Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Countersued Under Racketeering Laws
Negadin writes "According to CNET News, a New Jersey woman, one of the hundreds of people accused of copyright infringement by the Recording Industry Association of America, has countersued the big record labels, charging them with extortion and violations of the federal antiracketeering act." The woman's attornies are arguing that "...by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime."
Good for her! Its about time someone took on the illegal monopoly that is the RIAA. Take 'em down! I'll join!
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Just in case Slashdot gets Slashdotted, here's a copy of the front page:
503 Service Unavailable
The service is not available. Please try again later.
It probably won't stick, but Bravo! I'm tired of watching the RIAA offer to settle with people regardless of guilt. By agreeing to settle many people look guilty and add fuel to the RIAA's fires.
Stick it to the Man!
Should be suing SCO for extortion and racketeering. On second thought, sue them both.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
...but fine.
That is if you have a clever attorney.
Have you hugged your penguin today?
Now if everyone who got sued by the RIAA counter-sued with similar charges, you'd see these lawsuits go away entirely, for two reasons:
1) The RIAA can't stand up to intense public scrutiny, without shooting themselves (and their industry) in the foot.
2) Being sued by over 1,000 people becomes cost prohibitive very quickly, particularly considering it will be in 100's of different courtrooms spread across America.
I'm not a big fan of lawsuits, but I say good for her.
The RIAA does make a bit of a racket, finally some one telling them to quiet up.
Was I the only person who was unable to access the Slashdot site at the exact moment that this was posted?
Coincidence? I think not!
Three Squirrels
I think it's worthy to note that, in the headline, CNET News called the lawsuit a "long-shot."
Someone's suing the RIAA! Good things are going to happen, good things are going to happen.
(Of course, this will end when the RIAA then settles with the woman herself, paying her to shut up.)
In fact, whether the woman wins or loses, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Say hello to my LITTLE FRIEND!
*mows down RIAA*
God I love you Pacino....
Does anyone else feel this took way too long? I seriously can't believe any of the others haven't had the balls (or money) to stand up to them yet.
Now they'll start suing everyone for hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of offering to settle. And they've got the perfect excuse--the US government made them do it.
The Mafia doesn't offer you your day in court if you would rather not pay your protection money.
The RIAA is suing those whom they think are guilty of file sharing. If you are not guilty, you have the absolute right to demand your day in court.
I'm not trying to absolve the RIAA for their heinous practices, but there is nothing illegal about what they are doing.
I have been pwned because my
In a way this is a good sign as this will deter companies which like to send out legal threats to "poorer" folks, who can't afford to prepare the case and surrender before the war begins.
On the other hand, this might actually push companies which like to send out legal threats to "poorer" folks to actually go to the court, in defence of being countersued.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
She'll never win, she won't have the cashflow. Even if she were, by some miricle to 'win', she'd probably be bankrupt. Its about as useless as me suing IBM or Microsoft 'just for fun'
So if convicted, the RIAA can either:
a) Do nothing, and seem ineffective at stopping P2P (which they already are, but it's a different thing to give up the PR battle) or
b) Drive every court case home. The evidence is quite clear, the possible damages huge. The courts might award them considerably higher fines than any settlement.
Somehow I think this will push them to b), and I sure wouldn't want to be on the recieving end of the next $97 billion lawsuit... $97 million, billion, trillion, kazillion is kinda irrelevant at that point anyway.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
How dare they compare the Scum of the RIAA to such upstanding citizens. Such as: Al Capone, Tony Montana, and Don Corleone
"It's probably not the first time that record company executives have been likened to Al Capone, but this time a judge might have to agree or disagree."
I sincerely hope that we get a good judge on this one. A precedence ruling in favor of the alleged file swappers would be a nice help.
Every RIAA executive weenie's nightmare:
headline "RIAA COMPARED TO MOB, TACTICS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL"
Her lawyers should do this pro-bono for all the attention they will get from this case.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
if it is cheaper on a monthly basis, I might just pay the protection money to RIAA, instead of signing up for itunes/audible ;) :)
It is a joke. Laff!!
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
In reference to SCO including GPL software in products, Blake Stowell said:
"Our issue is with the enforceability of the GPL"
-
When software is released with a GPL license, the author(s) still retains the copyright, but is granting specific terms under which the copyrighted work may be used without consulting the author.
If Mr. Stowell and SCO do not believe that the terms of license are valid, then the aggreement of the license is nullified, and use of the work without other permission from the author is breaking copyright law.
Under these special circumstances, I believe that the authors of the GPL software in question should get clarification, and ask SCO for a written agreement to the terms of the GPL, or else demand a halt to the software use, and possibly payment for any infringment.
How's that work.....??
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Happy Trails
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
Section 1964 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act not only provides for civil remedies in cases like this, but also automatically triples the damages and covers court costs and lawyers' fees. Personally, I'd like to see a massive class-action lawsuit against these dirtbags. If it can be won, surely the damages would be enough to curb their malicious behavior.
Why is it that the police will arrest individuals, but corporations seem to need to be sued? If someone sent in a tip to the police that the RIAA were racketeering, nothing would happen, but if the same tip were applied to an individual or gang, there would be an investigation. These days, big businesses seem much more powerful because they can hide behind lawyers and deep pockets.
Also known as taking unfair advantage of being an officer of the court. From the Scots term for being a corrupt judge, extended to include persistantly filing false suits.
davecb@spamcop.net
The RIAA companies probably make a small profit when someone settles with them for a few grand. Lawyers take their cut, but a settlement contract isn't all that expensive or time consuming for the RIAA.
But unless they win HUGE punitive damages (and the loser actually has the money to pay and doesn't declare bankruptcy) they probably lose money when it comes down to a lawsuit. And that takes a long time and involves a lot of up-front legal expenses, for questionable return.
If enough people start counter-suing the RIAA, or at least going to court instead of settling, then the lawsuits will soon become a huge financial burden on the RIAA, even when they win.
But if the RIAA is making a racket, they might be infringing on the copyright belonging to these guys.
*rimshot*
webpage
This seems like the racketeering suit filed against DirecTV, which was tossed out of court. Still, I'm glad that someone is taking a stand. Even if this suits and others like it are not successful, the RIAA may change tactics as they begin to meet resistance.
