Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Setback For RIAA In Sweeping Lawsuits

Posted by timothy on from the automation-will-do-wonders dept.

pvt_medic writes "In a set back for the RIAA, last Friday a judge ruled that they have to file lawsuits individually. The judge's decision was that for each John Doe that the RIAA wanted identified they would have to file an individual lawsuit."

45 comments

  1. bad news for SCO by glassesmonkey · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Since SCO has publicly stated they plan to follow RIAA's examples, this is a good sign that SCO won't be able to blanket the courts with thousands of lawsuits.

    1. Re:bad news for SCO by redog · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      SCO would have a much easier time identifing, and individualy sueing linux users than the RIAA does kazaa or mldonkey users.

  2. This is SO unfair! by orthogonal · · Score: 3, Funny
    "In a set back for the RIAA, last Friday a judge ruled that they have to file lawsuits individually. The judge's decision was that for each John Doe that the RIAA wanted identified they would have to file an individual lawsuit." [According to the article, filing fees, at $130 per case, could amount to over $30,000.]

    Overheard in the RIAA boardroom:
    But, but,....

    When Hilary was running things here, we spent so much buying that legislation, I don't know if we can afford $30,000 -- and for crap like due process and the rule of law!

    Let's see, to get back the $30,000 in filing fees, we'll have win suits against... 10 more twelve year-olds!
    --
    Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
    1. Re:This is SO unfair! by jamshid42 · · Score: 1

      "The music trade group must pay court fees for each of these cases. Filing each lawsuit will cost $150 in court fees, for a total of over $30,000, according to the EFF."

      This doesn't even count the additional legal fees and man-hours involved in filing each individual case separately. Plus the additional costs for filing subpeonas to the individual ISPs, the costs to actually deliver the charges to the alleged violators, and so on. Hopefully, these costs will just continue to escalate and east away at the RIAA's bottom line. Maybe if they lose enough money on all of these legal fees, they will be willing to work out a more realistic position with the rest of the world. I won't hold my breath on that, though.

      --
      /. - Proof that Sturgeon's Law is true...
  3. I feel so sorry for the RIAA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... out of sympathy, I promise to only download one file at a time.

  4. Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's important that we all do our part to ensure the defeat of the RIAA and the old Luddite network distribution system of manual labor.

    I encourage everyone to use a P2P network like gnutelliums to share and distribute as much music and video as you can. If we all saturate the Internet with everything we have, the RIAA will eventually realize the futility of their ways and give up.

    Good artists will always get paid as society will always find a way to fund what it likes. The best musicians always performed for the love of medium, not for the money. Mozart, Charlie Parker, The Beatles, etc. would have had no problem making money on today's Internet. It's the mediocre artists who rely on hype and false advertising that keep the current system alive. The best musicians will always be recorded and compensated.

    1. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by shark72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The best musicians always performed for the love of medium, not for the money."

      Dangerous generalization. Many of the greats of the last millennium -- your Mozart example included -- were indeed chasing money.

      "It's the mediocre artists who rely on hype and false advertising that keep the current system alive."

      Another dangerous generalization. There are plenty of excellent artists who rely on record sales to pay their mortgages and feed their families. There's no correlation between musical talent and being a capitalist.

      "The best musicians will always be recorded and compensated."

      I am glad to see that you are in favor of compensating musicians. Why not let that start with you? I think that respect for others' wishes is an equally good moral base -- that is, if an artist of any sort invites you to download their music or their book or their artwork for free, then, by all means, go for it. But if they insist on being paid for their efforts, respect their wishes. In other words, treat them as you would like to be treated.

      "I encourage everyone to use a P2P network like gnutelliums to share and distribute as much music and video as you can."

      In general -- and this is not directed expressly at you -- there's a lot of sentiment amongst Slashdotters of the form "Down with greedy artists! I want to be able to download everything for free!". It seems like it's only greed when it's the other guy who wants something. Making a living as an artist by selling one's recordings is regarded as a sign of greed and/or a lack of talent, while using a P2P network to avoid paying for music is somehow not greed, and instead some sort of social protest.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by ReaperOfSouls · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In general -- and this is not directed expressly at you -- there's a lot of sentiment amongst Slashdotters of the form "Down with greedy artists! I want to be able to download everything for free!".

