Can't this kid just file for bankruptcy?
Yes he could. But there's no point in doing it now, the case isn't over. He's fighting for a principle here. He has a right to appeal, and I believe the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit will reverse this decision.
Agreed, the jury in this case should be ASHAMED of themselves. There are people who are at fault accidentally killing other human beings who receive less punishment than they are handing out for someone "stealing" 30 songs. The verdict handed down in this case is a life destroying verdict for a young man. That the RIAA keeps appealing for its huge award is DISGUSTING. Giant corporate entities are working at utterly destroying one person's life. The RIAA deserves every ounce of contempt and disdain it gets from the people. For companies that like to believe that they create things that move human emotions and make people think, the RIAA collectively is a horribly dark, twisted, and evil group of people (and the MPAA is even. worse.)
Very well said.
The telephone company listing policies are very flexible. There is no requirement to have your address or location in the listing. Only a name is required, but this can be any name that you select. It doesn't have to be your name. In theory, you could have a listing that states:
Place This Number On Your Do Not Call List . . . . . 607-555-2368
Frankly, your attempt to put words in my mouth, impugn my credibility, and suggest some ulterior motive (to the point of demanding to know who my employer is) is insulting, rude, and unprofessional. But I'm sure you didn't actually intend any of that and will apologize momentarily.
Mr. Theaetetus
1. Don't hold your breath.
2. I've come to the conclusion that you are a troll and/or shill, and will ignore you accordingly.
Nope. A swarm is nothing like a conference call, because you aren't interacting with every member of the swarm, but just a few members at a time - restricted by how many connections your bandwidth can actually handle at a given time. Regardless, the reported "offenses" are so separate in *TIME* that there is no guarantee that the Doe's in this case were actually online and part of the swarm at the same time as each other. Even if they were the chance that they actually shared parts of the movie between each other is so low as to be nil.
You really should read the documents linked to - they might be in legalese, but it is close enough to english for just about anyone to follow. And it does explain things simply enough for anyone to be able to understand them. Yes, there is an explanation for how a BitTorrent swarm works in the actual motion and it was written in such a way as to be understandable by any of the legal professionals - including the judge in the case.
And regardless of whether or not "participating in the same swarm" is a legal theory that holds water and fulfills the requirements of the rules, well... There is the fact that these "joinders" benefit only the plaintiffs in the case and create hardships for the joined defendents that break the required "fairness" of the legal system. (Yes, the legal system is supposed to be fair - surprising, no ?) So the joinder should be undone anyway
Why, thank you.
Trap full -- please empty.