In fact, even in today's legal climate I doubt it will survive the priliminary hearing. If the RIAA had any legitimate cause they the right to bring action. They also had the right to settle, as did anyone they brought action against.
If you lend someone ten bucks, they say they can't pay, you sue them, and you both agree to settle the matter for a fiver there is no extortion.
In fact the courts do everything they can to encourage such a resolution and avoid a trial.
If she felt the RIAA did not have grounds she had the opportunity to have her day in court.
Settling and then demanding your day in court, plus damages, well, that's a wee bit of a stretch, even against the RIAA.
The people who have been hustled by the RIAA "cops" would stand a much better chance with this sort of action.
KFG
I liked this part of the article:
"Maalouf's attorneys noted that downloading through Kazaa was openly discussed at Maalouf's daughter's school by teachers, and they downloaded songs used in classes. That should be a protected fair use of the music, the attorneys said."
First, I really wonder if the teacher said "now, put thousands of songs in your Kazaa share directory." They got nailed for apparently sharing lots and lots of copyrighted material with Internet users at large without authorization, not for downloading a song or two at the behest of a teacher.
At any rate, helping yourself to a copy of Photoshop because you need it for a class project isn't "protected fair use" (although, sensibly, Adobe and many other software companies do often take steps for students to legally get software at less than retail cost), and neither is downloading a song. Did the teacher mislead them into thinking that massive music piracy was legal? Fine; sue the teacher. But it's no excuse to break the law.
There are plenty of legitimate ways to fight back against the recording industry (as the main subject of the article is doing), but this defense is just plain silly.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Why ? because the RIAA has the legal system paid off
It sux but in a country where the "big" business has more to say than the people living there odds are way against such action.
Don't get me wrong I would love to see this suite go forward and have her on the winning side, but on the other side of the spectrum I am a pessimist and all i can see is the dark clouds of RIAA
And what's worse they are coming to my country - Canadians - don't let them win
Where they'll get the RIAA is with their setlement terms. Paying them off does not protect you from being sued. Plus you have to admit guilt. That runs counter to the definition of setlement.
Maybe you could get SCO to sue the RIAA if they use Linux on their machines, and vice versa? Oh if it were only possible to get them both suing each other, and maybe take themselves out in the process. Or maybe just nuke em both.
Would she be happier if they withdraw the settlement offers, and sue her and each and every other defendent into bankruptcy?
Doubltless under what you propose some people may get financially mowed down, but you are leaving out a few factors wich could be very good for the masses:
1) Children age 12, Grandmothers, and People without actual computers being sued in court. Wonderfully bad publicity RIAA
2) Sympathetic Jury Nullification. More wonderfully bad publicity for RIAA
3) A Hung Jury or a simple Not Guilty Verdict. Not only bad for RIAA but it sets a track record. This is one of the things they absolutely DO NOT want.
4) A wealthy defendent who hires an Attorney who can go the distance. This would also be very bad for the RIAA.
So yes, if convicted the RIAA may just take cases to court en masse, but they could also become a classic David vs. Goliath story as well.
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
You would not be nearly so smug if they sued you, even by accident. Not only can anything happen in a court room, but you'll spend hundreds to throusands of your own dollars to prove your innocence -- of which you won't get a penny back if you do win.
Next time think of the real situation before you post.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
One has to ask two questions. First, if they are willing to settle for such a small amount, why are the fines so high to begin with. Wouldn't it be more efficient to set fines at a appropriate level in the first place? It is very arguable that such high fines were created to allow extortion.
Second, why do they want to settle so badly? It seems like they would want some percentage of the cases to go to court to establish that these people actually violated copyright. As it stands, it would be very reasonable to assert that they are randomly choosing people, and then extorting money from them.
So, with the current tactics, extortion and fear seems to be their game. It is like those old shows where a gang would go into a business and demand protection money. There are legal ways to extort this kind of money, the MPAA and BSA does it. The RIAA does not seem to care about the law.
I really don't understand why the RIAA does not get an independent arbitrator to look at each case, assign a dollar value to the damages, and then send a letter to the alleged violators. Further legal proceedings might occur if the money is not paid, but at least then we would have some confidence that the RIAA is not just harassing innocent people.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
IANL obviously.
this sig deleted by another sig
Occasionally drinking brings about lucidity... more ofthen then not, a drunken rant...
While I've been following these events for a while, I've had a thought...
I recall the days of yore when I would record a radio program on a crapy tape recorder. I highly doubt the recording industry suffered any loses due to that.
So assuming I download digital quality music off the internet- and lets also assume a round number of 100 songs- and assume an average cd has 10 songs and is priced at $15, that adds up to $150 dollars worth of songs I've downloaded.
If the RIAA were to come after me for that, what gives them the right to violate my 8th Amendment rights?
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I just read that a fedral judge told the RIAA to stop calling file sharing 'piracy'.
He said, it is something new and not yet defined, but it is not 'piracy'
I do not think I should have to pay some organazation every time i hear a tune.
I think making counterfit CD's or CHARGING for some one elses work IS piracy, but I really am not sure file sharing for free is...
And neither is the fedral judiciary
cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
The almighty /. effect! Article text can be found here.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
Uh... not that I'm any fan of the RIAA, but this is hardly "exactly the same thing". The RIAA is pursuing those who they believe have wronged them (and have the legal precedents and legislative support backing them--the most important pieces of this game). Is the RIAA strong-arming people. Probably. But this isn't a clear cut extortion case; the law is very specific as to the definition of 'extortion'.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
If they all counter-sued and dried up RIAA's resources, it would be like the legal equivalent of a Slashdotting!
EvilCON - Made Famous by
IANAL, and am just thinking out loud, but couldn't those that have been singled out by the RIAA claim some sort of discrimination? More specifically, there are hundreds of thousands of people the RIAA could pursue for sharing music. What is the chance of convincing a court to force the RIAA to attempt to identify and prosecute every single user of Kazaa that distribute RIAA music?