      To qoute you, "Dangerous generalization". The issue isn't that most slashdotters have problems with greedy artists. I'll make an exception for Metallica, they have no excuse, since they became popular through bootleg recordings. My issue in perticular is with the companies that back the RIAA. The fact that a given "new" artist, can sell 4-5 million copies of their album and they own money to the record company should be a clear signal that they are greedy. The fact that they have been sued and found guilty twice of price fixing wrt CDs, signals that they are greedy.

      My largest issue with the record companies is their swarminess to try to avoid bad press by hiding behind the RIAA. Basically saying hey its not us that are suing you its that rabid dog RIAA.

      It seems like it's only greed when it's the other guy who wants something.

      Or when its price gouging. Tell me seriously why again is a CD more costly then a cassette, even on disks with no additional features. Lets be honest, the Record industry has been duping customers for years. There is nothing like purchasing a CD to find one or two decent songs on it. Napster/Kaaza/etc. showed clearly that there was a market for distributing single songs at a reasonable price, even if that reasonable price was free. iTunes clearly showed that the price point was higher then zero.

      Making a living as an artist by selling one's recordings is regarded as a sign of greed and/or a lack of talent, while using a P2P network to avoid paying for music is somehow not greed, and instead some sort of social protest.

      I have no problem feeding artists...Its the hundreds of middle men around them that I have a problem with. Note I don't mean the folks that actually contribute to the actual music.

      --
      Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
    3. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by shark72 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "To qoute you, "Dangerous generalization". The issue isn't that most slashdotters have problems with greedy artists."

      Agreed 100%. I wrote "many." I've seen the "down with greedy artists, but give me all the free music I can download" sentiment quite a bit around here. I don't think it's the majority opinion, though.

      "The fact that a given "new" artist, can sell 4-5 million copies of their album and they own money to the record company should be a clear signal that they are greedy."

      Wow, if that's true, it really sucks. Can you think of a CD that's gone quintuple-platinum yet hasn't recouped its production costs? It's a rare CD that costs even a million bucks to produce.

      "The fact that they have been sued and found guilty twice of price fixing wrt CDs, signals that they are greedy."

      There's a lot of misunderstanding of the price fixing settlement. It's more about Wal-Mart's greed than anybody else's. Remember, the record companies made exactly the same amount per sale when they were giving the co-op money to the TWE stores to run the MAPs. The price fixing only affected you if you bought a CD at Tower Records or one of the other TWE stores during the period that the record companies were giving the stores co-op money, and this was done to prevent the Wal-Marts and the Best Buys of the world from putting specialty retailers out of business by selling CDs at or below cost. The record companies did this to keep the smaller retailers in business, and the settlement means that Wal-Mart is free to continue using predatory prices at the expense of smaller stores.

      "Or when its price gouging. Tell me seriously why again is a CD more costly then a cassette, even on disks with no additional features. Lets be honest, the Record industry has been duping customers for years."

      I'm not sure if you're asking a serious question. CDs are priced where they're at due to something called the "supply/demand" curve. The auto, specialty foods, clothing, furniture, computer peripheral, software and innumerable industries also use the same strategy. It simply means charging the highest price that the market will bear, to maximize profits. It's one of those "econ 101" concepts and I can't stress enough that tons of businesses, big and small, also do it.

      As an aside, music prices have been relatively flat over the past 40 years; in fact, they're going down. The average price of a new CD is down to $13.50 in the US. Back when I first started buying LPs in the early 1980's, a good price was $9.99. That'd be $18.00 in today's economy.

