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

The RIAA

[Tobias.Davis]

The RIAA is to America what GNAA is to Slashdot

Re:The RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is to America what GNAA is to Slashdot

I never realised that a business association of music monopolists who get custom laws written and sue people had so much in common with a bunch of white middle class nerds who troll slashdot pretending to be gay black guys. Well, you learn something new every day.

Re:The RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

You just perfectly described the recording industry's approach to rap music :-)

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.

Re:The RIAA

[EvilNTUser]

" The RIAA is to America what GNAA is to Slashdot"

Not really, the GNAA trolls are sometimes creative and entertaining.

Volume business?

[Stick_Fig]

Hey, at least they're doing something they're good at.

Just think, if the lawsuits decrease, record execs will suddenly whine, "OH WE ARE STARVING, WE SUED EVERYBODY! HELP US ORRIN!"

Shareholder Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps companies need to declare their extraordinary profit in shareholder reports due to pursuing 'legal avenues'.

Re:Shareholder Profit

[iowannaski]

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.

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:Shareholder Profit

[Maestro4k]

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.

• They don't split the proceeds with the record companies, all money recovered frm RIAA/MPAA/BSA actions stay within that organization to pay for -- whatever. Mostly it pays the costs of the lawsuits, and to lobby congress for more bad laws.

Re:Shareholder Profit

[mike77]

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

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?

Your local RIAA Office here to Serv You!

[chaffed]

Your friendly and conveniently located RIAA offices are here to take your extor... settlements. Just stop into one of our many locations.

We are also accepting unsolicited settlements. If you feel guilty about steeling from the table of our hard working label execs just drop by and we'll settle everything.

Re:Your local RIAA Office here to Serv You!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Your friendly and conveniently located RIAA offices are here to take your extor... settlements.

Maybe they can set up drive-thrus.

Instead of a Jack-In-The-Box clown, we can have giant, glowing plastic heads of Ashlee Simpson, 50 Cent or Shania Twain.

Ha! That's silly of me!

People don't even download Ashlee Simpson songs for free.

I wonder if a giant, glowing head of Ted Nugent is a sign of the End Times. You could pay your fine and buy some ammo at the same time.

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!!

[Orcspit]

Hmm, Dollar a song at iTunes, Author of the article had about 2500 songs downloaded. Sounds like you might as well just download all the songs now and take your chances, pay RIAA later. Saves you from having to go through all the trouble of paying for iTunes.

Re:It's a profit center!!

[marshall_j]

Nono, this stops piracy which in turn drives sales of cds which creates more revenue which means the RIAA can drop their % on contracts. Right?

Re:It's a profit center!!

[gl4ss]

look, the lawyers are the one's doing this in volume. the lawyers are the one's getting the cash. it's easy profit for the lawyers.

lawyers fees are profit in that scenario, profit for the lawyers. they're running a nice little operation that doesn't need any major effort from them(just hire a helper to answer the phone as seen, have a printer printing out the complaints and off you go - practically printing money for your law-firm once you get the rights from riaa to start doing it).

Re:It's a profit center!!

[cdrudge]

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.

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.

Re:A volume business?

[Gentlewhisper]

It is pretty sad that our courts are used for this.. but repeat after me guys, "Chi-Ching!"

Lawsuits for profit!

[sabernet]

Man, that article has opened my eyes. I never would have guessed all these lawsuits were used to generate profit for the cartel.

-----

I'll file this under "duh".

It's like tort

[Quiet_Desperation]

A few companies started settling instead of fighting frivilous lawsuits. Now it's the primary source of income for some law firms, and its side effects are a measurable drain on the economy.

So will society let this one spin horribly out of control until it is a vast, pathetic cataclysm of Brobdingian proportions, that makes strong men weep, strong women faint and baby Jesus cry?

Of course we will. The question was rhetorical.

Re:It's like tort

[iowannaski]

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

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 ....

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the people who aren't guilty but can't afford to defend themselves? We have no idea how many defendents are criminals and how many the RIAA are simply extorting.

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 ....

[$exyNerdie]

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

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

Re:It doesn't matter ....

[gkuz]

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...

"These days"? Read some history, dammit. It's been this way in the US of A for at least 150 years. Ever hear of Jay Gould? Andrew Carnegie? This ignorant ahistorical whining is getting really annoying.