Not only would it cost the RIAA a fortune (as well as create logistical impossibilities), but as soon as the children of a few politicians, celebrities, executives, etc, are fingered by the RIAA we would see some fireworks fly.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
everyone UPLOADING is breaking the law.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Hopefully this won't get modded down as a troll, but we'll see.
I am sick of people who think the RIAA is doing something illegal by suing individuals who download music from the internet. This isn't very complicated but I will enumerate my thinking:
1. The corporations that make up the RIAA pay money produce a product (music).
2. These corporations sell their product for money. You have a choice as to whether you want to buy it or not.
3. Some people do not want to buy the product, however they still want to use it, so they download it from the Internet.
4. The product that these corporations created is being used without their permission; obviously they want to stop this. They have a few options I suppose:
a. Wait for law enforcement officials (Dept. of Justice?) to crack down on this.
b. Sue the individuals who are using their product without permission.
They chose option b. They are operating fully within the laws of the United States (or at least they should, and it is not impossible in principle for them to do so--I am referring to the way they obtained IP addresses). Additionally, the laws of the US allow them to sue for large amounts of money. And now for some reason people get angry when they sue for less money?
I am not saying that from a PR standpoint this was the best way to deal with the problem, and there are many better ways that the RIAA could have taken advantage of online music instead of resisting it. But they are still taking justified and legal action.
There's always the poker face. They expect everyone to roll over and pay. You can argue *practically* anything in court these days. Temporary Insanity? The Menendez Brothers hung the jury first time around. Time to make the law work for the *good* *normal* people as opposed to the psychos. Yoho
RIAA = bad
PS2 and iTunes = good
Vote with your wallet.
CRIA named the IPs and nicknames of the Kazaa users it intends to sue.
B B2&file =viewtopic&t=24
details here:
http://www.canfli.org/index.php?name=PNphp
President Bush could earn some quick-and-easy votes if he would pardon everyone being sued by the RIAA. I'm not a huge fan of the man, but I'd vote for him if he did this for music-likers.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Well, this has been tried before against directv (they were suing people who had purchased smart card readers). The judge (in Texas IIRC) ruled that speech related to litigation was protected, and not racketeering.
I doubt this suit will fare much better.
Artists have known for years that they were racketeers.
Proving that in court? That's somewhat more difficult.
How dare they compare the Scum of the RIAA to such upstanding citizens. Such as: Al Capone, Tony Montana, and Don Corleone
Why not? The "content" industry has had major mob ties since it arose from the jukebox protection rackets.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Well, someday someone will do a study and find that corporations could screw over 1000 Americans before running into one with the wherewithal to sue.
Now, at what point over 1000 do the poor civilians start shooting back?
Civil liberties are dead.
ent
I don't think the courts see their high cost as a bad thing. If courts were cheap, we'd see every school-yard dispute landing in front of a judge.
>> Since when do judges in the U.S. define the
>> meaning of words in a language?
Judges anywhere can tell lawyers to stop using one term to describe another. If I call a person who was shoplifting a murderer, that can influence the audience, media, and jury, any anyone else involved in a case. I imagine most people see a huge difference between shoplifting and killing, but I'm not alone in seeing a huge difference between piracy and file sharing.
Ok, fine. So they'll win. Let's do some fun math, and look at the practical results of such a suit...
You get sued, and refuse to settle. The RIAA takes their $100/hour lawyers (probably quite low) to court, and make an example out of you. You were sharing, oh... say, 500 songs. Now, the maximum statutory penalty for willful copyright infringement would be 250,000 USD TIMES 500 songs. 125 MILLION dollars. Lets say that the really nice RIAA lawyers, in making an example out of you, decide to recommend to the judge that you only be fined... 10,000 USD per infringement. <sarcasm>After all, that's much better than 250,000 USD.</sarcasm> Willful infringement would likely be really hard to prove, but infringement is easy if you were really infringing and they have proof.
Moving on, at 10,000 USD/song, we now have a much more reasonable number of only 5 million USD. RIAA presents proof, IP addresses, whatever. BAM goes the gavel, and a judgement against you is entered for 5M USD. Ignoring court costs.
You have a really good job, where you make 50,000/year. Their chances of ever seeing anything out of you? Nominal. The chance that they've just fscked your life (if you had much of a filesystem left in the first place after they raid you)? Pretty good.
And thus we again have a semi-sane, though probably twisted, example of why copyright is messed up.
Disclaimer, as usual: IANAL. This is not intended to constitute legal advice, if it could be taken in such manner under any interpretation. If you're in the process of being 0wn3d by the Racketeering In America Association, please contact a REAL lawyer.
I think making counterfit CD's or CHARGING for some one elses work IS piracy, but I really am not sure file sharing for free is...
I won't disagree with you but Congress already has. The DMCA, of all laws, changed the definition of "commercial gain" to include "the receipt, or expectation of receipt" of copyrighted material. In other words, Congress specifically made mere trading illegal. People running P2P clients are making infringing material available because they expect to download other infringing material.
burris
That's definitely what we want. We don't want rational justice if it doesn't serve our purposes.
In my limited understanding of the case, I would side with the woman. However, I believe this can be solved with the facts.
This sounds similar to the approach taken by Mitsubishi regarding the Lemelson machine vision patents. I believe Mitsubishi argued that the Lemelson foundation had deliberately embarked on a practice of bringing weak patent claims nationwide because it knew that most defendants could not afford protracted litigation, and then would "settle" by requiring each defendant to purchase a license that cost less than the cost of defense. So virtually every defendant was forced to settle even though they believed the patents had no merit (and, ultimately, those patents were invalidated). My recollection is that the RICO claim did not work, but I am sure that counsel in the RIAA case has review the arguments pretty carefully.
Leave it to someone here in Jersey to strike back at them using laws made with the intent of reducing organized crime.
Is there a defense fund that we can contribute to? This is a worry cause in my humble eyes.
In short, you're thinking of a class action suit. I'm not sure if this lady's suit can be changed into one, but it's probably possible somehow. Also, courts can consolidate multiple suits when the issues are similar, although this usually happens on appeal. Thus, if this lady's suit couldn't be expanded to a class action suit, a class action could be separately filed and this lady's might get joined to it.