      This leads to a couple more things that I see on Slashdot a lot:

      • Folks taking a feature that's prevalent in hundreds of industries, such as following the supply/demand curve, and singling out the record industry as some sort of monster. I'm not particularly a fan of the record companies, either, but I do know that by and large, the record industry is a crappy one to be in. It's hugely speculative (meaning that they must rely on that one hit to cover the costs of the majority of CD releases, which aren't profitable). Record companies go out of business all the time, and you rarely see an analyst give one a "buy" rating. Net margins in the industry are typically below 30%, which is -- again, this is another important part -- lower than most of the other industries I've mentioned above.
      • Whether you call it greed or I call it the supply/demand curve, or whatever -- many people use this as a moral rationale for piracy. Two wrongs do not make a right.

      "I have no problem feeding artists...Its the hundreds of middle men around them that I have a problem with. Note I don't mean the folks that actually contribute to the actual music."

      If this means that you only buy music from musicians who also record, engineer, produce, distribute, advertise and market their own music, then more power to you! But this is another instance where many

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    4. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by max+born · · Score: 1

      It's basic human nature to share information. Some even claim it's an innate human right. Artists are under no obligation to perform or record anything. If they don't want their work to be distributed freely on the Internet, they shouldn't record it.

      It's not right for them to shut down Napster just because they couldn't get paid. They are indeed Luddites. And the DMCA is like prohibition, people will share digital media just like they drank beer in the 1920s.

      --
      Those funny plastic disks have to go.

    5. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As an aside, music prices have been relatively flat over the past 40 years; in fact, they're going down. The average price of a new CD is down to $13.50 in the US. Back when I first started buying LPs in the early 1980's, a good price was $9.99. That'd be $18.00 in today's economy.

      I don't know where you buy cd's, but the average, admitted, open, regular price of CD's in the United States is 17.99 - 18.99.

      This number works out perfectly with your inflation curve.

    6. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I question why it is you think its acceptable to pay what you do for a cd, but also acceptable to pay the same amount or marginally more for a film on DVD.

      The movie comes loaded with extras (typically), and is also 2 hours long, compared to albums, which average 45-50 minutes long.
      Also, whats the production cost on an average movie up to today? I read that Michael Jackson's last album was.... god... I think 7 mill. Most albums cost 10 times less than that to produce.

      Yet Movies, which cost far more, side by side, with the benefits of a cd to a dvd weighed, DVD's are less expensive.

      I just don't get it.

    7. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by shark72 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I don't know where you buy cd's, but the average, admitted, open, regular price of CD's in the United States is 17.99 - 18.99."

      The $13.50 average I mentioned (it's actually $13.42; I rounded up) is from NPD Musicwatch, an analyist firm that covers the music industry, tracking sales and the like. It's down from last year's average price.

      Note that's the average price for new releases. YMMV. CDs certainly may be $17.99 or $18.99 in your area or at the retailers near you, and I highly value your anecdotal report, but in my neighborhood (Silicon Valley) the local retail scene supports NPD's claim. New releases at the local Best Buy are typically $11.99 or less.

      I don't know if NPD Musicwatch tracks e-tailers. If they do, that would swing the number lower, as Amazon moves a lot of plastic.

      I hope this helps.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    8. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "I question why it is you think its acceptable to pay what you do for a cd, but also acceptable to pay the same amount or marginally more for a film on DVD."

      Remember, CDs are priced according to the supply and demand curve. We can discuss all we like why consumers might pay X for one product and Y for another, but it ultimately comes down to what's selling, and the perceived value of the product.

      At any rate, since you asked me directly, I don't mind paying about $12 for a CD because I'll listen to a CD hundreds of times. I might watch that $20 DVD once or twice. Because of that, I don't buy a lot of DVDs; I prefer to rent them from Netflix. Again, it's all about perceived value -- CDs are worth the money to me, but DVDs are not. Your feelings may be entirely different than mine, and that's fine.

      You'll drive yourself crazy if you start thinking too much about how much a product might take to make, or what margin the vendor is making. The net margin on CDs is actually quite low compared to many of the other products you buy and use every day. Ultimately it comes down to whether the price offered is worth the benefit received.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    9. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by AceM2 · · Score: 1
      Artists are under no obligation to perform or record anything.