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 ....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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 ....

[ThreeE]

It's their stuff. Period. If they want to charge $100/CD they can. If you think $100/CD is too much, then don't buy it. Just because you disagree with their selling price doesn't justify your theft. They have every right to prosecute you like the shoplifting lowlife that you are.

Why is this so hard to understand?

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 ....

[mark-t]

Show me just one instance of a person being who has been wrongfully sued for copyright infringement and the person settled because they couldn't afford to defend themselves in court. If you can't even cite an example, how do you know that just because you can imagine it, it's actually a real possibility? Yes, it has happened that people have been wrongfully targetted in the past, but in every case I know of, the case is dropped the instant the error is pointed out to them.

Re:It doesn't matter ....

[bersl2]

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).

Re:It doesn't matter ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I defend copyright becaause I respect the copyright holders. Specifically, I respect the copyright holder's right to have the final say in who may copy his work.

What if the Catholic Church had copyrighted the Bible? Suppose we had the draconian "IP" laws of today back in 60 A.D. and the Church decided to only lease copies of the Bible to the chosen? 95 years after the death of the author leaves plenty of time to copyright the New Testament well into the 2nd century. Suppose, like today, copyright extensions kept pushing the date back and lo and behold here in the 20th century only those "worthy" enough to buy the Bible could go to heaven? Would you fully support the right of anyone to control the distribution of the New Testament?

Compare and contrast with scientology, which has taken the copyright route and the problems they make for people who disagree with them. Just imagine, only 80 years or so to go before you can legally dispute their teaching word for word in a public forum!

If you disagree with any of the above actions, it's hard to believe you are actually a hard-line copyright supporter.

Re:It doesn't matter ....

[Aadain2001]

One of the greatest victories in the class warfare that they upper class has achieved is having everyone in the middle and lower classes think there isn't a war going on. No one is entitled to make money at the expense of another human being's life. Once you start from that one little rule and build on it, you will find that most of our modern socialeconomic practices do not benifit anyone but those who already have money. Those without money have little to no chance to make their lives better because of how the upper class has structured society. Sure, a few have pulled themselves up from the bottoms of the economic classes, but those are the exceptions and not the rule.
I have no entitlement to other peoples' money as you have said. But when you have no way of staying alive except digging yourself deeper and deeper into debt, and therefore further under the control of the upper class, I would say that it is inhumain of the lenders to charge what they do. If we were all on a level playing field then sure the lenders can ethically do whatever they want. But we aren't on a level playing field, nor have we been since the introduction of society. What lenders are doing is just furthering the class warfare that is occuring and doing it with the inhuman logical of dollars and cents.

Re:It doesn't matter ....

[mark-t]

No.

But neither should the general public be allowed to develop the preconception that it's okay to disregard copyright.

I don't condone the outrageous prices the RIAA is putting on music, but I don't feel that entitles people to break the law, and I have no sympathy for the people that have somehow suckered themselves into thinking so.

Re:It doesn't matter ....

[kinzillah]

When (based on figures I've heard, but not checked) 20 percent of a nation's population does something, I'd say its illegal in theory only.

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.

Proof?

[Seumas]

First, is it just me or does that article come across as if part of his settlement entailed him promising to use his public position to author a "scare-em-straight" article?

Second, why aren't people going to court over these lawsuits? I don't see why you would even need a lawyer. Just go to court and say "I didn't do anything illegal. Show me proof beyond a reasonable doubt that I did."

I mean, other than a record company CLAIMING that someone at some IP address was sharing certain songs, what proof is there? If something goes missing from my garage, I can't just point a finger at a neighbor and tell the judge "no, I KNOW he took it - I saw it!". You have to have more proof than that. Something unbiased and irrefutable, preferably from an independant party.

Short of confiscating your computer, finding an installed P2P application ACTUALLY RUNNING AT THE TIME, with a configured shared directory full of copyrighted songs that you are not legally licensed to distribute and your software is actively serving them to active downloaders at the time that it is being viewed by a judge - what proof is there?

Re:Proof?

[BoneThugND]

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.

Re:Proof?

[tekiegreg]

Show me proof beyond a reasonable doubt that I did."

