Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Grinds Down Individuals in the Courtroom
Iphtashu Fitz writes "The Associated Press recently reviewed many of the copyright infringement lawsuits that the RIAA filed against individuals charged with illegally sharing songs on P2P networks. According to the article over 800 of the targeted individuals have settled for approx. $3000 in fines. One man in California had to refinance his house to pay his $11,000 settlement. Many of the defendants are unwilling to face the possibility of even higher fines by fighting the suits in court despite the fact that it could resolve important questions about copyrights and the industry's methods for tracing illegal downloads. It seems that even some of the judges presiding over these cases question the RIAA's tactics. 'I've never had a situation like this before, where there are powerful plaintiffs and powerful lawyers on one side and then a whole slew of ordinary folks on the other side,' said U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, who blocked the movement of a number of these cases in her courtroom for months. She wanted 'to make sure that no one, frankly, is being ground up.'"
Let me re-state what I've said before: If you do not agree with what RIAA is doing, stop supporting it. Sadly, this means stop supporting artists affiliated to it. Quit cold turkey. Do not buy their CDs. Do not attend their concerts. Do not request their songs on the radio. And do not download/share their songs on the Internet.
Go on and protest their actions. The louder, the better. But stop supporting them, or your cries will fall on deaf ears.
No sig
The sad thing, I think, is that those of us who would be brave enough to stand up in court aren't participating in the types of activities likely to get them targeted.
A lot of the people who are doing this probably don't own copies of the songs to begin with, which makes it tough for them to stand up for themselves.
What really needs to happen is that someone with an extensive music collection, and the desire to fight this, needs to leave various P2P applications open 24/7 with access to their vast, legal music collection, so that someone will notice.
'I've never had a situation like this before, where there are powerful plaintiffs and powerful lawyers on one side and then a whole slew of ordinary folks on the other side,' said U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner
the honourable Nancy Gertner has presided over, by her own admission, numerous drug related trials. US government vs crack addicts seems pretty similar to me.
There is a strong case for opposing intellectual property. Among other things, it often retards innovation and exploits Third World peoples. Most of the usual arguments for intellectual property do not hold up under scrutiny. In particular, the metaphor of the marketplace of ideas provides no justification for ownership of ideas. The alternative to intellectual property is that intellectual products not be owned, as in the case of everyday language. Strategies against intellectual property include civil disobedience, promotion of non-owned information, and fostering of a more cooperative society.
The original rationale for copyrights and patents was to foster artistic and practical creative work by giving a short-term monopoly over certain uses of the work. This monopoly was granted to an individual or corporation by government. The government's power to grant a monopoly is corrupting. The biggest owners of intellectual property have sought to expand it well beyond any sensible rationale.
There are several types of intellectual property or, in other words, ownership of information, including copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, design rights and plant breeders' rights. Copyright covers the expression of ideas such as in writing, music and pictures. Patents cover inventions, such as new substances or articles and industrial processes. Trademarks are symbols associated with a good, service or company. Trade secrets cover confidential business information. Design rights cover different ways of presenting the outward appearance of things. Plant breeders' rights grant ownership of novel, distinct and stable plant varieties that are "invented."
The type of property that is familiar to most people is physical objects. People own clothes, cars, houses and land. But there has always been a big problem with owning ideas. Exclusive use or control of ideas or the way they are expressed doesn't make nearly as much sense as the ownership of physical objects.
Many physical objects can only be used by one person at a time. If one person wears a pair of shoes, no one else can wear them at the same time. (The person who wears them often owns them, but not always.) This is not true of intellectual property. Ideas can be copied over and over, but the person who had the original copy still has full use of it. Suppose you write a poem. Even if a million other people have copies and read the poem, you can still read the poem yourself. In other words, more than one person can use an idea--a poem, a mathematical formula, a tune, a letter--without reducing other people's use of the idea. Shoes and poems are fundamentally different in this respect.
