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."

Comments

It's a profit center!!

[Newer Guy]

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!

Re:It's a profit center!!

[anagama]

• But the RIAA are greedy bastards. They are going to want to profit out of this somehow too. True, they are scaring the pants off of many file sharers, but in typical corporate fashion, there needs to be money involved too. They must have some plan for getting more cash with less billable legal hours.

Forgive me. I'm a lawyer. When I read the article, the "gravy train" alarm went off in the back of my head. I'd wager this is set up on a contingent basis ... in other words, win something, lawyer takes a percentage. This means free legal representation to the RIAA, and millions in revenue for both of the lawyers and the RIAA. Let's do the math, $3-8000 per case, settlement fee at 25-33% per settlement. Multiply that by 1000s of cases for as long as you want to work. The RIAA doesn't need to pay a lawyer a cent out of it's existing coffers, it just gives up a percentage of money it wouldn't have gotten without the suit. That's a good deal for the RIAA.

And all a lawyer would need for this would be a geek to snag the data who was articulate and had appropriate credentials to make a good expert witness (just in case a trial is needed), a small office, a telephone, and a paralegal earning $30 - 50k per year (more or less depending on the market) to handle settlement calls. Personally, I'd set up in a small town, could get rent for $1000, a receptionist for $8/hr, and a paralegal for under $30k. A pure profit machine.

It doesn't matter ....

[mark-t]

It doesn't matter if they are just using the lawsuits as a revenue stream.

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.

Re:It doesn't matter ....

[$exyNerdie]

Copyright infringement is against the law

Laws are to be for the benefit of people. These days, if you are rich and can have a government official elected by generous donations, media exposure, etc., you can get laws passed that might benefit you more than the public...

Re:It doesn't matter ....

[QuantumG]

It's not criminal activity. It's a civil dispute between citizens. The fact that there are *any* criminal copyright laws in your country (if there are) is a result of out and out corruption. Get a grip.

Re:It doesn't matter ....

[Sancho]

I stopped "respecting" copyright when they stopped sharing it back with the public. Remember that bit? Copyright is supposed to be a limited monopoly, but large copyright owners such as Disney keep pushing it back by purchasing new laws. And it's even been held up in court.

No, I don't download because I don't want to get sued. But I can't accept copyright as it exists today.

Re:It doesn't matter ....

[Jerry]

I don't buy and CDs, and I don't download music. If you don't do business with them they won't stay in business.

About the bankruptcy law:
"The short answer is fairness," declared Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Fairness would also involve passing laws that drop the maximum interest rate lenders can charge from 23.9% to something under 10%. At a time when the prime interest rate is less than 3% and banks pay less than 1% interest, charging 19-24% interest IS EXTORTION. Besides taking advantage of people during difficult financial times these rates CREATE difficult financial times.

How? Health insurance rates are skyrocketing and so are the co-pays. Have a serious illness or accident and you could end up with a co-pay greater than your annual income. With double digit interest rates you will never be able to crawl out from under that load. The new bankruptcy bill will just force people to walk away from debts. The next thing the Republicans will legislate is Debtor Prisons, where they can farm out the the prisoners as day laborers.

Re:It doesn't matter ....

[rabel]

Wrong

Credit providers are responsible for extending credit to people and should face the risk that the people they extend credit to may default. Bankruptcy isn't fun, one cannot do it regularly.

Furthermore, 50% of all bankruptcies are from people, most of whom HAVE insurance, that are in debt due to medical bills. Most people aren't running up debts willy-nilly to screw the system. This is the sort of thing that bankruptcies are for. Yeah, the credit card companies and others suffer the brunt of this when it happens. That's part of the risks they take for extending credit and charging interest and fees and what-not.

The problem stems from predatory lending practices. How about the credit card companies stop lending money to people who aren't able to manage their debts (like college kids) until they can prove their credit-worthiness?

Finally, the new bill does nothing to restrict corporations from declaring bankruptcy and all the more consumer-friendly amendments were killed by the republicans. How about making it a little more fair for the average Joe? How about making it sting a bit for the corporations as well?

This is a corporate protection bill and you've been suckered... again.

Re:It doesn't matter ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup... as soon as mickey mouse becomes public domain, ill stop downloading.

I really dont see what the big deal is there, it's not like they have actually used mickey in a cartoon or movie within the last 30 or 40 years. He is nothing more than a corporate logo these days.

As long as there is no corporate respect for public domain, I shall have no respect for corporate copyrights.

I don't feel his pain

[waynegoode]

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?

Re:I don't feel his pain

[QuantumG]

I believe he is upset for the same reason that a lot of people are upset: they don't like copyright law. When a large percentage of the population think a law is no good that law should be rescinded. Why don't people like copyright law? Because it's no longer a good deal. Copyright used to be a law that only affected publishers engaging in trade. They were the only ones who could copy, so they were the only ones who were affected. Now we all copy, all the time, and we don't like a law that was crafted hundreds of years ago to serve the specific purpose of restricting trade to encourage progress restricting each and every one of us.