Therein lies the problem, you did nothing illegal. This is a civil case and not a criminal one. Reasonable doubt is not the standard here. Basically you're looking at a "Preponderance of the evidence". Basically the judge listens to you, then the RIAA and decides who sounds better. So if the RIAA has anything better than "you did it", you better be just as well prepared and then some...

does it matter? dont pay.

[x757x]

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.

Re:does it matter? dont pay.

[tchuladdiass]

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.

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)

Re:does it matter? dont pay.

[retro128]

That's fine if you're a renter, but if you are a homeowner they can put a lien on your house and get the money when you sell. If you fit that description, you may be in for an unpleasant surprise when you move. I would check with your county recorder's office if I were you to see if this is the case.

Re:does it matter? dont pay.

[Kiryat Malachi]

I suspect what you actually did was put a "lien" on his property.

If you had put a "lean" on him, you'd probably have some ugly Mafia mug showing up at his doorstep every day until he paid.

RIAA bastards

[Neo-Rio-101]

RIAA Bastards (Sung to the tune of "Radio Ga Ga" by Queen)

I sit alone and watch the lights, on my PC for several nights. And ev'rything I want to load, I find it on the net, you know

You gave us all those boyband stars. Their CD price -- a total farce. You made 'em sing - which made us cry. We just want all those bands to die

RIAA

You'll just become some background noise, suing groups of girls and boys, who just don't know and just don't care, about your new idea of "fair"
You had your time, you've had the power. You're going to have your final hour

RIAA

All we hear is, RIAA bastards, RIAA sue you, RIAA wankers.
All we hear is, RIAA retards, RIAA blah blah
Peer to peer is new. RIAA no one now needs you!

We taped CDs - we dubbed the stars, off radio for hours and hours. Now we swap files amongst our peers, The tech just changes through the years

Let's hope you leave 'cause you're no friend. Like all good things they come to an end. Don't stick around, as we won't miss you. We're growing tired of all your bullshit
You had your time, you've had the power. You're going to have your final hour

RIAA

All we hear is, RIAA bastards, RIAA screw you, RIAA smacktards.
All we hear is, RIAA wankers, RIAA losers, RIAA ha ha.
All we hear is, RIAA retards, RIAA blah blah
Peer to Peer is new. RIAA, no one now needs you!

RIAA bastards, RIAA bastards, RIAA bastards
RIAA

You had your time you've had the power. You're going to have your final hour
RIAA

Another way to share files. Legally.

[zymano]

It's called the LIBRARY. I know they don't have all the movies or songs but that could change with a little more funding. If we could also 'UNITE' the libraries through internet networking then we could also download or the library could download hard to find movies or songs.

One point on the Riaa lawsuits . Is it really like breaking into BEST BUY and stealing CDs' and movies ? Aren't these MP3's,Camcorder tapings, Divix, AVI and Mpegs just average to bad copies. If so then how could it be counted as theft ? Shouldn't there be a consideration to quality. Wouldn't you equate this to recording RADIO with tape ?

clarification, please

[negative3]

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".

Re:A volume business?

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Especially when they turn it up to eleven

Re:How???

[djeaux]

(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.

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

[Artifakt]

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?

Of course they have a right to let non-lawyer emploees handle assembling case records, fielding calls from opponent lawyers, and so on. The US has a legal right to send its troops into battle armed with nothing more than sharpened sticks and trash can lids,* but what does it say about the balance of power if we were fighting any foe where that would work?
Letting non-lawyers handle pre-trial relations with opposed lawyers is generally considered just as dumb as going into court without lawyers at all. It's suicidal - UNLESS you have such OVERWHELMING POWER THAT YOU OWN THE LEGAL SYSTEM. If I were a shareholder in any RIAA related company, I'd be asking what the hell they were doing, taking risks like that - OR - I'd know there were solid bribes and blackmail in place to let them get away with such apparent foolish risk taking.
You are welcome to draw your own conclusions as to why the RIAA client corps aren't getting upset about the non-lawyer involvement. Maybe most of them just aren't watching all that closely and in a few months we'll start seeing some investors making a (IMHO much needed) reassesment of the RIAA's strategy, or maybe this should be all the proof anyone needs that the whole thing is about power and not justice.

* Actually, I'm not sure the Geneva convention allows sharpened sticks, unless they are sterilized regularly. ;-)

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.

