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

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.

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...

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: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.

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: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: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.

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

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.