      If they do record music, they are under no obligation to give their music away. Do you make the plumber teach you how to fix your sink? Force the mechanic to teach you to repair your own car? Didn't think so.

      Just like how I can see my girlfriend naked, but I don't have to take pictures of her and share them with other guys who want to see.

      And I'm not going to either... So don't ask ;)
    10. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The general undertone really is "down with greedy artists" (and their managers). There's nothing wrong with wanting compensation, but the music industry and some artists are crying false tears when they can't afford another dozen luxury cars and homes/castles. The prices for music and movies are outrageous. These are MASS MEDIA, with near zero marginal cost. The only reason these prices can be kept as high as they are is the completely fucked up copyright system and media monopolization (radio/tv payola). How many times must copyright be extended for another generation of heirs before you see what's going on? I'm not even certain anymore whether robbing millions from a bank or copying the combined works of music genius Britney Spears leads to a longer/higher sentence. And yes, I find it absolutely disgusting how Metallica whined and threatened their fans. These people totally lack a sense of proportion. Most people work their asses off day in day out and make less in their whole life than 25 year old popstars in a year. Call it envy if you want, I don't care. In my opinion, nothing a musician can do in one year is worth so much more than a life of serving customers in a diner, nursing old and sick people or teaching kids.

    11. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have to give their music away. I will do that for them. No need to thank me, my pleasure.

      It is a rather radical position, but no more radical than saying that I am not allowed to convert the music I paid for so I can listen to it on my MP3 player.

    12. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a relation between copyright law and perceived value of information. If copyright were limited to 5 years, the price for most "information products" would come down drastically. If so many people knowingly break the law to get music for less, then it's time to correct the value of music: Copyright needs to be shortened radically.

    13. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't mix arguments here. The right to listen to the music you already bought and the idea that you should get that music for free are totally different.

    14. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that smell?

    15. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The loudspeaker spoke up and said:
      Attention all consumers. Attentions all consumers.
      All consumers must purchase CDs and DVDs at full price! Resistance is futile.
      All consumers must purchase CDs and DVDs at full price! Resistance is futile.

      The market is justice. Justice is the market. All praise is due to the market.

    16. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, they're the two opposing ends of a scale: Who controls information. I think paying for a CD and then not being allowed to listen to the music through whatever player I want is at least as extreme a concept as abolishing copyright altogether.

    17. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CDs are priced where they're at due to something called the "supply/demand" curve

      CDs prices do not adhere to the "supply/demand" curve. More poplular artists whose CDs are mopre in demand are higher priced. Not lower priced as you would expect from the econ 101 class.

    18. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's like this--
      FORE!

    19. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by trezor · · Score: 1
      • Remember, CDs are priced according to the supply and demand curve.

      So we are talking about a free market here, where free market-rules apply then?

      That might be.

      Except that distribution is controlled by a semi-monopoly, so there is no real competition.

      And except that when sales drop, it's never ever because the products are shit, but "due to piracy".

      And isn't it simply amazing that the recording industry actually knows how much people would be buying, but aren't?

      As I see things, they probably go on more or less like this:

      • "Well, Mr. Senator. We should have sold 200 million billion albums this year. Yes. We know this. This is a fact. You see, we can read minds."
        "However, Mr. Senator. We have only sold 195 mllion billion albums. Clearly someone is stealing our product."
        "So if you, Mr. Senator, would like to legislate that listening to our valuable crap before buying it is worse than gangrape, torture and murder combined."
        "And if you would give us legal permission to do a combined gangrape, torture and murder on anyone we don't think is buying enough CDs, you will see contributions next election as well.

      Well that is my version anyway....

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    20. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by shark72 · · Score: 1

      The issue of exactly how much of an effect piracy has had on the sales slump is a hotly debated one. It's not just the record companies that are screaming "piracy!". Forrester Research, a highly respected analyst firm, states that the amount of the music industry's sales drop due to piracy has been overstated (that should be no surprise to Slashdotters), but also states that the record industry will indeed lose $3 Billion due to piracy over the next few years.

