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."
Let's see.. 1700 times a minimum of 3000 dollars... 5.1 MILLION DOLLARS! Not too shabby, HUH? And I'll bet that the artists and performers never see a single cent of it!
Copyright infringement is against the law, and I have absolutely _no_ sympathy for people who think that because it's just a "little crime" there should be just a "little penalty". That's nothing more than a bunch of handwaving to rationalize the criminal activity in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Rationalize all you like, but ultimately these people are violating copyrights by sharing music, or getting something they aren't entitled to by downloading. When the RIAA goes after the technologies used to enable P2P sharing, there is an outrage and rightfully so. However, when the RIAA actually goes after the people doing the wrong things, there's also an outrage. But that's just pathetic. All these people that just won't be happy until they can get all the music they want for free need a serious lesson in ethics, economics, and a slap upside the head.
RIAA is making money out of people who break the law and infringe on their copyright (and thus their profits). TRAGEDY! My heart bleeds! ;-p
Note I didn't say 'steal'; I want sane argument here, not arguing semantics with slashbots. I'll probably just get modded down instead
So, what's so evil about this that it merits a YRO mention?
I still can't understand how "We're losing money" is the same as "We're not making as much money as we think we should".
"Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation." - Richard Feynman
What is his complaint?
Is he upset that he got sued? That it was filed as a John Doe suit? He admits in the article he broke the law, so I don't think he has the right to complain.
Is he upset that his lawyer (whom he did not pay) did not get to speak to lawyer at the RIAA? Doesn't the RIAA have the right to handle their case the way they want do?
Is he upset they sued a lot of people at the same time as him? If it's illegal, say so and fight it. If the other people aren't guilty, let them complain. Otherwise, it sounds like an acceptable legal tactic to me.
Yes, the RIAA has done some things wrong in handling these cases. Originally, they were requesting information without a filing a suit, but they have changed that. Also, they have sued some innocent people, but the writer admits he is not one of those.
He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and doesn't like it. Well, sorry. If he did not want to be sued and pay up he should have not violated the law. He, like everyone else, must face the consequences of their actions.
I don't like the way the RIAA is reacting to digital music, but that does not give me the right to steal music. If you don't think someone is offering their music fairly, then boycott them. That is a time-honored legal method of protesting.
Calling downloading "civil disobedience" is an insult to those, like the civil rights protesters and the protesters in Tiananmen Square, who have used civil disobedience to try to right the wrongs of society. File sharing is stealing to avoid paying the cost, not civil disobedience--it directly benefits the protester. Civil rights protesters did not directly benefit from their protests. The only thing they got was a change in the laws--the whole point of their protest..
If you steal music, then, as a law breaker, what right do you have to complain about the RIAA?
From what I've read of their contracts with artists, the RIAA is probably charging them for the privilege.
Towards the end, SCO's business model was pretty much:
1) Sue
2) Sue
3) ???
4) Profit!
to the point where they listed court cases among their achievements on their corporate website.
The media indstry seems to be slowly heading in this direction. Maybe the demise of the RIAA labels / MPAA studios is imminent?
Most of the smaller labels out there don't seem to particularly care about file sharing. Century Media, which isn't that small, but isn't RIAA affiliated to the best of my knowledge doesn't do these kinds of suits. I guess it's because they're not so big that most of the people are just swiping free MP3s that they have no intention of buying. I have frequently downloaded metal MP3s and I go out and buy the real CD when I can find it.
I guess it comes down to, what is the average file sharer's excuse other than "I want it, I want it now and I want it for free?" Most of the file sharing I have seen among other college students isn't obscure stuff, but top 40s type stuff. It's stuff that if you go to buy it online you can find a ton of bargains on. Not only that, but the "poor college student" excuse is bullshit. The most prolific abusers of file sharing I have seen were people that could afford to **buy** most of what they downloaded.
I'm glad that the RIAA has cut down on its lobbying and started doing its job. The RIAA is supposed to protect artists and labels, and that's what they are doing now. New laws don't mean a damn thing unless they are so draconian that enforcement is trivial. These lawsuits are not even in the same league, let alone as some of the laws that people like Fritz Hollings have tried to foist on people.
And you know what's amusing? This is precisely the type of copyright defense that was originally intended in America by our founders. So stop your bitching, you could be arrested by the FBI and sent to a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. People like Fritz and Orrin Hatch would love to send file sharers to prison, but the RIAA is happy with a few thousand dollars in civil liabilities which sure beats the fines you would pay in criminal court. In fact, these mass lawsuits are a drop in the bucket compared to what you could face.
Btw, if anyone wants to shop for cheap metal, I have found http:///www.theendrecords.com to have a great online store for distributing popular and obscure stuff. It's even got free shipping in the U.S.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
The RIAA is just making it "not easy" to trade files. People will still get away with it. The hard-core traders will use IRC, Gnutella, etc. These people believe in "Fair Use", and are not the average Joe-Sixpack saying "This napster thing lets me get something for free". I personally buy the CDs that I listen to, however I believe that "Fair Use" allows people to share music, whether it be online, or by letting a friend borrow your CD...
