Slashdot Mirror
Individual ReplayTV Users Pulled Into Lawsuit
1010011010 writes "A moderator on the AVSForum
website has been deposed in the lawsuit against SonicBLUE. He says, "Never forget that the internet is as huge as it is tiny. Your off-the-cuff remark on some website you don't even remember visiting may someday be presented to you on a sheet of paper with an exhibit number." He goes on, "Right now, the RIAA has shown that it is perfectly willing to sue individual users who are believed to be sharing copyrighted material over the internet. I believe that it is certainly possible that copyright holders may seek to make their point directly to the users of ReplayTV by suing those users who are believed to be using the Show Sharing in a manner that they believe infringes on their copyrights." And, "I present this scenario, along with my first comment, in order to make sure that people understand what could possibly be at stake in this case. I know it seems unfathomable that you could buy a consumer electronics device at Best Buy and then be sued for using all of its features. There was a time when I would have said "what would they do, sue everyone?" But now I realize that the answer is that they don't have to sue everyone. They just need to sue a few to make the point." This worries me, as I've written my own software client (I'll decline linking to it here, thanks) for the Replay, so that I can perform the digital equivalent of saving shows I like on VHS tape, just like the Boston Strangler. I wonder if I will be re-living the CueCat vague-legal-threat experience, except that this time it won't be so vague? Maybe this should be an Ask Slashdot -- "Where does the RIAA get off?" As jleavens, the moderator who was deposed, goes on to say, "Join the EFF or simply donate a few dollars (http://www.eff.org/perl/join)."
I would like to add, "Do not support the RIAA and other greedy organizations actively working to screw you."
Yeah, seems obvious. Do something about it. Don't just not buy their CDs. Do everything you can to let people know how awful they are. And, if they want to use the legal system -- well, that's a sword with two edges. How do we get the RIAA outlawed? I think it's come to, "What's bad for the RIAA is good for America.""
where was he King of?
Seriously though, for the benefit of us non-Americans and phobic IANALs, what the hell does 'deposed' mean in this context?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
the whole debate reminds me of the scene in Risky Business where Tom Cruise the neophyte pimp is warned by the established pimp "not to mess with another man's livelihood":)
Gangsta's all around, no honor among thieves, etc.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The trick under US law to getting rid of an organization is to demonstrate that they are behaving inconsistent with their charter in some core way and should no longer exist. But the RIAA is just a group of groups so you wouldn't be doing much as they'd reorganize with the same personnel and slightly modified policies in a week. The trick would be to demonstrate that they are a criminal enterprise bent on abusing their govt. granted monopolies (copyrights) and have engaged in a criminal conspiracy through the umbrella organization RIAA to overly restrict the right to copy through intimidation and abuse of process.
That would not only get the RIAA banned but would threaten the existance of the underlying distribution networks and land people in jail as criminal conspirators, ie radioactive for any other position of trust in corporate governance.
The question remains are the intimidation tactics, abuse of P2P networks, SLAP suits, etc. evidence of hardball tactics or something more sinister?
The question should be, how can this become a public fight? Because, really, the government should be serving the public good - what the American citizens want is what ought to go, and the courts at least are pretty good at making that happen. But the RIAA's biggest asset is the apathy (or the uninformed agreement) of the populace in general. So, is this a point of academia above the head of Joe Sixpack, or is this something that's been skewed and discarded by the broadcast press for so long that JS no longer cares or understands?
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl
I would have thought the MPAA would be more concerned with the ReplayTV. The RIAA is still upset that we can back up our CDs, I don't know why they're worried about what you're doing with TV shows they have no financial interest in. Why is the poster being sued by the RIAA? Does it make unlicensed copies of music too?
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
he is the devil!
the computer is online
i am not at it
what a waste of ressources
- Write your own damn music.
- Only buy music from people you personally know.
This is not as difficult as it seems...
You don't need 'recording artists' any more
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I believe that it is certainly possible that copyright holders may seek to make their point directly to the users of ReplayTV by suing those users who are believed to be using the Show Sharing in a manner that they believe infringes on their copyrights.
Just a stupid theory. The subject is false, there are no individuals pulled into this lawsuit. This story belongs on USENET, not Slashdot.
But a deposition, sucky as it is especially if you have to travel to give it, is still a far cry from being on the receiving end of the type of legal hurt the RIAA can deliver.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
The RIAA is a straw dummy set up to be the target of all our abuse, and to do all their dirty work, without damaging their precious brand names in the public consciousness.
If they're going after individuals, I say we do the same thing. Sony, Death Row, Warner Bros., and all the other member companies have enormous resources invested in their trademarked names.
I propose that every time the acronym RIAA is used on Slashdot, or elsewhere, we put the name of a member record company in parentheses following, as in RIAA (Maverick Records). Let's see how they like being singled out for the actions of many.
Names of individual member organizations can be found at http://www.riaa.org/About-Members-1.cfm.
I have over 800 mp3s on my comp. Most of which I didn't buy the cd, because there was only one or two good songs.
Besides that, I like MP3 format. Convienient.
Me to RIAA: Come find me.
Be prepared for a fight to the death. The problem is that people back down from the RIAA, and the government swine that protect them instead of the people that elected them.
I see you're new here.
sulli
RTFJ.
it looks as though this guy is not your average replay tv customer. I mean, he runs a ReplayTV FAQ website, participates in an show sharing website. I'd say they weren't going after "users".
To make the RIAA pay attention, it's really necessary to get the Average Joes and Janes -- those who are quite familiar with Tower Records or Wherehouse but not very (or at all) familiar with the RIAA itself and who have no clue what Slashdot is -- to understand that they have Free music alternatives. (Actually, Free entertainment in general as well as Free software, since music isn't the only problem area.) Just sticking to non-commercial entertainment yourself is a drop in the ocean to the RIAA; it's the overall tide that will get their attention.
No Laughing Allowed!
wear a yellow star... the king of the land
I'm referring to got -everybody- to do that.
Here, if -everybody- (especially those who
decidely have NOT have downloaded someone's
IP to their hardisk, in a way that would
ever be actionalboe) wrote "I just downloaded X"
big, in public online places...
Think of all the bogus suits out there...
And - hey! - think of all the countersuit
potential here...