Re:I don't feel his pain

[Luke-Jr]

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.

And "civil disobedience" is a time-honoured *illegal* 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.

Which is the same thing happening here...

File sharing is stealing to avoid paying the cost, not civil disobedience--

File sharing is not stealing anything.

it directly benefits the protester.

So the people you are referring to disobeyed the law in a way that had no direct benefit to themselves? I highly doubt that...

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..

And hopefully, in the end, Copyright laws will be abolished or replaced with something more ethical.

If you steal music, then, as a law breaker, what right do you have to complain about the RIAA?

As many people have pointed out, it is not possible to steal music. Are you sure that he even downloaded music under the RIAA's authority? Not every artist in the world wants the RIAA suing their fans.

Re:I don't feel his pain

[Maestro4k]

What is his complaint?

• His complaint is that while the RIAA
• claims these lawsuits are being filed to combat online filesharing the reality is that they're doing it to make money. He's not trying to say he shouldn't have gotten in trouble when he was caught. I would say he does have a ligitimate complaint about his lawyer not being able to speak to a lawyer on the RIAA's side. If they're working out a legal settlement both parties need a lawyer to protect everyone. That the RIAA doesn't seem to care enough to even do that speaks volumes about their real intents with these lawsuits.

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.

• Precisely, and if the RIAA is indeed filing these lawsuits just to make money (aka extortion through the courts) then THEY need to pay the penalty for that as well. Just because the guy was breaking the law sharing music doesn't mean the RIAA suddenly can ignore any and all laws.

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.

• I disagree. This whole mess is making public how very wrong our legal system has become. Our congressmen pass laws that benefit the corporations while ignoring the citizens. The public domain has been obliterated since copyright keeps getting extended. Our fair use rights are being taken away in the name of fighting piracy. In some ways these are more insidious than previous wrongs, in those cases the wrongs were more noticeable, these current ones get hidden by smoke, mirrors and lots of FUD.

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..

• Well frankly did you even stop to think about that sentence before you wrote it? It's a huge nonsequitor. Yes the civil rights protestors benefited from their protests. (And I'm talking about the US Civil Rights movement against segregation of blacks and whites.) They got to stop being segregated among other things. Nowadays the whole attitude that blacks are inferior is almost completely gone. I'd say that's a HUGE benefit, it made their lives (and the lives of th children) much better.

• No, they did not just get a chage in the laws, they got a change in attitude towards them and their plight. All this filesharing, even if not done for protest reasons, is bringing attention to bear on the out of control copyright laws and the power of corporations. That's a VERY good thing, as it's starting to make even folks who aren't tech savvy mad as well.

If you steal music, then, as a law breaker, what right do you have to complain about the RIAA?

• It's this little thing called Freedom of Speech, it's inthe constitution, go read it. You always have the right to complain. You can even complain about the police when you're being arrested, you're free to do so.

• By your logic, no one who was falsely arrested/prosecuted would ever be able to speak up about it and end up being punished for a crime they didn't commit. They'd also not be able to complain that the punishment was more severe than the crime warranted. Look what happened in Iraq in Abu Gharib when the prisoners there had no way to complain about their captors' treatment of them. Granted it's not on the same scale but it's the same point. If the RIAA is making you homeless because you can't afford to fight them (even if you're really innocent) then by God you better be complaining.

  If no one complains, nothing will ever change, it's as simple as that.

Re:I don't feel his pain

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I have a couple of small differences with what you said:

The value in a copy of some media is in two things: the cost it took to make it the original, and the cost it took to make the copy of it.

That should really be, "The value in a copy of some media is in two things: the market price to make the original and the market price to make the copy of it."

It is a subtle difference but an important one - value is in the eye of the buyer, not the creater. A movie might cost $50M to make, but if it sucks dodo ass, and only ten people pay the $10 ticket price, then its value is only $100. The reverse is also true, if some genius makes a film for $1000 and 50M people buy tickets for it, then the value is $500M. Which leads to my next point:

True artists (and true scientists for that matter) do things for the love of their craft. The only reason they need to be paid for it is so that they can afford to do their craft.