With class action suits, all potential plaintiffs are not required to join. Usually, once a suit is filed, there is a mechanism whereby potential members can opt out. They might refuse to join if they disagree with the claims or remedies sought, for example.
A person that is targeted by the RIAA simply decides not to hire a lawyer, and simply represents his self in court. Not in the expectation he'll win, but rather with the expectation that the RIAA will win. What happens when the dog in fact catches the car? What is the dog going to do with the car? If the person sued here is not in any way wealthy will the RIAA demand blood? I don't think so.
Let the RIAA run into this situation, and they'll end up cutting off their collective nose in spite of their face.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
in most cases, it's trivial to run file-sharing apps without sharing and/or share files with recieving.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
The vernacular language is one thing. You or I could call it "aiustfasing" for all the judge cares. However, legal terminology is not so arbitrary -- specific words have specific meanings, and "piracy" does *not* legally apply here.
Sorry to be nitpicky, but I must point out that you put an extra 'g' in the word "sue".
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
It's also a particularly difficult one to get through.
--> Further, the Criminal Division will not approve "imaginative" prosecutions under RICO which are far afield from the congressional purpose of the RICO statute. A RICO count which merely duplicates the elements of proof of traditional Hobbs Act, Travel Act, mail fraud, wire fraud, gambling or controlled substances cases, will not be approved unless it serves some special RICO purpose. Only in exceptional circumstances will approval be granted when RICO is sought merely to serve some evidentiary purpose.
However, it seems as though this is basically the purpose of RICO, if worded carefully enough: "The decision to institute a federal criminal prosecution involves balancing society's interest in effective law enforcement against the consequences for the accused." In other words, the implication seems to be that RICO serves to protect citizens from litigation which they cannot pursue due to legal fees and great personal damages (i.e., grossly misproportioned punishments) by groups or individuals who can offer "settlements" which deprive the courts of their function.
In other OTHER words, the point seems to be: if something is truly illegal, a full case in the courts should be seen as a neccessary requirement by BOTH parties in order to gain proper compensation for the illegal act. OTHERWISE, individuals who have power over the state or a market can abuse the system by creating lawsuits that others can't win but offer bribes out of them for personal gain.
But of course, IANAL. I just read some random legislation and made an interpretation out of it.
If this case is successful, the changes it brings about could be simply monumental. Look at the state of file-sharing right now. So many kids out there growing up on p2p but also instilled with a fear of sharing that puts a damper on the growth of p2p.
If this case is won, and the RIAA lawsuits are stopped in their tracks, I predict an overnight explosion in filesharing. Seriously, people in the U.S. right now are downright scared of sharing on p2p. I know I am, especially after getting a DMCA notice. I'm not saying that essentially unlimited p2p would necessarily spell the death of the RIAA and insane prices for music CDs but I think it would be a pretty clear mandate to the RIAA that they need to change their business plan fast.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
I do not see the case against the RIAA going very far. Extortion is typically a criminal offense and I know not of any civil rights where one can sue. I simply cannot sue someone that I witness throwing trash on the highway, the government has not given me that right. There are several laws though that do provide a private right of action, like the TCPA, where one can become a personal attorney general.
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
Something I haven't seen anyone else touch on is the fact that even if every man woman and child in the US wins a billion dollar lawsuit aginst the RIAA, it's just an association.
The reason associations are started on behalf of member companies is even if there is a huge backlash, the member companies are completely protected. Much in the way a business you started can be sued into oblivion without having any real affect on you or your family.
If this lady does actualy win, everything the RIAA has in the bank will go for legal fees, she won't get a dime, and the record industry will form some other orginization to take the RIAAs place.
What we need to be doing is suing the labels themselfs for racketeering!
symetrix. We are building a religion, a limited edition.
"but I really am not sure file sharing for free is..."
Blatant copyright violation?
Who doesn't like free music?
Under the same concept, couldn't SCO be considered to be violating these gang laws? Their demands of people licensing Linux to them before the lawsuit is complete ammounts to extortion.
Actually, this is a pretty close metaphor. Real pirates killed people. They tortured them to get that treasure. They kidnaped people for ransom and often they defaulted on the promise to return them and killed them anyway. They raped. In many cases, they bore arms against the militarys of their former nations in time of war, which fits the general definition of Treason. Calling copyright violators pirates IN COURT is simply an attempt to emotionally influence the jury. Further, a lawyer has taken oaths and claims to abide by ethical standards, some of which require them to attempt to speak accurately in using legal terms in court, and, as anybody should know, Piracy is first a legal term in a court, and only secondarily at best a metaphor.
Who is John Cabal?
So what is it when someone listens to a song on the radio? Does having a copy of the song so you can listen to it when you want make it theft? What if you record it off the radio?
I'm not saying I think file sharing is not theft, I'm just playing "what if".
I was thinking about "piracy" the other day. If I break into your house and take your TV, it is obviously theft because I have obtained the TV without paying for it and you have suffer the loss of your TV. If, however I make a copy of your copyrighted song, I have still gotten something without paying, but you are not out anything except the money you theoretically would have received for my copy.
When I was a kid, I used to make "unauthorized copies" of lots of programs for my Commodore 64 (I don't do that anymore... I mostly use Free Software or buy the few things I can't get as Open Source). Anyway, the software industry was not really deprived of the money they would have gotten from me purchasing all those games because I never could have afforded them anyway.
To put it another way, if you work minimum wage at Burger King and you download $200,000 worth of music, have you really deprived the music industry of $200,000? No. That's why I find the numbers they spread around about the cost of "piracy" to be misleading.
No, its not. Altogether now kiddies - its "copyright infringement"
It is not theft. Theft is a criminal act. What is described is a civil act, a violation of copyright. Any recent law to the contrary will eventually be overthrown by the court.
It is NOT theft.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Hmmm. "...receipt, or expectation of receipt", eh?
Sounds good to me... just write an article on the issue of the DMCA and copyright law. Duly register it with the Library of Congress, or whoever it is that you need to go to in order to formally register a copyright.
Then mail a copy to each and every member of congress, and each and every high-level executive of the RIAA and MPAA.
Finally, haul them all into court for violating the DMCA, as they are in receipt of your copyrighted work.
