Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues Nearly 500 New Swappers
Digitus1337 writes "Wired has the story. " U.S. music industry group says it has sued 493 more people for copyright infringement as part of its campaign to stop consumers from copying music over the Internet.
The Recording Industry Association of America has now sued nearly 3,000 individuals since last September in an attempt to discourage people from copying songs through peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa and LimeWire." "
The trade group, which represents the five largest recording companies, has settled more than 400 of those cases for around $3,000 each.
I know that file sharing of unlicensed copyrighted works is illegal, but the practice of threatening lawsuits left and right still bothers me. As many of you are aware, a number of the people already sued did not have the financial ability to fund a lawyer even if they wanted to. The question is, what happens if a company (like DirecTV mentioned here) starts blanket suing for something that is not necessarily illegal? These corporations have deep pockets, and they could threaten to sue the crap out of you for looking at them cock-eyed, to which many people would have to settle out of court (I'm not being literal). If you can't afford a lawyer then what do you do? 'Admit' to wrong-doing you didn't committ? Again, I realize that a lot of file sharing IS illegal, but the whole blanket lawsuit thing does raise some interesting (or scary?) questions.
I don't like "John Doe" lawsuits. Today it's your IP address, what is it tomorrow? Your street address? Your DNA? Is there going to be a story on the news about shopkeepers who are suing a set of fingerprints for theft damages?
I know that this is a civil case, not a criminal case, but I think you should still know who you are suing before you can do it. If the RIAA can't figure out who say, 66.35.250.150 is, they can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned. Figure it out and come back, or don't, and drop it. And while you're at it, don't use our criminal justice system to go fishing for you.
Sorry for being pedantic, but LimeWire is not a network. It's the name of a Gnutella client. Since Gnutella is an open protocol, there are numerous clients for it.
5,997,000 to go. Or thereabouts....
Quick math tells us that the last user will be sued in January 3335.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
So neurologists often compare the brain to a hard disk, storing data, etc. So how long until you think we get sued for listening to music and remembering it (illegal copying to another media). God forbid we try and hum a bit of it to a friend, or playing a song for a friend, because then we're guilty of transferring an unlicensed copy to another party. "Dude, you gotta listen to this song." "Sorry, my brain uses Media Player 9... damn DRM!"
I'm interested to see what happens when the RIAA sues a downloader who happens to have already purchased the CDs of the songs he is downloading -- which, in my opinion, would give him a right to those songs since he's already purchased them.
For me personally, I've sometimes downloaded songs from CDs I because 1) it's sometimes faster than ripping it myself, 2) the CD is scratched or broken, or 3) I still have the case but the CD itself was stolen. Would downloading an MP3 of a song from a CD I rightfully purchased make me a pirate?
Who is the RIAA trying to represent? They say that they are representing the five major music labels. And in turn the music labels say that they are representing the artists themselves. But even the artists don't agree with the RIAA's methodologies.
"According to the study, 60 percent of those surveyed do not believe the RIAA's efforts to halt file sharing through lawsuits will benefit musicians and songwriters.
Additionally, 35 percent believe free downloading has helped their careers, 37 percent believe it has not had any effect and only 5 percent believe it has exclusively hurt their careers. Of those interviewed, 83 percent have provided free samples of their music online."
The IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
the riaa tends to be trying to kill a swarm by swatting at individual bees. for every one they swat, a new one is bred. they'll have to sue for a long time for them to get their desired results, and by that time people will have moved on to better distribution channels. ...one of which is right here:
www.allofmp3.com completely thwarts the RIAA while still paying the artists a modest sum (probably comparable to what the RIAA pays them).
$0.01 / megabyte download (pennies per song, less than $0.50 per album), perfectly legal (all RIAA propoganda and misinformation aside), and none of the money goes to fund these lawsuits. Even better, a portion goes to the actual artists directly -- a requirement of Russian copyright law.
