Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Lawsuits from a John Doe's Perspective
An anonymous reader writes "Nick Mamatas was sued by and subsequently settled with the RIAA for file sharing. He wrote a piece for the Village Voice describing his experience, and he goes on to briefly discuss the implications of "John Doe" file-sharing lawsuits. He argues that the labels are using these suits as a source of profit; he also claims that when his lawyer contacted the RIAA to discuss the suit, he was put in touch with a regular staffer, not another lawyer. 'It feels like they're doing a volume business,' Mamatas' lawyer notes."
The RIAA is to America what worms are to Klerck.
its a civil suit judgement, correct? I had one from 1998. I did not pay it, no big deal. It is not the court's responsibility to force you to pay. (at least not where I live). its "on" my credit report, but i have never been turned down for anything since then, (have a very nice credit score actually) and it will get removed soon. I actually called the lawyer representing the person that sued me one day, and asked him about it (thats mostly what he does for a living). He said a good percentage of the judgements he wins never get payed, as there is no way to force the loser to cooperate. Maybe its different in other states? If I lost the case, I would basically be like kiss my ass RIAA.
http://music.x757x.org/ - techno dj mixes for your pleasure
Here you go (on the laws being passed for businesses):
t cy.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/bankrup
(1) No. RIAA is not a government entity. (2) They get their authority through the power of FUD. (3) Yes. They are paid by the recording industry to "protect" its interests.
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
Which basically means, if the judge and/or jury thinks it's more likely you committed the tort than not, they can force you to pay damages.
Since they never go to court, we'll never know.
WHy do you think the RIAA targets grandmothers and little girls? Because they know that THEY won't fight it in court - they CAN'T. The RIAA will never sue someone who will likely make them look stupid in court.
Extraordinary profit?
The have settled with about 1,500 people for an average settlement of about $5,000. That is about $7.5 million total. Once you subtract attorneys fees and split the proceeds between the record labels, bottom lines are barely affected.
i forget
Um, in addition to being "like tort," it actually is tort.
i forget
The risk is sharing your files so it can be UPLOADED. Why does no one ever make this clear? People never get busted for downloading. It hasn't happened.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
I'd say it is not their "stuff". It is their signal, mabye. It is the seeders hardware that has the stuff on it and it is your stuff if you're uploading it. It's their rights that are being enfringed though.
Secondly copyright enfringment is not theft. Do not equate the two, to do so is in error.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
In 1886, Victor Hugo, who was tired of having his works protected only in one country at a time, called for and received an agreement by the nations of Europe to recognize copyright across borders: behold, the Berne Convention. AFAIK this implemented the idea of automatic copyright with the duration of at least the author's life plus fifty years.
Go read the Wikipedia articles on this stuff. At some point, WIPO was created, with huge financial backing. I think we all know what that means.
Anyway, my real point is that there are three groups to consider in this tug-of-war:
- the artists, who believe strongly in preserving the integrity of their works;
- the publishers/labels/companies, whose goal (ostensibly) it is to accelerate the spread of culture and support this venture by making a profit; and
- the free culturists, who wish to promote culture by making it as available as possible, in theory accelerating the creation of new culture.
Basically, most of us are in the third group, and no one with our views was ever party to the Berne Convention or any derivative agreements (perhaps until recently?). Since our point of view has never agreed to anything we negotiated concerning this, we do not implicly respect the agreements. I think I speak for us when I say that we believe that the original Berne Convention never considered the abuses capable of the multi-national corporation, and therefore that the life+50 minimum was a bad idea. I personally think that life+10 sounds like something that could be reasonable to all parties, but I would like to add that I think that royalties should only be collectable by the estate(s) of the original author(s).Except for the fact that if/when you get sued and fork over your $3,000, your out the money AND the songs. When you buy them legally, you are only out the money.
I would guess it has something to do with personal information about him being illegally obtained by the RIAA which led directly to him losing thousands of dollars. Would you not complain? Guilt or innocence is moot when the police kick in your door without a warrant. Then again, I RTFA. I guess that's too much to expect of some folks though.
Calling downloading "civil disobedience" is an insult to those
Oh look, it's the thief who steals from the public domain. He's crying a river of crocodile tears... Copyright infringement can't be civil disobedience? What do you call this:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/nihilistic_kid/56 7411.html?thread=5994099#t5994099
It's like I always say, "Slashdot is full of morons."
I don't know who is stupider, the people who read the article and think that I'm "complaining" or those who think that they can just say "I didn't do it" and destroy the evidence and get away with it.
You're sounding like an RIAA apoligist.
Think about it man, the RIAA has not exactly done much to earn the trust (or respect for that matter) of the average consumer. Furthermore, the majority of songs downloaded would never be bought by the downloader if it was not available for "free". Music/DVD sales are NOT being hurt by file sharing, any non-industry funded economic study done in the past few year has shown that.
That being said, is file sharing wrong? Probably. Should the RIAA/MPAA be allowed to twist the legal system for FUD and profit? Probably not.
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
There is an error in the article:
It should read "uploaders" because copyright prohibits unauthorized distribution. I doubt the RIAA can even find a way to sue downloaders. It is probably impossible because there is no way to prove where a file comes from.However, they try to make "downloading" appear to be criminal in their ad campaigns. It is interesting how great an effect this advertising has had. Even one of their victims cannot tell the difference.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Yeah I am sure that a poverty line family is going to be able to spend $$$ on broadband, no matter the cost.
I have a family member who lives in poverty. They are a two parent (both working) family of 5. Their internet access consists of an 8 year old Gateway computer and dial up. The funds for the dial up are paid by other family members so they have a way to communicate cheaply with everyone across the country.
$400 to a poverty line family is a live or die price. That is the difference between mortgage|car|food payments for a month.
For those Slashdotters in Austria, here is a student newspaper wherein a lawyer describes (on page 9 of the PDF) a recent case he defended against the RIAA's equivalent in Austria.
The case was based on Kazaa -- the young woman was forced to pay up to 200 Euros per song for future downloads. So this type of craziness is not limited only to USA and Australia -- Central Europe is also under attack.
Paul Gillingwater
MBA, CISSP, CISM
...but here at least, that would not work. Fair-use copies must be made from your own copy. Copies of illegitimate works are still illegitimate regardless. And since it is very obvious that your random P2P user does not have distribution rights to offer RIAA music, I very much doubt it'll fly.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings