Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Lawsuits from a John Doe's Perspective

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the through-the-wringer dept.

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."

8 of 629 comments (clear)

  1. does it matter? dont pay. by x757x · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:does it matter? dont pay. by tchuladdiass · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've heard that in many states, you can go to court again for non-payment, then the court can order the local sheriff to go with you to the defendant's property to start confiscating stuff for auction until the dept is paid. Although I don't know if this works for just businesses or individuals too.

  2. Re:It doesn't matter .... by $exyNerdie · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here you go (on the laws being passed for businesses):

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/bankrupt cy.ap/index.html

  3. Re:Proof? by BoneThugND · · Score: 5, Informative
    This isn't criminal law. In a tort case, they don't have to prove it 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' They have to prove it 'based on a preponderance of the evidence.'

    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.

  4. Re:It doesn't matter .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:It's like tort by iowannaski · · Score: 4, Informative

    Um, in addition to being "like tort," it actually is tort.

    --
    i forget
  6. Re:It doesn't matter .... by bersl2 · · Score: 3, Informative
    For thousands of years, the artist has looked for ways to protect their reputation and identity, and those qualities in their works. They have egos to fulfil, after all, and this is done by making sure that their name is associated with their works.

    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).
  7. Error by LuYu · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is an error in the article:

    "We look for people who are offering songs, and if they have a substantial number of songs, we take note of all the songs they are offering for distribution and their IP addresses." Suits are filed against the anonymous file-sharers in bulk and then the RIAA goes to court to get names and addresses from ISPs. From there, the RIAA offers downloaders a chance to settle the complaint, or they can go to court and fight it.
    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.