Legal, so cheap it is almost free, and it absolutely thwarts the RIAA's ability to even think about suing anyone.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
This use to be a big IRS tactic. Go after the guys without the funding to take you on. If the recording industry sued someone with the money and the inclination (sp?) to take them on through a significant series of appeals, then I think that the laws would be changed.
Also, Congress needs to hold hearings on this. The General Accounting Office [GAO], the investigative brance of the Congress, helped get the IRS inline. Now, my personnal feeling about anything being done is that it would be unlikely. (I mean, come on, we call them Congress instead of Progress.) But, just maybe, someone will get a clue.
The RIAA is trying civil court because they know that they can use the 'perponderance of the evidence' to thier own advantage. If they think they are right, let see some criminal charges. Gutless wonders
In God we trust, all others require data.
The problem with lawyers is that 99% of them give the rest a bad name.
Rather, the intent is to minimize new bees joining the hive, while at the same time through intimidation reduce the members of the hive contributing productively.
In the end they hope the hive will starve off from lack of contributors (sharers).
I Pre-Apologize for the extended use of a bad analogy, but I just couldn't resist :-p
I
Brilliant! These folks know that the RIAA doesn't want to actually take anyone to trial, just scare the bejeezus out of Mommy and Daddy so they don't let their kids use Kazaa. The risks are much too high for the RIAA if they should lose, and IMHO it's too much for them to prove, particularly in a college dorm-type setting, that the person they sued was actually the one doing the infringement. What about the wide-open Wi-Fi defense, or the zillion other instances where you just can't prove who was using a specific IP at any given time?
I wish people would stop publicising the fact that the RIAA are suing people. It is the media who are now responsible for stopping file sharers, not the RIAA. The RIAA can only catch a small handful of people to set an example, if the media outlets just ignored the cases then they would most likely have to stop these heavy handed scare tactics.
Okay, so the people being sued can't afford the legal fees. However, they wouldn't be sued if they weren't performing illegal file sharing. The people they are going after aren't sharing private files, they are distributing, for free, the hard work of others. This is the risk that one takes when using file-sharing, and those users accepted that when they began the swapping. The companies are probably not going after Joe User who downloads a couple of tracks to see if he likes the music on an album before buying it. They are more likely going after large-scale file distributers. People who have hundreds of songs, movies, games, and other copywrited works. They left their server on too long, and got caught. I'd feel no more sympathy than I would for a pawn shop that got busted for fencing stolen goods.
Now before the hate replies come in, I should mention that I'm all for file-sharing. I think RIAA are a bunch of corrupt bastages who overcharge for their products and services, and underpay the real talent--the entertainers.
I think game design companies charge way too much for a product, which is not neccesarily a corruption, but a misunderstanding of market forces. They feel they have to correct for piracy by charging $50/game, when in fact, there would be a lot more copies sold if they offered the same product for half. But then, that's been said for years.
I think the movie industry...is still quite fair. They churn out movies, $5-8 is a reasonable price to pay for a couple of hours of entertainment. If one does not like what they watch, then at most, an hour's minimum wage is lost. If it happens repeatedly, then they should take advantage of the local library.
Does this mean I'm anti-piracy? No. If you got something for free, and you enjoyed it, then you should then pay for it. Because in America, votes are determined by dollars, not by voices. If you vote (aka "buy") a legit copy of that game/CD/movie that you loved, then you have just voted for more of the same genre/artist/director to be produced. Same goes for everything. Feel free to sample, if you feel you need to. But if you like it, and continue to use it, you have an ethical obligation to buy.
That said, free sampling aside, piracy and distribution of copywrited material is still illegal, and those who participate in it take that risk willingly. The piper may be a total arsehead (read: RIAA), but that doesn't mean they don't have legal right in this matter.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
-The Libra
"Please be patient--The future will begin momentarily."
I believe it was Maxim that printed a breakdown of where the money from a $20 CD goes. According to the blurb, about 50% goes to the retailer with another big chunk going to the executives/producers/management and something like 5% actually goes to the artist. Courtney Love, in one of her rare coherent moments, said something along the same lines. DMX is leaving the music business because he hates the fact that the recording companies own his music and he can't so much as use his music without their permission (even DMX would be guilty of piracy for downloading his own MP3s).