If there's a problem here because it's your copyrighted work (i.e., you have permission to distribute copies of it), then perhaps you could make use of some other copyrighted work. It should be a short bit of work to find something that has a registered copyright, but where the actual owner of the copyright can't be located.
If that won't work (say, becuase only the copyright holder can press charges under the DMCA), then perhaps you could use a copyrighted work that was created by someone morally opposed to the DMCA - RMS, for example. Let him know that you're violating his copyright, and point out that under the DMCA, not only you but everyone you sent a copy to can be taken to court and fined up to $150,000 each.
Someone smarter than I will point out exactly why this wouldn't work, I'm sure. But I like the idea of turning the legal system back upon itself, like the worm Ouroboros...
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Disclaimer: 1)I am not trolling, I think this is fully valid. Think before you judge please. 2) I AM fully aware that laws are abused by large companies, small companies, other individuals. 3) I hate the RIAA/MPAA, their gouging, their tactics, and their apparent lack of common decency as much as anyone 4) I Am Not A Lawyer
I don't know that this kind of a lawsuit is all that great a thing. For one thing, as stated in the subject, this law is largely a holdover from anti-gangster legislation. It's intent is not what it is being used for in this case. This is one of those cases when the letter of the law is being twisted and misinterpreted from the spirit of the law. Personally I find it equally morally apprehensive that the law is being twisted against a large company as I would that a large company would abuse the legal system to get their way. People do not cheer, nor get rated +5 for such simplistic statements as "Go her!" when DMCA is abused do they? Thats sort of getting away from my real point here. The RIAA is using these lawsuits to scare people, not to make money and not to collect million dollar fines. They settle for a few thousand dollars because they can't just let people go. It would be totally ineffective then wouldn't it? They could sue for millions and probably win. Destroying peoples lives. They probably aren't, largely for publicity purposes, but probably also they understand that's not what THOSE laws are for EITHER. So what would you have them do? Should they go ahead and go for the millions the law apparently could entitle them to? Because that is one of only two options I can think of. The other being not starting suits to begin with. (I don't think that would be the outcome however)
Face facts people.. This is not a moral or social right.. This is not a championing lawyer fighting for truth justice and so on.. This person would probably kill to work for the RIAA right now.. This person stands to make quite a bit of cash and in all truth probably approached the woman plaintiff.. This is just another example of why our legal system is screwed up and just because it has potential to cause MINOR inconvenience to an organization we really don't like is no real reason to think it's a good thing.. Since the RIAA probably wont stop the suits until they WANT to the only probable outcome is stiffer penalties for those who get sued later, a few measly bucks for each person in the class action, and ONE MORE FILTHY STINKING RICH LAWER. Not something to cheer about I think.
Listening to the above mp3 is great to (1) listen to what a real appellate argument sounds like, and (2) hear real lawyers debate stuff that's important to many /. readers, including file sharing and the meaning of the Sony Betamax decision.
Related links are here and here.
The RIAA has been threatening prosecution under a law (the DMCA), that gives them a 30,00 dollar penalty at base, or 5 times that (150,000 per incident) if they can prove willfullness. They are being taken to court under RICO, a law aimed at organized crime, yet that law only allows 3x damages, and requires proving criminal intent, which seems to be a lot higher standard than willfulness. It's a good thing for the RIAA that the "cruel and unusual" clause doesn't automaticly apply to civil suits, or that very fact would shoot down the DMCA.
Why do they have a special law that lets them come down harder on file sharers than victims of the mob can fight back against mobsters? Do we really need a law that is tougher on copyright violators than the law is allowed to get on Drug Kingpins, Murder for Hire rings, or general Racketeers?
Who is John Cabal?
The law itself is not valid. The US has a principle of supercedence of law. The higher a levels of law override the lower ones. So A city can't make something legal that is illegal on a federal level, for example. Works the other way too, the right to freedom of speech can't be nulled in a given state, it's at a higher level. Specifically, it's at the HIGHEST level. The constitution overrides all other levels of law. Hence why the supreme court is so concerned with the constutionality of a given law or legal action. Their job is to intrepret teh supreme law of the land, that being the constituion.
Well, one of the ammendments states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The key here being the cruel and unusal punishments. The intent and interpretation of this law is that the punishment must fit the crime. You cannot execut someone for anything less than a murder (and a premeditated one at that) because it wouldn't fit the crime.
Well, as you noted, the statutory punishment for copyright infringment is TOTALLY out of line with the crime. If 20 people download a song worth $1 the makimum you can posibly claim it cost you is $20. Theoretically, if those 20 people intended to spend the money on your song, but elected not to because they got it for free, you would have not gotten $20 in sales. Of course, this is all theoretical. Some of those that downloaded may decide to but the song anyhow, and some may not have been willing to pay regardless of if they could not get it for free.
Regardless, it is quite clear that the statutority damages are totally out of line with the crime. Thus the law is invalid, it is a cruel and unusal punishment and in violation of the constituion.
I see this BS copyright "damages" the same as if they decided to charge people $10,000 for each mile per hour over the speed limit they went for tickets. The crime is just as (if not more) harmeless and thus should be in the same class of punsihment (small fine, not billions of dollars).
*sigh* It's not "theft". Theft involves someone taking something from you.
Consider these two scenarios:
1) Person A hears music produces by Person B, decides they don't want to buy it because they have a copy downloaded from the 'Net.
2) Person A never hears the music, and thus doesn't buy the song.
In both cases, the outcome is the same for Person B; they don't get paid by Person A for the music. But scenario 2 is definitely not theft.
The first scenario is a violation of the Person's B rights, and they are not getting due compensation, but nothing has been stolen because Person B is no worse off than if nothing had happened at all.
Just because it's a crime doesn't make it theft; different crimes have different names. For example, maintaining an monopoly and engaging in fixing of prices massively above production costs for popular albums in order to subsidise unpopular ones (and the lifestyles of the record company executives) is price gouging, not theft.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
The prinicple is called "jury nullification." Judges are so scared of the idea of juries deciding for themselves what the law should be that lawyers are forbidden to mention the possibility in their arguments to the jury.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
i need this site to be up 24/7/365. I absolutely demand it. Slashdot is my life. Without a place to post zealous linux comments, my life is meaningless. I might have to go outside or something, and then everyone would see my tiny penis, as I refuse to wear pants because pants are Microsofts way of keeping us Linux users down.