Technological developments have made it cheaper and easier to make copies of information. Printing was a great advance: it eliminated the need for hand copying of documents. Photocopying and computers have made it even easier to make copies of written documents. Photography and sound recordings have done the same for visual and audio material. The ability to protect intellectual property is being undermined by technology. Yet there is a strong push to expand the scope of ownership of information.
This chapter outlines the case against intellectual property. I begin by mentioning some of the problems arising from ownership of information. Then I turn to weaknesses in its standard justifications. Next is an overview of problems with the so-called "marketplace of ideas," which has important links with intellectual property. Finally, I outline some alternatives to intellectual property and some possible strategies for moving towards them.
Problems with intellectual property
Governments generate large quantities of information. They produce statistics on population, figures on economic production and health, texts of laws and regulations, and vast numbers of reports. The generation of this information is paid for through taxation and, therefore, it might seem that it should be available to any member of the public. But in some countrie
This is all to common a theme these days. People are unwilling to stand up against tyranny, which is exactly what this legal campaign is. It's very similar, IMO, to the racketeering of DirecTV against people who had purchased smart card programming equipment.
If people would take a stand against the RIAA/MPAA when it comes a-knocking, a lot of light would be shed on their lair of demons. As said by the original poster, this would be a great chance to publically question the (RI|MP)AA about their calculations and figured, and tactics, and have the answers on record. Even if the individual being sued had a judgement made against him/her, I do not believe it would be anywhere near what the desired settlement would be, and it would finally set a precedence for limiting what could be sought in future cases.
If no one stands up against them, they will continue to rape and pillage the consumer. Think about "A Bug's Life,"; the RIAA/MPAA grasshoppers NEED us ants, and they KNOW we are strong and outnumber them, but somehow they are able to bully us into submission.
If it is illegal, then I would like to see them doing this in criminal court. I would bet that the jury would asked for $20 fine per CD and done with this.
Is that the sort of "class defense" you had in mind?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Advising people not to pirate music is modded -1 Troll? Thats just sad mods.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
From the article: "lawsuits that the RIAA filed against individuals charged with illegally sharing songs" (emphasis mine)
As part of a fair trial, wouldn't the RIAA have to supply a list of the songs it accuses you of downloading? If so, one could go to the store and buy the songs before the trial. Lose the receipts so there's no correlation between the trial date and the date you downloaded the song. Then in court, you prove to the RIAA you already owned copies of the songs.
What good would that do? They're suing uploaders, not downloaders. However many copies of the song you own, you aren't entitled to make duplicates for random strangers.
Bring it on mods.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
CD sales are down...the RIAA is in panic mode. Many people already HAVE stopped supporting them which is why they're suing people left and right.
The cat is out of the bag...the horse has left the barn....the _________(insert favorite metaphor here). The MP3 Genie is out and they can't put it back in. Sorry, but it's a losing battle.
The industry will change...this is a fact. The RIAA doesn't like this because they're basically going to stop making the huge mark-up on the CD/Record Market they had cornered. But their monopoly is crumbling, and it's crumbling more and more as the day wears on. Their trying to plug the leaks but the whole dam is falling all around them.
Is this good or bad? I honestly don't know, but it's going to be an interesting thing to witness! We've seen it many times in the past here, when a business is failing, the last-ditch effort is to issue lawsuits.
Want to support a band/artist? Go see them in concert OR send money to them directly...and I mean directly TO them...not to the management/record company. Will people send off a check to Chili-Peppers? Don't know, stranger things have happened.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Don't like the RIAA's tactics? Don't like how they rip off artists and sue their customers? Then don't buy from them. It's simply not that hard- buy used CDs if you must, get freely downloadable music from any of a dozen sources, go listen to a local unsigned band and buy their CDs. I've bought exactly one RIAA album in the last three years, and that was because I was curious about iTunes. I still get to listen to interesting new stuff all the time.
As far as file sharing, folks, as the law as written, file sharing of copyrighted works is illegal. No matter how you spin it (It's not theft, it's not wrong...), it's still illegal. If you think this is wrong, you have two options
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
For speeding, (which is arguably a more serious offense than file sharing because lives are put at risk) we have a system where people are caught and given a ~$100 fine on the spot. They can choose to drag it out in court later, but most don't.
