Monitored Alarm Systems

Dajaz1 develops in an interesting way. While some of us think that both ICE and the RIAA must Dajaz1 huge apology to make and blame the wrong site for a year, then received a procedure due, apparently, the two organizations have different ideas. ICE made a statement with almost no content to Tim Lee:

ICE spokesman Ross Feinstein told Ars that "the government concluded that the appropriate and fair outcome would refuse to follow the judicial forfeiture."

So what took so long? Feinstin did not say why the field is removed, or why the government had changed its mind.

If the "appropriate number and just" did not pursue the confiscation ... then it seems perfectly reasonable to ask whether the current "just and appropriate", I would

have never used the domain in the first place

. Or you have activated when asked.

meanwhile had noticed a strange statmenent the RIAA on the subject, but the organization has published a more detailed response to Jon Healey of the LA Times:



understand that the decision was made that this particular site does not merit a criminal forfeiture proceeding. We respect that government agencies should take into account a number of technical problems in the exercise of discretion independently. Criminal proceedings are not always presented with a variety of reasons appropriate.

On Dajaz1
note that this particular site, specializes in the mass distribution of unauthorized music pre-release - probably the worst and most damaging digital theft. For a year and a half, who oversaw the site, identify cases in which its leaders had climbed to music services unauthorized file sharing on the recordings can be downloaded freely - the music that artists had created with the s 'is expected that there would be an opportunity to sell before it is filtered. Dajaz1 benefited from its reputation for providing links to pre-release copies, during which about 2,300 records relating to the site were removed from various file-sharing services. We are not aware of a case where the operator of the site objected, arguing that the distribution was authorized in any way.



If the site continues to operate illegally, we will consider all legal options to prevent further damage to the music community.

We are aware of the statements of the operator of the site suggest that music companies have been the source of at least some of the thousands of records available Dajaz1. Even assuming that this is correct, no excuse for the thousands of pre-release tracks available to those authorized for distribution or commercial, or increase public access to sites where you can easily download free.



Note the absence of excuses to take ownership of any legitimate basis for over a year. Even if we accept the premise that the RIAA violated your site (or not), there still true that the area has been completely banned for a year, and the government went to great lengths to avoid having to return it? How can the RIAA excuses for this situation?
even more to the point, however, is that the RIAA is still insisting that the site was illegal, even after all this. It seems that the issue of a threat to discover another way to get a bite at the apple, despite being rejected. And now you know why the RIAA supports the soup and PIPA. Under these laws, it would be much easier to eliminate competition and innovation.

Find best price for : --With----RIAA--