kilter here, but let's assume at this point that it is the valuation of dead people.

    At $80,000 per song, I estimate the value of my hard drive at $1.8 BILLION dollars. Yes, billion with a B. By that logic, I should be able to copy my collection onto cheap external hard drives (Seagate's outlet store was just selling them for $25) and mail them out to five people. Those people would then pass on the billions of free dollars to five others, and so on, and so on, and so on... Just think about it, no more foreclosed homes, no more poverty, no more hunger!

    What you say? It's imaginary money? But the judicial system just ruled it real!

    ALL YOUR BASS ARE BELONG TO US.

    Mal-2

  • by ae1294 (1547521) on Sunday June 21, 2009 @09:06PM (#28415171) Journal

    $2 Million for 24 songs? Well OK if you wanna fight dirty then the time has come for the Bot.NET lords of Cobol to unite!

    Step 1. Take existing bot.net code and add $p2pflavor$ modded to start in das hidden mode.
    Step 2. Have it set to automatically download mp3s, kiddie porn, $threatoftheweek$ via RSS feed from the $piratebay$.
    Step 3. Distribute to the pleebs via normal bot.net methods, all of hem damn methods.
    Step 4. Pleebs now automatically download da goods and become evil seed servers.
    Step 5. Watch RIAA sue all of the earths pleebs in a massive stoke off.
    Step 6. Watch all governments outlaw the internet.
    Step 7. Watch all of the earths pleebs get really pissed off.
    Step 8. Watch pleebs with guns run a muck in the great pleeb revolt of 2012.
    Step 9. Self invented new defense, My system had that damn virus your Honor.
    Step 0. No Profit for dem guys!

    I now leave you to move into my underground lair so I can work on those sharks with freaking lasers baby!

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.

Working...