Life is offtopic.
"It is the first I've heard of anyone attempting that," said EFF legal director Cindy Cohn. "I guess that is a silver lining of the fact that the RIAA is suing so many people, that there are a lot of lawyers trying to figure out ways to protect folks."
Translation: This is a lot of of lawyers trying to figure out how to get money from the RIAA.
We need our three strikes laws, so that harsh crimes like... stealing videotapes... send a message to.... aw fuck it.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
You clearly have no concept how much money it takes to bring a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. It's like having your wallet Slashdotted for years!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"It's theft."
..."
Not it's not.
"It's acquiring and enjoying the value inherent in the song that you listen to
Oh, I see, it's theft because I'm stealing the value inherent in the song. Give me a break. Well, isn't it really murder because I'm surely killing RIAA profits. Are you sure you're not a lawyer (or spin doctor)?
It's not about the stealing the value of the song, it's about the copy. I don't so much listen to "the song" as much as I listen to a copy of it. Sometimes an imperfect, unauthorised copy. That's the issue and it's called copyright infringment, not theft.
"there needs to be some means of protection in place, and very clear recognition (from a legal standpoint) that it is wrong, and that there are remedies (including consequences)."
The "means of protection" (particularly for the wealthy) is already in place. It's called the legal system. The "very clear recognition (from a legal standpoint) that it is wrong" is called copyright law and all laws have consequences for breaking them.
I guess what you're really lobbying for is more draconian laws, more of them, and harsher penalties. No thanks bub. The problem here is that most people percieve many existing laws, such as copyright law, to be already too biased towards the wealthy and not exactly fair for the majority. People want to share.
I wouldn't have thought you'd get much support here but I guess if you sound like you know what you're talking about, and you're careful about how you say it, you're bound to get modded up sometimes.
No, it IS NOT THEFT. It is what it is and it is NOT THEFT. It is copy right infringement. It is not the same thing as stealing and cannot be given the same penalty.
There is a reason it has its own phrase to describe it. The legal system does not invent phrases to be more descriptive of a particular crime. It tries to be as straight forward as possible.
I hate to mention SCO since many /. readers are tired of hearing about it, but...
To quote a web source, a "racket is an act based on the blackmail, the intimidation and the fear, to get the money or the goods of others".
Sounds like SCO to me. Maybe someone will countersue SCO for racketeering?
Just a thought. I'm no expert on these sorts of things, but it seems (on the surface) to be applicable.
Jeeeeez.... Is this one liner getting old "It's theft" and whatnot. Can't we just whip up a bot that instantly replies with "No it's not" and is automatically modded up to +5 insightful, and cut the Karma whoring (No offense to kwandar)?
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
There is a reason it has its own phrase to describe it. The legal system does not invent phrases to be more descriptive of a particular crime. It tries to be as straight forward as possible.
First degree murder
Second degree murder
Manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter
Vehicular Manslaughter
Involuntary Vehicular Manslaughter
And, my personal favorite:
Intoxicated Manslaughter
I always thought dead was dead, you know? In any case, copyright infringement isn't theft, which I agree with, but our legal system isn't as clear with language as you say it is. They do invent phrases to be more descriptive of a particular crime, usually because it means something specific, such as Capital Murder. You get a harsher sentence if you kill for money than you do if you kill for fun.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Just a thought...
(Now the question: offtopic, troll or flamebait. These things are so unpredictable)
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Britney Spears may be a millionaire, but thats not from music alone.
And whatever she has, I'm sure the recording company has much much much more $$$$$.
If I ever get sued, just give me a jury with some college students on it. That's all I ask. And maybe a few baby-boomers who have bouht the same albums over and over again in vinyl, cassette and CD.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
"It is the first I've heard of anyone attempting that," said EFF legal director Cindy Cohn. "I guess that is a silver lining of the fact that the RIAA is suing so many people, that there are a lot of lawyers trying to figure out ways to protect folks." ... the above quote is from the article--right at the end. Unfortunately this racketeering counter-suit doesn't work when the people being sued are doing the illegal/infringing activities.
How do I know? DirecTV has been doing the same thing for far, far longer, someone counter-sued them for racketeering, and the suit was dismissed. If I'm not mistaken, it was even discussed here on Slashdot.
Anyway, the alleged activities these people are engaged in are illegal in the U.S. (but not in Canada!) so if it's proven they did them, then it's proven.
Think of the consequences of a racketeering conviction! A company would no longer be able to sue large masses of people who were infringing their intellectual property! Ack, the chaos that would ensue there!
I already posted in this thread with some ideas relevant here.
I do not want to "give away my copyrights." I want to profit when someone uses my work for profit. If the Eagles record a performance of my song, then they pay me as the songwriter. Why would I want to stop them from using my work? I will probably sell more copies of my own performance because people are interested in hearing the "original".
- If someone uses a sample of my performance, then I get money for my performance. Due to our weird laws, if they did not negotiate with me before using it, then they may owe me more than they made from using the sample. Usually it would be in my interest to encourage them to use my music since then I make some money. Forcing the album to be pulled, or charging so much that they will stop selling it does not generate income for me.
Music equipment is expensive. (My new Schecter guitar was $700, but I also want an all-rosewood PRS guitar that costs ~$2400.) The ability to make music that people want to hear is rare. Both deserve to be compensated when music is played for profit. But music file-sharing is free advertising, and does not directly generate profits. Claiming "lost" sales for an action where no money is involved seems ridiculous. The hardest part of the music industry is getting people to know your music exists. More advertising = more money. Period. Discouraging people from hearing your music is self-destructive.
---
there goes my chance to mod any posts in this thread
I just received my 4th set of mod points since Friday, and have completely forgotten which threads I have modded. I wish Slashdot had a mark letting me know I modded a thread so I wouldn't post later. And no, I have not been able to use all the points before I get another set.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
We need a judge to stand up and say that the term cyber-terrorist hereafter only applies to robots with bombs.
..or, in other words, to the governor of California.