If you ask me, the biggest pirates are the executives. Litigating consumers is just a way of deflecting attention from the fact that consumers are tired of getting ripped off for buying $20 CDs worth only $2 and that the studio executives are worried about losing their profits. The real victims in the litigation are the artists.
So neurologists often compare the brain to a hard disk, storing data, etc. So how long until you think we get sued for listening to music and remembering it (illegal copying to another media). God forbid we try and hum a bit of it to a friend, or playing a song for a friend, because then we're guilty of transferring an unlicensed copy to another party.
... never mind that the radio station has not only paid for the CD, they've also paid for the right to "broadcast" it -- that's twice the RIAA has now been paid for the legacy work, now the restaurant gets to pay then a third time for the same medium, and the restaurant down the road a fourth time, etc. ad nauseum!
Copyright law is completely out of touch with physical reality, technology, and our culture (and indeed it actively stifles the latter two).
An example of how rediculous copyright law is, and how artists as well as the industry have grown used to double dipping. It isn't enough to cell the CD, they want to get paid every time it is played in a restaraunt or bar. It is even illegal to play the radio in a restaurant or bar
But, what is often unremarked about these absurd laws, is that a person humming a copyrighted tune as they walk down the street is technically breaking the same law, giving a "public performance" without a license. As is the busker on the corner, the teenage garage band when they perform at their local high school, etc.
It really is past the time when we as a society should have repudiated the very notion that one can "own" ideas (patents) or their expressions (copyright). A far less draconian mechanism for reimbursing artists for their work needs to be devised, something that insures them a portion of the profits made without imposing restrictions on how the work may be incorporated into other aspects of our culture, but most of all, unlike copyright a mechanism that favors artists and culture rather than publishers and middlemen.
A quick example of one of the many such alternatives that have been proposed: a tax on works sold, with a set percentage (say 50%) going directly to the original artist. Anyone can publish your book (and you can't stop them) but you get half the proceeds. As an artist or author you have no control, but you are generously compensated financially.
It really is time we as a society started thinking outside the box on this issue, if we wish to have any kind of viable, free society left in the information age, and wish to do so in a manner that benefits artists and fans, rather than consortia of parasitical middlemen such as the RIAA (and more to the point, their attorneys).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The RIAA has lost a multitude of 3000 paying customers FOREVER.
Would you *ever* *consider* buying another Britney Spears (RIAA-represented) cd if a member of your family, a friend, or a neighbour was sued?
I for one welcome our new free music overlords and only listen to alternative music: trance, rock, whatever. It's there, just as good (even better!) and ready to be explored. I have over 30 GB (!) of mp3's in my shared folder, and run 30+ radio webcast stations, with solely music not represented by the RIAA. I'm still waiting for the subpoena so I can countersue for battery or slander!
"I got sued by RIAA, and all I got was some low-quality NSync tunes."
There seems to be nothing open and shut about this sort of thing, especially since most people infected by the bagel virus have no idea that they are spammers, will they be prosecuted under the CANSPAM Act?
~ there are 10 types of people in this world, those that can read binary and those that can't
If I may be permitted to be a bit crass: the people running the Underground Railroad were also breaking the law, but in reality they were just ahead of their time.
Once a system is entrenched (like RIAA in the copyright system) it is basically impossible to reform it from within. You have to leverage to reform the system because the people in power built it with their own interested in mind and have no incentive to consider other possibilities. The only hope the average man has is to eventually cause enough ruckus to bring the problem to a head and force the change. That is what is happening now with file swapping, but I fear there will be a lot of dead bodies littering the field (metaphorically speaking I hope) before this battle is over.
I read the internet for the articles.
If i take a song, represent it in binary (create a file out of it), and then just call it a number, can't i tell the court that all i was doing was sending a number to my friend? It's not my fault if the number can be decoded into sound. An artist can't possibly own all the numbers his song could be digitized into!