Some items:
Cars have license plates. Likewise, IP addresses shouldn't necessarily be deep secrets. Put in place a system for instant subpoena of a suspected offending IP to obtain the user account.
Only cops hand out traffic tickets. Likewise, a copyright holder would have to work through law enforcement authorities to initiate any action against suspected violators. Remove all civil liability for small-time file sharing; make it purely a petty misdemeanor. An enforcement officer would verify that the copyrighted files in question were indeed available on the IP address in the complaint.
To prevent abuse of the above system, the suspected account owner would need to be notified in real time whenever such a subpoena is issued. This would detail who was requesting the IP address info and what for. This would be similar to the speeding system, where you usually can plainly see the police car with the radar on the side of the road once you get close enough.
If the suspected activity is confirmed, law enforcement authorities would mail out a ticket for ~$100. The fine would provide the funds to pay for this system. If the suspected infringer voluntarily pays the fine, it's the end of the story.
If the suspected infringer goes to court to defend himself and is found to have been falsely accused, they would be eligible for compensation of ~$5000 from the accuser. This would prevent excessive abuse from the **AA.
I think that this kind of system would essentially halt illegal file sharing (at least within the borders of a single country) without causing undue stress on anyone or violating too many civil rights. To me it makes a lot more sense than trying to make examples by handing out harsh punishments to a small handful of unlucky suspects.
truth and justict for those who can pay for it...
but he DOES NOT call for the removal of credit and the lineage of knowledge. you are blinded by your hatred of corporate greed, which is understandable, but what you fail to take into account is that knowledge is cumulative, and that hard work should be acknowledged. Martin is not so much of a fool as to believe that authors should not be credited with their creation. his argument is against their creations, the knowledge that they provide, is held from those who need it most using corporate funded law to enhance PROFIT. he has nothing against recognition.
I'm vastly more ignorant of Canadian healthcare, but I was under the impression that when they say "socialized medicine" up there, they aren't pussy-footing around like John Kerry--the fees a doctor can charge are set by the goverment. So "socialized law" would mean all lawyers charge the same rates and serve all clients equally, I suppose. It's a nice idea, and the grandparent is correct that it makes vastly more sense than socialized medicine (though I think socialized medicine itself makes a lot of sense relative to the current double-digit-inflation American system). You could even make a pretty good libertarian (not anarchist) case for it.
But it breaks down, because the government itself is a party to lawsuits frequently. There's a serious conflict of interest in giving the government that much power over the lawyers who may be called upon to challenge the government.
On the other hand, the status quo seems completely unworkable as well. Forget whatever views of intellectual property you have--here we have huge corporate interests setting their full legal weight against regular individuals, not just to stop them from doing something, but to make an example of them. That's, well, totally fucked.
So then all of us will have legal representation on a par with crack heads and migrant workers? Color me extremist, but if I'm being charged with some serious crime that I didn't commit (or even that I did commit, but under extenuating circumstances), it's my life that's on the line: I'd prefer to be able to shop around and use the resources that I've worked all my life to amass to find a good lawyer, and properly motivate him to defend me.
Let's pose a hypothetical: I run a light, hit some other car, and put someone into a coma.
Under a socialized legal system, the prosecutor works for The State, the judge works for the State...and my defense attorney works for the State. Hmmm...this is already troublesome...
I tell my attorney (who doesn't work for me, and gets paid the same unionized salary for the next 30 yrs no matter how he does on my case) that (a) the light might have been broken: it was definitely green when I went through it; (b) the cop who pronounced me drunk didn't give me a breathalyzer, he merely made me touch my fingers, and I've got a 3 DEXterity; I'm a teetotaler and have never had a drink.
My attorney has a heavy case load, because the State listens to taxpayers and doesn't fund defense attorneys well (and why should they? they do nothing but defend scumbag criminals!). The cop insists that I was drunk, and the attorney doesn't have the time, energy, or inclination to subpoena a public works guy to testify that the light has been broken years. My attorney's best effort is to plea-bargain my sentence down to 5 yrs in jail, and the loss of my home.