I like to believe in idealism as much as the next guy on slashdot, but I have no faith in a business model founded on idealism. Cold hard cash is what makes the world go 'round. Fortunately for both of our perspectives - getting paid up front for creation works just as well for the idealist as it does for the greediest, pseudo-artist money-grubber.

"Stars" (defined as having the "star power" to draw a large audience) should have no problem asking for, and getting, very large sums of money in exchange for the creation of new art. Sums VASTLY out of proportion with the actual cost to create that art. As long as they can convince people that their art is "worth it" they should have no problem raking in the dough.

Re:I don't feel his pain

[cpt kangarooski]

We want to copy music for free, so we should be allowed to?

Seems reasonable.

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.)

That's just a practical concern. You're saying that if people can copy music for free that there will not be any new music created.

So it sounds to me like a compromise is in order: don't copy music for free just long enough to provide enough of a motivation to get it created, then copy it for free.

And as it happens, that is precisely what copyright is intended to do -- to let people copy works for free, and also to ensure that a lot of works are created so that there's more to copy for free than there otherwise would be.

Re:I don't feel his pain

[Kombat]

A movie star gets paid for acting in the movie. How many times that game or movie is rebroadcast on TV doesn't affect how much monet the performer gets paid: they were paid for the initial act of the performance.

That's not entirely accurate. More and more stars are commanding royalty deals in Hollywood. For example, a sweetheart royalty deal on the Matrix sequels is what made Keanu Reaves the richest actor in Hollywood.

Not to nitpick, but just wanted to point out that "royalties" are not unique to the music industry. Literature publishing works that way almost exclusively, and it is becoming more and more pervasive in Hollywood, too.

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.

When all else fails... sue?

[BlastM]

'It feels like they're doing a volume business,' Mamatas' lawyer notes.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but large-scale litigation seems to be the sign of a failing business model.

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?

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.

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

[compro01]

This is precisely the type of copyright defense that was originally intended in America by our founders

are you trying to be funny? copyright was not intended to give basically perpetual profit to a corperation. it was originaly, what, 7 years? it's now life of artist, plus 75 years. that's 75 years that *record company* is able to sell the song exclucively at pure profit. no artist royalites.

your copyright system is a equally screwed up as your patent system. both need a serious overhaul, soon.

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

[drsmithy]

This is precisely the type of copyright defense that was originally intended in America by our founders.

Actually IIRC several of the "founders" didn't like the idea of copyright at all and were rather reluctant to codify it. I'd also feel pretty confident in saying they would have made copyright terms *shorter* over time and not longer and would be rather horrified at the corporate-profiteering-tool modern copyright law has become (not to mention the concept of the "corporation" as a "person").

Thank you DirecTV

[XMyth]

For forging the path to this type of lawsuits. Innocents (and the occasional crook) sued for profit . Welcome to your future America.

so what happens....

[hawkeye_82]

... when you call the RIAA now?

"If you're being sued for file-sharing, please press 1
If you were caught using Kazaa, press 2
If you were caught using Morpheus, press 3
If you would like to speak to a lawyer, press 4"

*beep*

"Please hold while I transfer your call to the next available legal representative."

*listen to 5 minutes of Ashlee Simpson*

"All our lawyers are currently suing other customers. Your money is very important to us. Please hold for the next available legal representative"

Re:so what happens....

[trime]

Surely you forgot a step...


You have listened to five minutes of Ashlee Simpson. Please enter your credit card number followed by the hash key so we can charge you for your unauthorised use of this music. If you would simply like to add it to your law suit, press the star key now.

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:Why are these suits wrong, exactly?

[HardCase]

I guess that I can accept that it's civil disobedience, although it's a stretch. But if that's the case, then you do your civil disobedience, go to your trial and make your statement. But that's not happening here - the disobedience is happening, but when the hammer drops, most of the defendants start making up all sorts of lame-ass excuses about why it was all innocent.

Don't put me down on the side of the RIAA - mass subpeonas are a cheesey way of using a loophole in the law. But don't lionize the people who got caught. Civil disobedience is one thing, being stupid and getting caught at it is another. Everybody knows what the RIAA is doing...so by now, the people getting caught are just playing the odds and losing. And I'm still trying to figure out exactly what civil right the music industry is violating anyway...being a bunch of luddites and treating your customers like criminals is bad business, but it's not trampling on anybody's rights.