I can't seems to figure out what is considered an artist's property and what is not. If i walk down the street and sing a tune to myself, can i be sued? Is it different if someone else hears me sing the tune, and then starts singing it themselves?
If i get a song stuck in my head can they do a brain scan and sue me over and over again?
All along the watchtower contains the chord progression Am, G, F, G, Am, and so does Stairway to Heaven (and many other tunes), so what's the deal with this?
Of all the justification attempts for copyright infringement, this one grates on me the worst.
If you want to listen to a certain song, you currently have several LEGAL options:
A. Buy the album (or single if available) on CD.
B. Purchase the song from an online distributor like iTunes.
C. Listen to it on the radio.
Having no intention to buy the music is NOT a valid defense for copyright infringement. There are lots of people who ARE willing to pay for it, and do so. What makes you so fucking special that you shouldn't have to?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Nobody likes lawsuits (except, perhaps lawyers). But in all likelyhood, they will remain part of the response to unauthorized file-sharing.
Even the EFF acknowledges this. Not so long ago the EFF suggested that the RIAA should be suing infringers and in the EFF's more recent file-sharing solution "white paper" they continue to suggest the same. (under "What about file sharers who won't pay?" you'll see "Copyright holders (and perhaps the collecting society itself) would continue to be entitled to enforce their rights against 'free-loaders.'"
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
I was always under the impression that if you do something in numbers, that was the safety mechanism. This is a huge concept in nature for survival. 3000 out of millions! My chances of winning the lottery are only slightly worse than my chances of getting sued by the RIAA!
How can the RIAA expect to thwart something that is so widely accepted, and internationally practiced? This is the equivalent of a strike or a boycott. Obviously these lawsuits aren't working very well, and even so, the sharing networks will just end up switching to a closed system like Friendster where 'known parties' will use strong encryption to transmit data.
However, in both these cases - the producers downloading, and the CD-owning user downloading - the person uploading is guilty of copyright infringement, since they do not have distribution rights. Thus, the uploader, provided they aren't the distribution house or the artist, is committing a crime, and it's the uploaders that the RIAA is going after.
Now, it so happens that to prevent leeching, Kazaa, Gnutella, Limewire, etc. all put your downloads into a "shared" folder for uploading... so if you download something, you're uploading it too. The RIAA uses this to publicize that they're going after "downloaders" rather than "uploaders", but the truth is that they can only find uploaders.
To be safe, leech. It's not nice to the rest of the community, but 'no honor among thieves' and whatnot.
Not that I do either.
-T
Well this is the crux of the problem. The people that you're accusing of *cheering the thieves on* are of the opinion that exchanging information non-commericially is not thieving. Your opinion is value laden and you can choose not to see that, but you can't prevent others from pointing that out.
Right, but for the wrong reasons.
They're publicizing that they're suing downloaders to scare people - 'cause most people don't say "I'm gonna go upload some music", they say "I'm gonna go download some music". Those are the people they're trying to scare.
Anyways, as for downloading not being illegal, yes and no. If you own the physical CD, it is legal to format shift it onto your computer... Whether that means you stick the CD in your drive and rip it, or download the tracks from Kazaa, both are legal methods of format shifting. However, if you do not own the CD, then you are not authorized to format shift if you don't own the source material. It ends up being legally equivalent to 'buying stolen goods' - you bought the goods and paid money for them, but if you knew they were stolen originally (or could strongly suspect), then you are guilty too.
Since the only people with rights to upload the tracks legally are the artists (sometimes) and the distribution houses, and almost no artists do so and no distribution houses do, it's highly likely that your source is uploading it illegally. Knowing that, your downloading is not legal...
Unless, as said before, you have the physical CD. Then it's legal, 'cause it doesn't matter where you get the format-shifted version.
So, the moral of the story is... go buy all of your downloaded music on CD in cash the moment you receive a subpoena. Since the only way they can catch you is if you're also uploading, use the virus defense to say that you never clicked a "upload my music" button and it must be a virus. And here's the CDs to prove that you own the music.