IANAL, but since you are using legal terminology (e.g. "copyright"), "theft" must be the unauthorized misappropriation of another's property with a view to permanently deprive them of it.
Is that why lawyers say, "She shoplifted so much
she made a killing. Her actions terrorized local
merchants."
So there you have it: Wynonna Ryder is a killer and
a terrorist just by the rewording of the prosecution.
I suggest a new logical language for the courts like LISP ;)
That's not entirely correct. You have something you didn't pay for. The logic here, as is the logic behind all capitalistic intentions, is "I made it, you pay for it or you don't get to enjoy it."
The problem here is the gray area caused by the non-physical nature of digital file sharing. If I could find a way to make a perfect replica of a Sony television without ever removing the original from the store, I'd still be sued because they designed the technology. Well, an artist composed the lyrics and music to the songs so many of us have on our hard drives.
The RIAA discussing this issue as theft, piracy, et al. is causing problems in that it's got even us confused. We can't justify ourselves except to point at the dictionary and say "We didn't do that!"
We are, however, illigitimately enjoying the non-free works of artists (and Britney Spears). So what, rock superstars don't get their third Porsche while we drive beaters that are in the shop more than out. Boo-hoo, right?
It was put better in the movie "Rock Star" than I could put it, so I'll try to approximate;
[You] aren't selling music, you're selling an image. Young girls want to have sex with you and young boys want to be you.
In reality, a lot of the drive that makes popular music is the rock star image and life style. Overdoses are still news. DUI, drunk and disorderly conduct, loud parties, fast cars and hot women (or vice-versa) are all part of the image we buy into and part of the phenom that allows the newest BigBand tune to play on the radio for weeks on end. Scamming agents are also a well-known part of the music industry. Going back to the first days of marketted music we can find examples of agents who screw artists out of as much money as (in)humanly possible. The RIAA is just the modern, mega-conglomerate version of the slick, greasy back-room dwelling agent.
So by not giving money to these celiebrities and citing freedom you're attempting to change the face of not only the basis of our economy (capitalism), but the basis of the music industry as we know it.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
I frequently read that spammers are guilty of theft; they steal my bandwidth, my cpu cycles, my hd. But, when it comes to music sharing, I hear the record label isn't out anything 'cause I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so it's not theft. Well, heck, you weren't using that bandwidth etc at the time, so... Oh, whatever, it's late, I'm going to bed.
p.s. I hate all spam AND file sharing of, shall we say, questionable ethics BUT that's just because I'm a grumpy old man
Think of your basic Supply & Demand curve. It just doesn't work that way. If you want to sell more, you charge less.
(________________i__________________)
(big but[t])
That was just the 'Why you already knew for sure they were full of it, empirically.'
Adding the a skosh more complexity, the model gets a lot closer to what intuition says it is:
I recently came across a few papers, etc., dealing with what is being called 'Willingness to Pay.' What has been found is very much in line with what we all know: most people 'stealing' music/software don't get enough utility from the 'product' to buy it.
Gee, you mean that maybe the fundamental paradigm of market economics is whats happening? It doesn't require a whole new paradigm based on everyone wanting to rob poor rich oligopolists?
But wait! There's More!
The 'age old' examples are things like the Bandwagon and Snob effects. [You want more the more other people have something, or the reverse]. But think about what you already know.
If people who wouldn't have paid for your product have it and use it, well you didn't loose any potential revenue [no matter what you think honey].
Oohh Oooohh! What do you call it when more people know about your work? Oh yeah marketing .
The stuff I've read was dealing specifically with software, so I'll limit the scope to just that. When the unwilling end up willing [need app at work, change in income, etc.] the effectiveness of this form of marketing can be profound.
Oh, and what about the community effect? What about the 'buzz' effect?
Nah they don't exist, RedHat was really worth that much...
Turns out that the addition of unwilling 'pirates' in fact boosts the damned demand curve. The only people who are in danger, are those who have crap product.
[Unless there is something I've not thought of that experiences a strong Snob effect...]
So am I saying it's not 'stealing.'? Well, IANAL, and I'm not even going there.
Ok, I lied.
It is in fact possible[probable] that there is a negligible or negative loss in such activities.
Intelligent firms would actually manage and caughnotcaughoverlycaughdiscouragecaugh such behavior
But no, I don't know if I but that for the recording industry. Two reasons:
- They have behaved so stupidly that the potential positive marketing opportunity has been mung'd into a massively negative one
andAnd ya know, $1/song when the marginal cost of production is near 0, is STILL agregious.
Still don't believe me? If you charge $0.10/song, how many people wouldn't purchase damn-near-every-song-they-even-might-know-someone who-likes; but would instead deal with free P2P shares to download them 'illegally'?
Gee make alcohol illegal, nobody will drink...
PS There is a utility crew right across the street doing some highly important something involving a backhoe and jackhammer... So have pity if this entire comment falls into the 'infinite monkeys with typewriters' category...
PPS And FWIW I'm in GMT-5land...
PPPS In Soviet Russia.... ahh screw it
But in the east piracy still happens exactly as it happened in the time of sailing ships. Sure the movies may have shown pirate ships with three decks of cannons taking on the british navy but that is fiction. Most pirates used small fast ships wich could out manouver their prey (don't forget that canons of those days were more or less fixed and you needed to move the entire ship to aim) and then board and overwhelm the largely civilian crew.
This is still the way it goes. Pirate ships have gotten smaller but then most civilian ships these days are totally unarmed anyway and their crews have gotten smaller.
Piracy of a different sorts exists in areas where drug running takes place where pleasure yachts(?) are captured and the owners forced to smuggle drugs or simply killed.
For the facts on piracy today search google with "piracy lloyds" (lloyds is a famous insurance company) you will find countless links talking about the costs, the risks and people offering protection. The lloyds bits helps keeping the filesharing "piracy" links down.
So I agree with the judge who might have said that calling filesharing piracy is wrong. Piracy is a current and far different crime.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
http://www.fija.org/
Copyright infringement is not a FORM of theft.
Calling it theft "therefore" is not even vaguely valid.
Since your premise is faulty your house of cards falls down. Repeating your statement in capital letters does not make your point any more valid than talking slowly does.