Re:Another way to share files. Legally.

[Aeiri]

So I should be punnished more for stealing a Farrari than a handa? Or how about killing a homeless guy compared to a rich guy?

Are you stupid?

Obviously you should be punished more, hell, stealing a Honda would probably not even be a felony.

I bet the musicians will see none of this

[Mike Kelly]

Musicians are probably getting none of these funds - A lot of them would not get any royalties if this music was distributed legally 'cause their contract was signed before the advent of digital music.

100% profit (after lawyer's fees)!

Re:Why are these suits wrong, exactly?

[Smidge204]

On the very face of it, you're right. However...

1) It is very difficult to really prove actual loss from people downloading music. The problem is the RIAA wants music to be a commodity (which would have a reasonably predictable demand and intrinsic value) when it's actually a luxury (which is subject to people simply not buying it anymore). Because of this, it's almost impossible to link change in sales with illegal downloads. That makes P2P, and the people who use it, little more than a scapegoat.

2) Given the number of ways one can obtain music illegally, it seems likely that getting an accurate estimate of illegal traffic would be nearly impossible.

3) Given 1 and 2, it seems wholly impossible to produce a realistic dollar value on each illegally downloaded song. You can't conclusively prove that you lost X revenue, and there is no way to know that one song has been illegally copied Y times, so how can you claim that each illegal copy of the song is worth X/Y dollars? This is how the value of the lawsuits are determined, and usually for extremely unrealistic amounts of cash. If the lawsuits were for a few dollars a song that might be one thing, but they're suing for hundreds or thousands of dollars a song...

4) The lawsuits are not focused at the source of illegal music, they are targeted at the market, in a sense. To make a slightly inaccurate analogy: You can jail every drug user you find, but it won't get the dealer off the streets. The RIAA hopes to scare the public into not downloading music anymore, but obviously the people that download music NOW don't give a rat's ass about the legality of it, so that isn't going to work.

That being said, maybe not charging $25-$30 for a craptacular CD would improve their sales... Viable and profitable alternatives for legal music distribution are staring the RIAA right in the face and they just don't seem to care!
=Smidge=

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?

kiss these suckers goodbye

[saltydogdesign]

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.

Re:What about the insecure wireless router defense

[Macadamizer]

"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...

Buy the CDs!

[FrankDrebin]

From TFA:
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.

it isn't the downloading that gets you in trouble

[victorvodka]

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.

how to beat the riaa

[circletimessquare]

i'm sorry, but i will never buy digital media in my life ever again

i haven't bought a single CD since i fired up Napster in 1999

my formula (using eMule) for not being caught is two-fold:

1. load your shared folder up with porn
2.if you must download linkin park or evanescence, the kind of stuff the riaa is sniffing?:
a. stop all of your downloads except that song you want with the most sources and the best connections
b. suck it down in under a minute
c. immediately get it out of your shared folder
d. if you do it fast enough, all the porn suckers you have cultivated will flood out anyone trying to get that drop of water pop song in your sea of masking porn

remember: the riaa only goes after those who make pop songs available, not those who download it

and speaking of pop songs?

i have the BEST solution for beating the riaa on that subject matter:

i embrace world music, i let my mind wander

currently, i'm into filipino music (i live in new york city)

the thing to do is is to expand your musical interests to things beyond the usual pop crap, and you are also therefore using the new file sharing technology to its greatest benefit: connecting with resources that otherwise would be beyond your grasp in the pre-internet universe

embrace world music, screw the pop crap, and you win two ways:

1. you won't be on the riaa's radar
2. you'll grow new brain cells as you develop an awareness of a world beyond your nation's borders, of music beyond your stupid local pop music industry

there really is a lot of good stuff out there that isn't the usual robbie williams or christina aguilera or kylie minogue crap

free your mind and give the bastards who want to market you sugar water the finger in the process

and for those of you with a holier-than-thou attitude about me ripping off poor third world musicians?

if it weren't for the filesharing networks, I WOULD NEVER BE EXPOSED TO THE ARTIST I AM LISTENING TO IN THE FIRST PLACE

solve that quandry and get back to me with your holier than thou attitude

No Different than the DirecTV Lawsuits

[Bodysurf]

The **AA suing people is no different than what DirecTV has been doing for a few years.