200 CDs costs a lot less than a lawyer or a $5k settlement. Buy 'em used, too!
(Not that I condone any of this, of course) ;)
-T
In general, filing a John Doe lawsuit doesn't expose the unknown defendnat to any adittional harm or danger compared to not filing a lawsuit until you know the person's identify. The defendant is still protected by statue of limtitations, and the plainitff still needs to investigate the identify of the defendnat and amend his complaint prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations in order to keep the unnamed defendnat in the case.
In general, a plainitff is allowed to amend a complaint for errors in the complaint, and have those amendmends reach back to the orignal filing date for SOL purpose. Courts (at least in my Circuit), however, have ruled that the practice of naming John Does for unknown defendnats is not an "error", and therefore, ameneding the complaint with the person's name does track back to the filing date for the SOL--See Aslandis v. US Lines Inc or Barrow v. Wehtersfieddl Polic department. (I just had to research this -IANAL, IAA paralegal on his way to law school)
So, you break the law, either by trading copyriighted files or rapig someone. You are i danger of a lawsuit until your SOL expires. Wether they figure out who you are first and sue you, or sue forst and then figure it out, you still have the same exposure to litigation. In these RIAA cases, I'm guessing the RIAA goes ahead and files anyways to make it easier to obtain subpoenas, plus they get publiciity.
and every.damn.one. of them was used!
SWING OUT SISTER -- Kaleidoscope World
White Zombie -- Astro-Creep 2000
Alice Cooper -- the eyes of...
GRAVITY KILLS -- Gravity Kills
SNAKEFARM -- Songs From My Funeral
AMANDA GHOST -- Ghost Stories
EVERCLEAR -- Songs From An American Movie
RICKIE LEE JONES -- FLYING COWBOYS
ELECTRIC SWING -- Big Band Crazy
NO DOUBT -- Return Of Saturn
Various Artists -- HOUSE OF BLUES SWINGS
BIG BAD VOODOO DADDY -- This Beautiful Life
CHICAGO -- Night And Day (Big Band)
DUKES AND GANNON -- SIX SHOOTER
PHIL COLLINS -- NO JACKET REQUIRED
DUKE HEITGER AND HIS SWING BAND -- RHYTHM IS OUR BUSINESS
VARIOUS ARTISTS -- THE UNPLUGGED COLLECTION
DON HENLEY -- THE END OF THE INNOCENCE
ANGEL CITY -- Face To Face
XFILES SOUNDTRACK
VARIOUS ARTISTS -- SKA WARS
take that RIAA!!!!
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
You missed again, motherfsckers!
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
Two things constantly strikes me when I read about RIAA suing a group or doing this to discourage me .... or any action from RIAA really.
:
1. Instead of discouraging me from sharing my music, why don't they encourage me to buy. It comes down to the same end result and this way, I don't feel attacked.
2. Its all about evolution.
History is a good teacher to prove us that if a company does not evolve, it will die. if you cannot understand / satisfy your clients, you will perish or be bought.
RIAA's model hasn't evolved from when RIAA was created at all. Back then, there was no internet, thus, the market was different.
Today, RIAA hasn't evolved one bit, they're still acting as though there was no internet, as though they had no opponent.
But they do have one opponent : Evolution. They need to update their business model so that they stop losing money when we share music.
As sad as it is for them, today, I can find most of the music I want on the internet, so why would I buy a CD ?
for two reasons
1. I really like the band and I think they deserve some money
2. The CD offers me something I cannot get on the internet.
For instance, a local artist (Francois Pérusse - http://www.zeromusic.com/perusse/) includes a small membership card with every CD, that membership gives access to a protected section where you can listen to stuff not available on the market such as unreleased material
That's one reason why I would buy his CD..and I do.
Sadly, many companies today refuse to evolve, they refuse because it'll cost them money, they'll need to change.
What they do not seem to realize is that everyday they remain as they are is another day where they lose even more money trying to stop us...and in the end, they never do.