In the free legal system, I realize that my life is at stake, I mortgage my house and draw down my retirement account, and hire the best attorney I can afford. He's got a 30-and-1 average in court. His firm subpoenas not just the public works guy, but all of the maintenance records on the light for the last 10 yrs. It turns out that the light hasn't been serviced once, and the records contain several other complaints. My lawyer subpoenas the cop, puts him on the stand, and grills him: "back in police academy, you were taught the proper way to test someone for sobriety? Did that course cover people with poor manual dexterity? What did the course say that you were supposed to do? You don't remember?!?! Well, let's refer to the textbook..."
It's tragic that some folks don't produce enough assets to buy really outstanding legal representation, just as it's tragic that some folks don't produce enough to buy first class platinum-plated super-premium health care...but in neither case are their lots in life going to be improved by outlawing the free market.
When you outlaw the free market, you outlaw competition, and you outlaw excellence. Money may be corrupting, from time to time, but in the absence of money, the corruption is even worse, and harder to track: things are bought and sold, just like always, but with back room favors, etc.
In your hypothetical socialized legal system, some lawyers are still going to be better than others. How do you think they're going to get allocated to defendants? The local school district president's son got stopped with a pound of pot in the trunk, but his dad knows the scheduling official at the Ministry of Law, and he can...
You get the idea.
The free market isn't perfect. It's just better than all the alternatives.
The issue is that the RIAA is the one fucking up normal citizens' lives for no reason other than to buy time for a failing business model. If you disagree with this, it is not a good idea to continue to hand them money with which to do this: instead, you ought to boycott them.
I've been doing this for some time now, and there's quite a bit of non-RIAA music well worth listening to. Metropolis Records is a good place to start for industrial/EBM fans.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If someone that got sued by the RIAA came to slashdot and created a website to help with legal funds I wonder how much the /. crowd would raise for them?
Are we just talkers or can we each put a dollar where our mouths are?
I would think a donation thread and an advice thread WOULD help win a case against them.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Oh, I call BS on you. Within "the general population" there isn't even understanding of intellectual property, much less "widespread support". Ask your friends: How many of them realize they're criminals for taping the last episode of Friends and lending it to a friend? How many even know that you have to pay royalties for singing "Happy Birthday" in public, and how many of them think that's a good thing? How many understand that when their high school teacher photocopied articles for them to read, it was illegal? How many think "As long as I don't charge for it, copying is legal?"
If you're honest in the survey, you're going to find the answer is "a lot" -- indeed, probably most of them.
I'm a fan of the general population and, unlike a lot, I don't think they're intrinsically stupid or unfit to govern -- indeed, they probably are better than anyone we've got actually doing it. But on this issue, the public is woefully under-, mis-, and ill-informed.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Just to take the other side:
Why should you be entitled to a better defense simply because you have more money? What about "equal protection under the law"? And it's very convenient to say, "Oh, but the poor don't produce enough... it's their fault." But maybe you got your money through unscrupulous or even illegal means. Being rich or being poor doesn't really say anything about your moral worth. Even hardworking people sometimes get hit with financial disaster.
You say "the State listens to taxpayers and doesn't fund defense attorneys well" because "they do nothing but defend scumbag criminals!" But by your own rules, they don't defend only "scumbag criminals" -- and everyone knows it because there are no alternatives. Do you really think that people would allow an unbalanced system to persist when they know that, if they ever get called into court, they will have to use those same lawyers? You see, here the holy "enlightened self-interest" argument of rabid free marketeers comes back to haunt them. If everyone's access to lawyers is only to the same pool of lawyers -- if you can't secure an advantage through material wealth -- then there is strong societal interest in having the system be fairer. It's the whole "veil of ignorance" thing.
