Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Lawsuits from a John Doe's Perspective
An anonymous reader writes "Nick Mamatas was sued by and subsequently settled with the RIAA for file sharing. He wrote a piece for the Village Voice describing his experience, and he goes on to briefly discuss the implications of "John Doe" file-sharing lawsuits. He argues that the labels are using these suits as a source of profit; he also claims that when his lawyer contacted the RIAA to discuss the suit, he was put in touch with a regular staffer, not another lawyer. 'It feels like they're doing a volume business,' Mamatas' lawyer notes."
The RIAA is to America what GNAA is to Slashdot
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!"
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
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!
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".
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.
Copyright infringement is against the law, and I have absolutely _no_ sympathy for people who think that because it's just a "little crime" there should be just a "little penalty". That's nothing more than a bunch of handwaving to rationalize the criminal activity in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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?
its a civil suit judgement, correct? I had one from 1998. I did not pay it, no big deal. It is not the court's responsibility to force you to pay. (at least not where I live). its "on" my credit report, but i have never been turned down for anything since then, (have a very nice credit score actually) and it will get removed soon. I actually called the lawyer representing the person that sued me one day, and asked him about it (thats mostly what he does for a living). He said a good percentage of the judgements he wins never get payed, as there is no way to force the loser to cooperate. Maybe its different in other states? If I lost the case, I would basically be like kiss my ass RIAA.
http://music.x757x.org/ - techno dj mixes for your pleasure
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
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Especially when they turn it up to eleven
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
What is his complaint?
Is he upset that he got sued? That it was filed as a John Doe suit? He admits in the article he broke the law, so I don't think he has the right to complain.
Is he upset that his lawyer (whom he did not pay) did not get to speak to lawyer at the RIAA? Doesn't the RIAA have the right to handle their case the way they want do?
Is he upset they sued a lot of people at the same time as him? If it's illegal, say so and fight it. If the other people aren't guilty, let them complain. Otherwise, it sounds like an acceptable legal tactic to me.
Yes, the RIAA has done some things wrong in handling these cases. Originally, they were requesting information without a filing a suit, but they have changed that. Also, they have sued some innocent people, but the writer admits he is not one of those.
He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and doesn't like it. Well, sorry. If he did not want to be sued and pay up he should have not violated the law. He, like everyone else, must face the consequences of their actions.
I don't like the way the RIAA is reacting to digital music, but that does not give me the right to steal music. If you don't think someone is offering their music fairly, then boycott them. That is a time-honored legal method of protesting.
Calling downloading "civil disobedience" is an insult to those, like the civil rights protesters and the protesters in Tiananmen Square, who have used civil disobedience to try to right the wrongs of society. File sharing is stealing to avoid paying the cost, not civil disobedience--it directly benefits the protester. Civil rights protesters did not directly benefit from their protests. The only thing they got was a change in the laws--the whole point of their protest..
If you steal music, then, as a law breaker, what right do you have to complain about the RIAA?
From what I've read of their contracts with artists, the RIAA is probably charging them for the privilege.
100% profit (after lawyer's fees)!
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.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
There is an error in the article:
It should read "uploaders" because copyright prohibits unauthorized distribution. I doubt the RIAA can even find a way to sue downloaders. It is probably impossible because there is no way to prove where a file comes from.However, they try to make "downloading" appear to be criminal in their ad campaigns. It is interesting how great an effect this advertising has had. Even one of their victims cannot tell the difference.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.