      "And except that when sales drop, it's never ever because the products are shit, but "due to piracy"."

      This one you can work out on your own. The huge explosion in music piracy, as well as the slumping economy are variables. Shitty music, nostalgia notwithstanding, is a constant. About the same amount of crap was foisted on us in the 80's and 70's and, I'm sure, earlier; due to the nature of how our memory works, we tend to only remember the good stuff. Perhaps you've stopped buying music becuase you've gotten off of that popular culture train (as do we all at some point) but IMHO, the quality of music isn't an issue, as it's a constant that can be reduced from both sides of the equation.

      I think the economy and the explosion in piracy are the big factors here. The economy is a factor in two ways: there's the group that would only buy music but don't, and then there's the other group who otherwise wouldn't resort to piracy but are doing it due to the loss of their job or another economic effect.

      "And isn't it simply amazing that the recording industry actually knows how much people would be buying, but aren't?"

      Not really -- any industry beyond a certain size will spend a lot of brainpower on market analysis. This involves hiring a bunch of geeks who have postgraduate degrees in statistics in marketing. I am quite sure that the toilet paper industry knows a scary amount about our toilet paper buying habits, as well. There are also plenty of third-party companies that do this sort of research, such as Forrester Research, which I mentioned above. Another analyst firm has available for sale a report on how my particular industry is going to fare over the next seven years. Obviously, nobody can predict the future, but a lot of people spend a lot of time and money doing their best to try to.

      "Except that distribution is controlled by a semi-monopoly, so there is no real competition."

      This is the part I don't understand. I know of plenty of indie labels; I've even known some indie label owners personally. There must be hundreds of them. The record industry has its "Big Five", just as the accounting firm industry has its "Big Seven" (or whatever it is nowadays) and Detroit used to have its "Big Three", and if you counted Dell, Gateway, and HP they'd have the majority of the PC market, as well. But none of these examples define a "semi-monopoly."

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    21. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but uh... Who cares? I think becoming a vegetarian is pretty radical... I love hamburgers and steak... Shall we argue about how to compare that to copyright laws as well?

    22. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 1
      I just wanted to jump in on this to say I have downloaded music. But I am not a greedy person. When this all started so many years ago (it seems), I downloaded a lot of music from Napster. A lot of people did. That's what made it great. Those were also the days that I bought a lot of music too. I seem to remember enjoying picking up that physical material and feeling like I owned something worth while.


      Now I rarely download music. I have a directory full of MP3s that I burn when I need to. I'm not interested in most of the "new" music out there. I've sold off most of my CD collection (if that makes me a bad person to keep a copy after selling the CD, so be it. I bought the CD, paid the artist's keeper. I don't feel bad). But the point is that the crap that's being produced now combined with these BS tactics have turned me off of buying music. I don't feel the need. I might buy something from the White Stripes, but that's only because they're the only band to impress me in a long time. Other then that, I'm getting by on the stuff I have now. Sure, some of it's "illegal" as some might think. But I don't care. I have what I want. I don't feel the need to keep feeding the beast. And I don't download or share music. THAT'S the real reprocussions of what the RIAA is doing. It's not that people are sharing. It's people are starting to get turned off of sharing, or are strictly downloading without the intent to buy. At least I was compelled to buy at one time, whether because I really liked the music and wanted to find more like it, or my conscience really made me feel bad enough to do it. But that's all gone now. This is what the RIAA needs to be worried about...apathy...

    23. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd think you are playing stupid, but seeing how you love meat, I think you may have eaten too much cheap red meat from the UK.

    24. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by max+born · · Score: 1

      "These are MASS MEDIA, with near zero marginal cost."

      Well said.

      No doubt artists will be famous but not necessarily "rich" and famous, unless they perform live and milk the door.

      And given that computers now do what recording studios used to, and desktops being so powerful these days, their may well be a lot of poor superstars in the future. This could well stiffle rampant elitism (a scourge on a civilized society).

    25. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm... That would explain my recent loss of motor skills as well.. I think you're on to something!