You argue that the system would still be unbalanced since individual abilities are unbalanced (fair enough), and that there could be corruption because a person of influence could swing a better lawyer by suborning the process. Indeed. Of course, the process we actually have is unbalanced by design and leads to the same result -- and equal protection is equally a joke there. Faced with a choice between a system that does evil by a failure of its principles, and a system that does evil by proper execution of its principles... hmm, I think I'd rather the one where the imbalance is a corruption, rather than a feature, of the system.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
...this is how things often work in the legal world, now-a-days. Legal professionals want to go to court as only a last resort, for the simple and compelling reason that you don't know what could happen. The RIAA doesn't want to go to court, as it's worried that they will set a bad precedent for their legal racket. The defendant doesn't want to go to court because they could lose big time, and be forced in to bankruptcy.
The problem goes much further than this specific case--the legal system is broken and needs fixing. We've created this zero-sum game, forcing people to either settle early and choose their own destiny, or go to court and leave it up to no more than a coin flip.
Thing is, under the current system, I'd advise my clients to do the same thing. Settle and get on with their lives. Yes, we need a test case to set some precedent here, but I would not put any of my clients in that position unless they were adamant about it.
There's just too much risk and money involved with going to court, and, so, settlements are creating a practically private legal system with often confidential terms. What to do, what to do...
Stop listening to crap ...
That would be a perfectly viable way of ending the reign of RIAA-led corporate terrorism in music, if a majority of music listeners were to join in and stop listening to the crap. As things stand though, 99% of the audience consists of musical sheep, ie. people who despite their good intentions follow exactly the instructions of the music industry in deciding what music is "good" at any given time. The vast majority simply don't realize what's being done to them. Brainwashing is not too strong a term.
It's pretty inevitable. Unless you shut yourself off totally from the media, you get enveloped in the utterly pervasive music machine's output of not just music and video, but celebrity, hype and buzz. You literally cannot avoid it, it's as sticky as napalm. Face it, there is no future in asking the 99% of musically non-militant people to cut themselves off from the media, not even to enter the shopping malls where that sticky music is playing. The brainwashing is everywhere.
That public rating idea is great, and if it were to catch on then it might even improve the quality of "big business music" through perceived audience pressure. But meanwhile, music downloaders are being crucified, and leaving them to it in the hope that a long-term strategy might prevail is less than charitable. Some sort of direct legal action or preventative technical solution offers better prospects for the short term.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Are you talking about big name artists? I mean, if you downloaded a No Doubt live show, liked it and kept it, are you saying you would try to send the band some cash directly?
If so, have you ever actually verified that the group is getting the funds? I mean, for all you know, their manager or whoever is responsible for handling incoming fan mail might just be pocketing the cash themselves.
I guess what I'm asking is, is there any indication that performers are even aware that folks like you exist? Because if not, you aren't having much of an effect. It seems we would need to raise awareness to the bands directly.
Now, what if someone were to create the proverbial tip jar, but this time, with available options to tip any band or performer you choose who has listed themselves with the service. The money would go directly to the performer's bank account without suffering the middle man. By requiring the bands to sign up, you could at least try to screen them to make sure they understand the money is to go directly to them. Fat chance actually talking to them directly, but you never know.
And I imagine it would have to be in the form of a tip jar or donation or somesuch because of contractual requirements for profit sharing based on sales and such. Better than a "Screw-The-RIAA" jar, legally speaking.
I am afraid they are smarter than that. The legal team part of the RIAA, anyway. Attorneys have a slang phrase they call "Bloodwork". Getting the blookwork on your own client, or someone you are hired to sue, means using all of your connections to get all the info you can on that person, and put it all in one folder. Credit Report, Life History, Goodgle Results, the Private Investigators/Cops/Government Officials who are "friends" of the Law Firm and do behind the scenes checks... all this is part of Bloodwork than any top 100 firm in this country does on EVERY CLIENT and EVERY PERSON THEY ARE UP AGAINST. I would bet my iPod that the RIAA have come accross many people who where sharing songs who were Attorney's, Heart Surgeons, Feds, very wealthy, etc, and skipped right over them.