Unfortunately, the will of the people no longer controls the state of laws in our countries. That's why we're upset, and frankly, I think it's a pretty good reason to be.

Re:I don't feel his pain

[Glock-40SW]

I'm sorry, thats quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. We want to copy music for free, so we should be allowed to? Musicians and their chosen distribution agents (the recording industry) should all find another way to make a living, but they should still provide us with the product...

Right....

I'm not sure if you noticed, but when you don't reward people for their efforts, they stop trying (see U.S.S.R.)

I'm guessing you should still get paid for whatever you do however?

Re:I don't feel his pain

[UtucXul]

>I'm not sure if you noticed, but when you don't >reward people for their efforts, they stop trying >(see U.S.S.R.)

Exactly whose efforts are the current copyright laws rewarding? Surely not the artists as they are getting screwed most of the time too. The RIAA perhaps? Considering their efforts consist of suing people, screwing artists, and promoting bland, homoginized crap, it might not be a bad thing if we stop rewarding their efforts.

Re:I don't feel his pain

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm guessing you should still get paid for whatever you do however?

I think musicians should get paid just the way I am paid:

I go to work, I write software for my client, he pays me for it and then I don't give a rat's ass what he does with it afterwards.

Musicians should record their music, get a buyer or group of buyers to pay for it, give it to them and then not give a rat's ass what they does with it afterwards.

Given their standards

[jspoon]

And I'll bet that the artists and performers never see a single cent of it!

From what I've read of their contracts with artists, the RIAA is probably charging them for the privilege.

Someone tell me if I am wrong, but...

[ShatteredDream]

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.

Making it difficult to trade

[AlgUSF]

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...

Re:does it matter? dont pay.

[Jhon]

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)

Increased profit == Increased royalties?

[scdeimos]

From the linked article:

"We surf peer-to-peer music networks," Jonathan Lamy of the RIAA communications office says. "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."

and:

... the court ordered her to pay damages of $750 for each of 30 songs she was found to have downloaded illegally, ... but it is worth pointing out that damages of $750 per infringement is the minimum the RIAA could have received.

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?

Re:Shareholder Profit

[nofx_3]

Does any of the remaining profit go to the Artists or is it used by the RIAA to sue more "customers"?

-kaplanfx

Re:The RIAA

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Looking Deeper

[LuYu]

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.

Of the millions of people who illegally download free music using various peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, only about 8,400 have been sued by the recording industry--including, last month, an 83-year-old dead woman from West Virginia. Those odds seem pretty good, until it happens to you. This past October, my former Internet provider alerted me that they had been subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on behalf of its member labels with the demand to turn over the names and addresses of 100 "John Does" that the RIAA had detected sharing music. The RIAA is now appealing an 8th Circuit Court decision, which ruled that Internet services providers don't have to reveal names of customers who have not yet been sued.

"We surf peer-to-peer music networks," Jonathan Lamy of the RIAA communications office says. "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 [uploaders] a chance to settle the complaint, or they can go to court and fight it.

For me, the experience of settling with the RIAA was almost painless--except for the thousands I agreed to pay. Dragging my "shared" folder to the trash icon, promising not to download anymore [so, you cannot download service packs for Windows or updates for your computer? You cannot download purchased software? You cannot download Free Software?], and acknowledging that illegal downloading is wrongful [Interesting statement: "illegal downloading is wrongful". Unfortunately, you were not sued for downloading. You were sued for uploading. Copyright covers distribution and copying. If the RIAA were to sue you for making a copy, they would have to sue anybody with any mp3 files on any computer. In addition, they would have to sue your ISP and every ISP the file passed through because EVERY ONE of those groups made copies in violation of copyright. In effect, computers and the Internet have eliminated all possible policing of copying. That only leaves distribution to attack you with. Conclusion, you did not illegally download. You illegally allowed others to download from your computer.] were easy enough. I happened to know an intellectual-property lawyer who agreed to handle the negotiations pro bono. He was the one who called the RIAA settlement center number and spoke not to a lawyer, but to a staffer empowered and trained to negotiate. "It feels like they're doing a volume business," my lawyer told me. [And this has not made you consider filing a counter suit? Extortion is a form of theft. It is true theft because someone takes something away from you.]

Lamy says that of the 8,400 suits filed (8,100 of which were filed against John Does) there have been about 1,700 settlements to date. The process, from detection to settlement, can take months, but its critics believe the RIAA moves far too quickly. Annalee Newitz, policy analyst for the civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the practice of suing not just a single anonymous person but dozens at a time is called "spamigation." "That's one of the slimier things that entertainment companies are doing," she says, because mass lawsuits allow "companies to sue hundreds of