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
Laws are different from state to state, but several years ago I won a case against someone (~$5000). I immediately put a lean on his real property (which was tied up because he was in the middle of a divorce).
Granted, not everyone HAS property, but it doesn't cost a lot to find out.
Took a number of years, but I finally got my money when he sold his house +10% a year interest. What was funny were the calls 5 or 6 months before I got my money -- him wanting to "settle" with me for a few hundred, then a thousand, then a few thousand, then the original amount... Bah. He never did found out how all his creditors knew he had title on some real property in my state... They got all their money, too... (heh)
OK, so RIAA is admitting they know exactly which songs each person they are suing has and that they are getting a minimum $750 each for them (via the court proceedings). That's way more than they could ever hope to get through conventional retail sales or download sales: but are any artists seeing any benefit from this?
To me, it sounds like RIAA has just opened-up a new revenue stream and like it so much because they get way more income for less expenditure (ie: no royalties, manufacturing nor distribution costs).
Are there any recording artists reading slashdot? If you get a statement breaking-down your royalties, is anything attributed to P2P litigation?
Does any of the remaining profit go to the Artists or is it used by the RIAA to sue more "customers"?
-kaplanfx
Visualize Whirled Peas
Once upon a time there was no RIAA, and still the world had music. Someday in the distant future there will be no RIAA and still the world will have music. How is it everyone assumes that if music becomes free it will cease to exist. How much did an album cost in 1850? Did they have music in 1850? Of course they did. Pick up an instrument. Learn to play it. Play all the songs they say you can't because you don't own the rights. Enjoy.
// This is not a sig.
"If the RIAA comes after me, I'm going to court and tell them that I don't secure my wireless router. I have no idea who leaches off my internet connection and I don't care."
Yeah, except that argument just isn't going to fly in court.
Court: RIAA, what's your evidence that AC infringed on your copyrights?
RIAA: We have his IP address showing he downloaded and shared X songs.
Court: AC, what's you defense?
AC: I don't secure my wireless router. I have no idea who leaches off my internet connection and I don't care.
Do you honestly believe that "I didn't do it, and I don't know who did it" is going to fly? You can't just say "it wasn't me" -- you have to have some evidence that it wasn't you -- and evidence that it potentially wasn't you isn't enough, you need real evidence that it wasn't you, because the RIAA has evidence that it WAS you, and the court isn't going to take your word for it that it wasn't you...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
the court ordered her to pay damages of $750 for each of 30 songs she was found to have downloaded illegally, for a total of $22,500.
If you get sued by the RIAA for downloading, why not buy the CDs and claim downloading was a convenient way to rip. Fair use of your CDs means no copyright broken. $600 is a helluva lot cheaper than $22K.
Anybody want a peanut?
Deal with it...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Remember, this is america, land of the apathetic.
If it doesn't directly affect each individual person in a large and OBVIOUS way, nobody will give a shit.
I say to you that the RIAA is to the American music afficinado and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Your lawyer will tell you that need to consider the credibility of your own defense.
He will ask you to think hard before commiting to litigation that stands little chance of success, may drag on for years, and deplete your savings.
if you're living from paycheck to paycheck and don't have any tangible assets they can attach, you're basically scott-free. As the saying goes, "you can't get blood out of a stone."
However, the moment you OWN something, whether it's a house, car, whatever, you become vulnerable to having a lein placed against it. Those leins MUST be settled if you ever sell the item... or you cannot sell it. They can try to attach your wages, but unless you've got a government job, that can be hard to do.
One of my employees ran into this problem when some lowlife did a hit-and-run on her car... no insurance, no nothing. She filed suit against him, went to court, won, and the judge told her "I've seen this same individual in here for paternity suits... he has 9 different children with nine different mothers... you'll never see a dime." He was right.
Bottom line: if you want to live like a gypsy, or be a drifting-from-one-apartment-to-another and living-from-paycheck-to-paycheck individual, you have little to fear from the tort system. However, the moment you try to live the American Dream, you're caught.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
You hit the nail on the head.
I was just saying elsewhere in this thread: the arts and sciences don't need "promoting" as per the justification for copyright: they just need allowance to exist. Artists and scientists will do what they do because they love to do it, so long as they can afford to do it and are not too busy just making ends meet. If you want to "promote the arts and sciences", find some way to give the average populace time and wealth enough for their hobbies. Allow the products of those hobbies to be shared freely and we will all reap the benefits.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Looking deeper into this article, I cannot believe Mamatas has not looked more carefully into his rights and copyrights. He basically takes and supports the RIAA and the news media's standard position: that file sharing is "stealing".
This article needs to be put into the perspective of actual copyright law. I will attempt this below.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
That's a mighty interesting point. Any sales of CD's etc, they have to give a small percentage to the artists. But I'll bet the artists don't get a single cent form a lawsuit brought on their behalf to recoup their losses. An interesting back door for the companies to keep all of the money for themselves and give nothing to the artists who they're supposedly doing this for?
--Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time