The "problem" with these lawsuits is that it will cost you more to defend them than to settle.

Additionally, both the **AA and DirecTV typically sue you civilly where your guilt or innocence is based on a "preponderance of the evidence", not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, if their heavy-handed attorneys can make some jury full of idiots think it's 51% likely you did it, then you lose. You get no court appointed attorney and you don't get to plead the 5th ammendment without any negative inference. These **AA attorneys have these cases cookie-cuttered/boiler-plated out and don't care whether you are guilty or innocent. They care about billable hours and whether they think there is enough evidence for them to win.

And when you lose under the DMCA, you lose big time. You not only risk hefty fines, but attorney fees that are often in the tens of thousands. Look at the PACER reports of those people who try and fight these corporations in court -- the defendent typically has one attorney while the plaintiff often has four to six attorneys on their side. Is it NO WONDER nearly everyone settles, even if they are innocent?

So learn from the mistakes of those poor slobs, many who were innocent, but settled anyways.

BE ANONYMOUS.

Because if you get sued by one of the above, you always lose.

If you are gonna do anything that even remotely has the risk of you getting targeted for a lawsuit by one of these big corporations that could care less if 10% of the people they sue are innocent, make sure there is NO WAY it can get tracked back to you.

actually technically

[themusicgod1]

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.

Profits != illegal

[darnok]

> Newitz says that "recent reports indicate that
> file sharing is bigger than ever--and so are the
> record industry's profits. As a result, it's hard
> to see the suits as anything other than a
> wrongheaded attempt by the old media industry to
> push upstart innovators out of the marketplace
> rather than working with them."

This is a ridiculous argument.

If the record industry is making bigger and bigger profits, that in no way obliges them to ignore illegal downloads of their product.

Like it or not, it is their product; they *own* it. If someone starts distributing it for free, then they'd be mad not to try to stop it happening.

For the record, I think IP laws, as exist in much of the world, are fundamentally flawed and will be substantially revised within the next several years. Business models that they encourage - companies like Eolas with no employees and no tangible assets, holding patents with ridiculous scope, capable of suing huge corporates and/or stopping development dead - doesn't benefit society at all and won't be acceptable to either individuals or major companies in the long run.

The record companies will die out in their present form, because they can't put the genii back in the bottle now. All they've ever offered as pluses to music creators are marketing and distribution; the Internet already handles distribution better than the record companies could ever do, so all they now bring to the table is marketing.

At this point, many established groups - the ones who generate most of the profit for music companies - think they're now big enough to do their own marketing. If these groups stand up and say "We'll do our own marketing", what does the music business have to offer them?

Off the top of my head, the only thing I can think of is underwriting their touring costs; a really big group (think "U2") spends big dollars putting a tour together, and would probably appreciate someone else underwriting the tour and would be happy to share the profit on that basis.

insecure access point

[Vlad_Drak]

What about the insecure access point defense? It's still astounding how many people leave their APs wide open. One would think this would bring the evidence into question, and might get it all thrown out.

No surprise. Trolls don't feel pain.

[MacDork]

What is his complaint?

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:

• Exhibit A
• Exhibit B

Hmm...I wonder...

[Atroxodisse]

What would happen if someone actually stood up to them and fought the case in court? How would the RIAA prove who actually used the computer to share the files? With a computer that is used by multiple people who live in the home as well as the possibility of visitors to your home, how could they show who it was who actually shared those files? It isn't as though you sign any agreements or anything when you own a computer that makes you liable for any activity the computer is used for. How could they prove a remote user hadn't hacked your sytem and used your hard drive as a depository? They aren't the government. It isn't as though they can hack your computer or get a warrant to search it. The only thing they could prove is what protocols and networks your computer was using to access the file sharing network. Are there any class action law suits going on against the RIAA right now? Perhaps charges of racketeering should be brought against them.

Re:300 million person march?

[avalys]

Somewhere in Russia, a village is missing its propaganda minister.

Error

[LuYu]

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.

Re:Not criminal? Wait just a dog-on second...

[westlake]

If it is civil, there's nothing that says you can't file a countersuit, no? And the whole preponderance of evidence bit does cut both ways doesn't it? To date, they have sued a dead woman, a Mac using grandmother...

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.

try this on for size

[The Tyro]

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.