Copyright infringement is closer to an "infringement of a prohibition" [against copying and distribution] than it is to theft, stealing, larceny, pilfering or light-fingered-ness.
It's closer to the breaking of an exclusivity contract [and one in which you have no right to negotiate].
Using politically motivated, inflamatory language ["theft"; "piracy"] does not make it any worse an act in reality.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
. . . for any of the accused file-sharers, and I doubt it'll happen, either. The RIAA takes a huge gamble when they take that step. If they lose, it sets a precedent, and then all bets are off.
I still want to know how they will combat the "wide-open wireless access point in an apartment complex" defense.
Every song that you hear on the radio is paid for. The price that a radio station must pay for broadcasting a song depends on the estimated listenership. There is an organization that tracks this and collects royalties on behalf of the *artist* (NOT the record company). This is called a useage fee.
Here in South Africa the organization is SAMRO, but there is a similar organization in every country. Radio stations make the money back (and more) by selling advertising.
Come to think of it, this raises an interesting point for me. The artist royalties collected for useage fees go to the artists (and some to their publishers, if they have a publisher). The record company does see that money, because there's no product being sold. Given this, shouldn't the whole filesharing thing be treated as a valid broadcast medium, and regulated as such?
Why are we treating filesharing as a mechanical rights issue when there is no physical product involved. Mp3 sharing is a broadcast royalty issue. Someone should mention this to someone powerful.
"By Grabthar's Hammer, what a savings."
Well, hooray for that judge. When the Navy finds a record-company's ship adrift or scuttled, with its crew murdered and the holds emptied of CDs, the RIAA can call *that* "piracy", but I don't see how anyone could do that through a wire. (Okay, maybe with robots....)
I am a musician and it seems in this battle our voices have been muted. The RIAA claims to represent copyrighted music. My music is copyrighted but I am not recieving any benefit from them. They seem to believe that the only copyrighted music that exists is owned by record labels and Independent artists seem to be ignored. I have had my music on the net since 1999 and thru downloads, file sharing and audio streaming I have been heard by thousands. Having an internet presence has also increased my commercial value. Initially I was against file sharing until I found out that I was being shared, which now is the newest definition of fame. People dont share things that are bad and they certainly dont risk prosecution for things they percieve as awful. While I would prefer people buying my music it is more important to me as a musician to be heard. I think people should realize that the independent musician is not supported or promoted by a label. When they email a band or musician he will probably read it. The caveat here is that while downloading the music and sharing it is okay the piper still must be paid. If you cant afford to buy a CD but you enjoy the artist buy some merchandise or at least pass the url and word on to some friends. If you dont support Indie artists that share their music then you are empowering the labels and RIAA to control your musical values and how you use the internet. Dennis Jennings Celestial Image http://celestial-image.com
But her case is WEAK. Disclaimer: IAAL; and despite my opinions on this matter (all personal, constituting neither a professional opinion nor legal advice), I despise the RIAA's strategy and the laws on which it is based. She's still going to lose.
Racketeering activity includes only certain conduct that falls within a list of specific *criminal* activity listed in 18 U.S.C. 1961(1). Scan the list - the only even remotely arguable connection is "extortion."
"Extortion" under federal law (and therefore under RICO) means "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right."
To try to fit the act of filing a legitimate (although despicable) lawsuit in the hope that your target will settle is not extortion. The only arguable fit is "under color of official right" which generally means illegitimate use of legitimate power (i.e., crooked police shaking down merchants for protection money; regulators denying licenses unless they get a kickback). It does NOT mean exercising a legitimate right by threatening to sue when one is entitled under the law to do so.
If any one of you ever have the misfortune to need to sue anyone to recover money, a settlement's EXACTLY what you'll hope for. It's sooo much better than dragging out years of litigation and appeals. And it's generally what happens in any serious lawsuit. You file, wait for your defendant to answer, and propose a settlement to save everyone time and effort. An enormous number, perhaps even a majority, of lawsuits in the U.S. are resolved by settlement.
Also, keep in mind that judges are lawyers. It's unlikely in the extreme that any lawyer/judge is going to determine that the RIAA committed extortion by exercising a legitimate right that Congress clearly gave them.
So, sorry to throw cold water on this, but I think her countersuit is a loser from the beginning. Nonetheless, Kudos to her for trying; if the RIAA is going to sue, make them work for it. Also - sorry for posting on the topic of the actual article instead of joining in the visceral and general RIAA-bashing, however justified it is.
Such is the logic inspired by vague and badly worded law...
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
1 - Find out how much the RIAA pay their lawyers, call that amount X
2 - Hire a lawyer yourself
3 - Use the lawyer to sue the RIAA for copyright infringement claiming X*(9/10) damages but offer settlement of X*(5/10)
4 - Put all the legal papers on the internet for download
5 - Let anyone download the papers, fill in their names in appropriate places, and submit them with only the filing fee to pay
6 - Have them all sue the RIAA at once, for a whole bundle of lawsuits, all of which it is more economical to concede on than defend
7 - If it does concede any of them, and if anyone opposes one of the RIAA's later lawsuits, have them invoke the doctrine of unclean hands on the grounds that the RIAA has settled in a whole bunch of copyright infringement cases
8 - Laugh
"To put it another way, if you work minimum wage at Burger King and you download $200,000 worth of music, have you really deprived the music industry of $200,000? No."
Yes.
No. They never would have had that money, so they were not deprived. They did not lose $200,000US. They never even had the potential of getting the money from that individual.
Molog
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Yep, you can get more time for beating a dog than a child. Sad state of affairs when a society treats its children like animals and its animals like children.
Regardless what you think about the RIAA, the fact that the defendants are trying to use the RICO Act to countersue just shows what a danger RICO may be as an instrument of harrassment. As described in this essay it has never met a full constitutional challenge. It appears to be broad enough that many activist organizations could be seen falling under its guidelines. The threat of RICO prosecution could have a chilling effect on both freedom of speech and of association.
"...by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime."
The file swappers are guilty. The day you can't settle a case against someone who is guilty of a crime without being accused of a crime is the day I lose faith in the US as a country that upholds individual rights, and must conclude that majority opinion outweighs individual rights.
Vote for Pedro