The reason popular music is popular is because people happen to LIKE it.
The reason popular music is popular is because people have already heard it and are comfortable with repetition. Classical, Musicals, Big Band, Swing, Gospel, Rock, Punk, Metal, BoyBands: each generation did not morph into a new type of human being preferring a new type of music; each generation was indoctrinated by the music aimed at them during their formative years.
Today's popular music is simplistic compared to music before the rise of the guitar. Modern music is complex when it has 2 vocal melodies, 1 instrumental chord pattern, 1 instrumental melody, and a beat limited to what one person can create (hands doing one pattern and a single-note bass drum line.) Songs are limited to 3 minutes because there is not enough content to keep anybody interested longer. (I enjoy LinkinPark, but they usually turn off the music when they sing, and much of the "singing" does not have a melody.)
Today's music is not "better" than older material because it is more popular. It is popular because we hear it more often.
---
Please refrain from poorly written personal attacks. I do not know Morgaine, but the post was not "self-involved" and does not exclude Morgaine from the sheep category.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
I think the RIAA is both Venue and Victim shopping to build enough precedent so they can survive a robust defense, which has to come along someday.
Bigger concern: Is the RIAA right? And I mean legally, not morally. Does internet file sharing constitute a valid example of "fair use" or not?
In the US legislation, the fair use defense is assessed on a case by case basis, weighing the four factors outlined in 17 USC section 107: (1) purpose and character of use, (2) nature of the work, (3) amount copied, and (4) market effects. Common examples of fair use are criticism, comment, education and research.
So if I own a guitar, can I call it a slam dunk and say: "I was learning those riff's, man... educational fair use!" ? Or how about "those words Eminem rapped really spoke to me... I LEARNED something about myself after that man... a truly educational experience."
If the rumors are true, and music sales are actually up (by some measures), then #4 goes out the window. Can the Record companies post a profit and still use the defense that the market is affected? If they can't when do the shareholders bail?
Lets face it: copying 100% of the work solely for personal listening pleasure so you don't have to purchase the work to begin with (in a market where Big Record Companies are losing their shirts) is a compelling case against an individual claiming "fair use." But that is spinning the case like the RIAA does every time they take on the little guy.
How exactly would Joe Sixpack defend himself? Maybe settling for $3000 is the smart play?
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
You are looking at art as a method of deriving pleasure. By your definition only the fact that someone enjoys the art matters. Art to you is nothing more than a drug.
...
I am looking at art as something that can contain merit in and of itself. There is something that can constitute good art, and a person can spend their entire life just trying figure that out. Those persons get degrees in Literature, Music Theory,
It appears as though we have a difference of definitions. No conclusion can be reached in this argument. All I can argue in my favor is that the majority of people that really know art would strongly disagree with you.
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot
I've long since concluded that the RIAA is indeed researching their victims (see my post above where I got into my chain of logic a bit) but that doesn't mean they are going to be 100% perfect -- maybe the legal research dept. got lazy that day, or mislaid a file, or just plain screwed up. And there've been what, half a dozen such blatant bloopers out of 3000 or so cases? that's well under one percent. I'd guess that average police departments make more investigative mistakes than that.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
and don't bore me with your equivocation about how copyright infringement isn't theft
A product is sold. Ownership is transferred. Mumbling and complaining about abstractions such as copyright amount to little more than crossing fingers at the point of sale. The court should hang the vendors from a clothesline and beat them with wooden breadboards for being so childish and naive.
The seller knows that the medium was easily copyable. The seller knows that the copies are easily distributable. There is no secret here. What kind of mindset must the seller have to think that it's an added value to harass the customers in court with a document which nobody reads? The legal implication of being held liable for the contents of a document which nobody reads is frightening and criminal. Use a level-headed market approach to this rather than trying to come up with conniving underhanded "gotcha" schemes. If the vendor is unhappy with their profit margin they are free to raise the price of the product or produce a better product. There is no public benefit to criminalizing the customer. There is no excuse for claiming ignorance of the ease with which the medium can be copied and redistributed.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80