Just my 2c.
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
It may be wrong of me to pirate, but IMHO what they're doing is more wrong than what I'm doing.
"It may be wrong of me to sodomize these prisoners with a glow stick, but IMHO what they did to us on 9/11 is more wrong than what I'm doing."
I admit, my analogy isn't perfect -- for one thing, in my version both acts are illegal, whereas you're undertaking an illegal act to respond to something that's entirely legal.
If you don't want to give your money to RIAA-member companies anymore, don't consume their product anymore! Stop being a jackass.
But I think it needs some reworking to more accurately reflect the role that the RIAA is playing now-a-days...
Let's say that the car companies got together to form the APIA (Auto Producers Industry Association) and used their considerable lobbying clout to influence Congress to pass new legislation that outlaws the selling of or owning of used cars.
Say then that the automakers decide to not sell cars in the tradional way anymore, but only lease them with extensive "appropriate-use" regulations attached and extensive monitoring equipment to ensure that you comply.
Additionally, after a couple of years when the car makers release a new model they refuse to offer any of the older models for lease and instead recall them and refuse to make these models available for any purpose.
That is closer to the situation that the RIAA is trying to bring into existence.
....want a serious, across the board fundamental change in the US. The government is corrupt, broken, out of control. Think about what we do. Millions trudge to the polls and allegedly "elect" a mostly priveleged millionaire class of people to a professional and pensioned "career" of outright "rule" over us. they DO NOT in fact, represent us, you and me, they represent and work for some fairly wealthy and exalted inteerests qwho have nothing in common with 99% of the US population. Nothing. And MOST of them are lawyers, and/or are connected financially to international conglomerates, in a big way. This is just an OBVIOUS conflict of interest. WHAT ELSE are you going to get but more complex and weird laws when it PROFITS the very people who "pass" them all the time? Then, while congress is in session, they spend all their time passing new laws,by the thousands, never ending, with little effort made to even have a modicum of constitutional review, common sense review, or to see if perhaps some of the older laws they have passed need to just be removed, a law-code review if you will. It doesn't happen, there's NO incentive for them to do so, because they control the system, they control the mass media, they control the social engineering brainwashing facilities called "public schools", and they PROFIT from it to extreme and obscene levels.
It's NUTS. It's getting worse, there's no end to the amount of laws passed, no top end limit, we are over 3 million laws on the books now, and these people in washington are SO FAR REMOVED from what it really is like in the US outside of the completely artifically maintained washington DC/NYC/LA axis of profits area, they really have no clue what they are doing other than maximising profits for themselves and their rich buds. No clue and they DON'T WANT a clue. They are trained actors and script readers, they "campaign" by 15-30 second sound bite, directly or indirectly, and by the acceptance of out and out bribes called "campaign contributions", but these public uttered "sound bite" words have little meaning, they just parrot what their focus groups tell them that will result in the same people "voting" for them over and over again, no matter what really happens.
The system is broken, terribly. It needs to change. Change at the federal level is just way to hard, SO, we need to elect some governor some place who can be the executive branch leader that at least can get ONE state back to what we are supposed to have,set a clear example of what it really was designed as, an independent state with loose ties to the federal government in a "union", BUT NO MORE, *full, default and complete* constitutional rights, and he has got to be unafraid of serious confrontation. That's the highest level we can hope for to look for any significant change for the better, IMO.
The Libertarian Party Free State Project is one example, Mack for Governor in Utah is another (He has a decent credible chance, too). There might be more, those are the two I am aware of right now where this sort of effort is being undertaken.
A success in these matters will go a long way to re establishing the court system like it is supposed to be, especially with jury nullification, speedy trials, and always having a jury trial if the matter in question is over 20$. You get some honest working class people on juries, and STOP the mostly completely criminal DAs and judges intimidating and instructiong them illegally, you'll see nonsense like in this article struck down, because people can see it's absurd. BUT, it HAS to be done at some decent level, local it doesn't matter, federal is impossible, that leaves the state level.