    26. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by MacWiz · · Score: 1
      Back when I first started buying LPs in the early 1980's, a good price was $9.99.


      According to the RIAA, that is impossible. The list price of LPs never crossed the $9 until 1994, according to them.
  5. No Reverse class action? by k4_pacific · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So class action suits don't work in reverse. A class can sue an entity, but not the other way around. That's likely a good thing.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
    1. Re:No Reverse class action? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative
      So class action suits don't work in reverse. A class can sue an entity, but not the other way around.

      The "class" in a class action lawsuit is a well-defined and indentified group. IANAL, but if I understand correctly you have to belong to the group in question (e.g., "people who bought stock in XYZ Corp. between June and December 1997") and you have to specifically file to join in the lawsuit.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:No Reverse class action? by jhylkema · · Score: 4, Informative

      /* DISCLAIMER

      This is not legal advice. You are not a client. I'm not even an attorney. If you need/want legal advice, contact an attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction. What I am saying here is probably 100% wrong and if you do anything based on it, you are a blitering idiot who deserves whatever bad shit is very likely to befall you.

      DISCLAIMER */

      Quoth the poster:

      So class action suits don't work in reverse. A class can sue an entity, but not the other way around.

      Not necessarily. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP 23) governs class actions.

      In a nutshell, the prerequisites are:

      (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,

      (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class,

      (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and

      (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

  6. Congress may be for sale... by uncoveror · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but not the courts. At least not this one. The RIAA are the real criminals here, and the ones who should be sued. I hope that Michele Scimeca, the lady in New Jersey suing them for extortion and racketeering wins. Read more about what's wrong with the recording industry at www.dontbuycds.org

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    1. Re:Congress may be for sale... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And it certainly looks like Congress was bought when it comes to the DMCA. According to opensecrets the top contributors in the entertainment industry spent between 20 and 30 million dollars to ensure passage of the DMCA.

      And the politicians in Congress have the audacity to tell us we are breaking the law when they have sold themselves out under nothing short of legalized bribery.

    2. Re:Congress may be for sale... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, the courts are for sale too. When you buy both congress and the presidency and you get the courts for free.

  7. Now we just need.... by azuroff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...a court to rule that they have to file a separate lawsuit for each and every infringing song...

    1. Re:Now we just need.... by ReaperOfSouls · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...a court to rule that they have to file a separate lawsuit for each and every infringing song...

      I know its a pipe dream, but you might be able to make the legal case that the RIAA has no right to sue due to the fact that they own no copyrights and only the indivigual companies do. That would at least break it down to songs per record company. It would also make it so that the RC would have to come out from hiding behind the RIAA.

      --
      Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
    2. Re:Now we just need.... by mad_dog3283 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, that wouldn't work. In all of the letters sent by the RIAA's lawyers to those being sued, they said something along the lines of, "I affirm under penalty of perjury that I am authorized to act on behalf of $label." You are correct in that the RIAA does not own any copyrights, but they have been authorized to act on behalf of those who do.

      --
      Reprise the theme song and roll the credits!
    3. Re:Now we just need.... by ReaperOfSouls · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Like I said it was a pipe dream...:-)

      So who is the plaintif? Is it the RIAA or the record company? If it is the RIAA, they cannot claim damages since as you and I noted they have no intelectual property to misappropiate. Or is the RIAA effectively acting as a law firm in these cases?

      --
      Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
  8. Once the RIAA is exposed... by pdcryan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...for the illegal price fixing cartel that it is, under the Sherman Antitrust Act (and others) - the courts will be able to get back to more important things - like locking up the rest of the Food Network's goons.

    All kidding aside - I'd like to see someone pin the RIAA as a "state actor" - and make them respect our first and fourteenth amendment rights.

    "Good for you son. If there is one thing America needs, it's more lawyers. "

    --
    Ryan Kennedy opposes comm
  9. Wouldn't that be... by trezor · · Score: 1

    Er. You would surely mean that you'd only download one file per IP-adress-renewal?

    w00t

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.