Don't be so cheap!!

[Pac]

This is the kind of thing that gives lawyers a bad name. You describe a fantastic money machine then spoils everything by saying "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."

With this kind of profit, set up in a nice $5k office, pay $20/hr to the girl in the front desk, make the paralegals beg to work for you by paying them $60k-$100k. You'd still be making tons of money and everyone in the office would be happy...

Re:A volume business?

[LittleBigLui]

More sex and drugs... I can't think of a better way to enable myself to boycott the recording industry!
--
Send whiskey and fresh horses!

Your sig scares me.

A lawyer in Austria defends against RIAA-clone

[PGillingwater]

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.

Right on!

[Pfhorrest]

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.

I'm no expert on US law...

[Kjella]

...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

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

Create a Honeypot

[bampot]

Do the RIAA go based on filename alone, or do they actually download and verify the MP3 files are infringing copyright?

If it's on filename alone then someone who has the necessary time and resources could create a honeypot experiment. AFAIK this is not illegal but could give the pretext for being tested in court.

I'm no expert but I can see it going something like this:

Create several gigs of files composed of random gibberish

Files should be suitably named & sized to catch the eye of the watchers

Take MD5 sums so the file can be later verified by an expert.

Share on a popular network

Wait

If suitable documentation was kept it would blow the RIAA evidence out of the water. Prosecution would also become that much more difficult if a computer forensics expert was required for every case.

Note: Personally I don't illegaly download music and don't necessarily approve of those who do, however I disagree even more with the strong-arm tactic of the RIAA.
Also I don't reside in the US, but the rot http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/04/bpi_filesh are_settlements/ has set in here as well.

Financing the arts and sciences

[Pfhorrest]

Or, do you envisage essentially a return to the days when artists were sponsored by wealthy patrons, who then release the music to the public without worrying about even covering their own costs?

I envisage a world where people are not caught up in the busy-day-to-day work of just surviving, and have free time to do what they love and share it with others. Our society seems wealthy enough that we're supposedly not concerned strictly with survival anymore, and are making leaps and bounds in the arts and sciences - so why are so many people still working their asses off doing things they hate? Where is all this extra effort going? It seems to me it's either profiting only a few fortunate individuals ("Remember, your time is our money!"), or a lot of it is just wasted effort in an inefficient system. Or both.

Think about it. Naturally, we tend to want to get done what needs to be done, and then have free time to do what we want. A lot of people want to be creative. If they had the time and means to be creative, they would be, simply because they *want to*, for its own sake. Profit does not have to be an incentive to do art, people simple need the economic ability to pursue it.

Are we really still so caught up with survival that we can't afford free time for art? How has civilization progressed at all if we're still spending all day - more than our ancestors used to, even - *just making ends meet*? Where is all this labor going?

If we as a civilization really can't afford to be doing this, then we just shouldn't be doing it. The reason why in ancient times wealthy patrons financed the arts without respect to "intellectual property" was because they wanted beauty in their world, and they were far enough removed from survival problems to be able to afford it. If a given society didn't have any people wealthy enough to afford it, art didn't get done, cause people were too preoccupied with things like food and shelter.

In our supposedly egalitarian society where we (in theory) strive not to have a few wealthy and powerful barons surrounded by masses of grovelling peasants, then if *anyone* is wealthy enough to be able to finance the arts (either their own works or the work of others), then *many* should be afforded the same priviledge. If we as a society aren't that wealthy, then we shouldn't be wasting effort that is better spent keeping people alive. But it seems to me that we as a society are plenty wealthy to keep everybody alive and comfortable and give them enough free time to pursue the arts for their own sake. So why don't we have that time? Where is it all going? What's the problem in this system?

One way or another, "intellectual property" like copyright just doesn't make any sense, and is a broken hack, a kludge, to try to allow equality opportunity to pursue the arts and sciences. Unfortunately like all hacks and kludged it is easily exploitable and is now being turned against its original purpose. It just doesn't work.

The only sensible way is to pay for the arts up front and allow for their free (as in speech) replication. In a ruthless cut-throat barbaric old-world kingdom, the wealthy princes could afford to finance the arts and give them away. In a supposedly advanced and egalitarian civilization like ours, we should all be able to afford it. So why can't we?