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."

12 of 45 comments (clear)

  1. 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?
  2. 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.

  3. 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 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.

  4. 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 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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!