Slashdot Mirror
Another Victim Countersues RIAA Under RICO Act
devnulljapan is one of many users to let us know that another single mother is taking the fight to the RIAA. More than just standing up to them however, Tanya Anderson has decided to go on the offensive and countersue. In a move that aims to put the RIAA on the same level as your average organized crime syndicate the suit identifies violations of the Oregon RICO Act in addition to 'fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.' Ms. Anderson has also demanded a trial by jury.
We're the RIAA. Boo!
This is the case peer-to-peer file sharers have been waiting for.
Is this really true? If you use P2P to share original works of art (nothing is stopping you from doing it) - for instance a personal flickr - or to share legitimate files like Linux distros, why would you really care about someone fighting the RIAA regarding copyright issues? This doesn't really seem like a P2P issue, but rather a copyright infringement issue.
> In a move that aims to put the RIAA on the same level as your average organized crime syndicate
How can you 'put' something where it already is?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It looks like most people were right, people are starting to fight back against the RIAA and sue them for the abuse there dishing out. Its about time too.
The RIAA's mistake is that they have confused "only 1 in 1,000 people will make the effort to stand up to us" with "no one will stand up to us". If they'd sued 1 person with those odds, there would be very little chance of adverse consequences. But they sued 10s of 1000s of people, so those rare 1 in 1000 individuals are becoming a real pain ;-)
Now her's is a cause I can get behind.
And more power to her!
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
Perhaps it should have said 'demote them'.
Anthing which can demote the RIAA down from 'monopoly' to just 'syndicate' level must be good.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
A little of their own medicine. As they say... What goes around comes around. Ain't Karma a bitch! :D
I received one of these letters in the mail, it claimed that I owed $4,583 for having downloaded "Enter Sandman" by Metallica... Well, I've never downloaded that MP3, and I've never even owned a Metallica CD to rip the song from.
Reason: I really don't like Metallica, at all. (simple!)
There is still an outstanding debt to these people, and it's still in collections. I hope she sets a precedent (which involves tying several statutes together) by winning.
In recent weeks I've read more and more about the RIAA and the MPAA. I think they should help the tobacco industry run new campaigns... the tobacco guys could learn a thing or two from these greedies...
My ZooLoo
I wish you success in your endeavor. Hopefully this may slow down the RIAA from rolling over individual rights with big money and poltical clout.
"Saying that Linux is inferior to Windows because more people use Windows is like saying that all restaurants are inferi
FINALLY SOMEONE WITH BALLS.... erm lack thereof? either way its good to finally see the RIAA put into their proper place
What day is it? Could you please tell me?
There was another case last year in which an individual fought back against the RIAA. That case quietly went away, and there was no mention of a settlement. Please MAKE SOME NOISE about this case! Let the public see the tangled web of lies the recording industry has cast, and make sure that records of this case remain open for reference by all of the future victims they will undoubtably harrass and intimidate in their efforts to regain lost revenue from their failing business practices.
In an age when the common people are routinely intimidated and threatened by corporations whom they cannot possibly afford to face in a court of law, one can't help but believe that justice is dead.
The good thing is that this person finally stood up, and is taking them on, but i cant help but feel sorry for her because of all the legal fees and the problems that she's going to take on.
So, Screw the RIAA in the first place, and hopefully this case will put the RIAA in its place; which is of course stealing money from artists, not the fans too.
Great news! It's about time somebody steped up the fight against the RIAA. Lets hope more people follow.
However, I have some serious doubts about the accusation of invasion of privacy and computer tresspass standing up in court... From what I understand, the RIAA isnt actually hacking into your computer to see what you sharing, they are simply using the same filesharing tools you are using to check out what your sharing. There is no tresspass involved, as far as I can see. And the privacy charge goes out the window because you are openely sharing the files for anybody who wants to see them, including the RIAA.
"Under RICO", a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes--27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes--within a 10-year period and (in the opinion of the U. S. Attorney bringing the case) has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages."
So for everyone in every other state in the Union, sue away!
Based on a quick perusal of TFA, Ms Andersen seems to have a good case. If the facts are accurate as stated, and unless RIAA is crazy, this will surely get settled out of court. A secret settlement for a million dollars would be better than what might happen to RIAA is this goes forward.
we've had our eye on your for some time now.
*DrugCheese rants*
Is there any way to help her? Maybe a fund for her legal team? Or just a place to send her well wishes?
From the looks things, the RIAA should have hired better crackers to break into people's computers. Seems they've been caught.
Oh well, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime...
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
What exactly is this company/software - and how do they go about hacking into your computer?
Seems like most of the non-casual downloaders would have enough security (firewall - router, etc) to prevent most attempts.
(apparently, not everybody knows that distributing music for which you haven't obtained a license is subject to civil damages, and in certain cases is a criminal offense.)
How about some decent articles please on really important issues.
:)
Sorry...this is Slashdot. All we do here is bash Windows, glorify Linux, and vent about the RIAA.
I personally would care, because it doesn't matter you're using P2P for legal purposes. The RIAA seems more interested in the fact that it possible to use it for illegal ones. Even if it's hopeless, it's still nice to see someone stand up against that type of blanketing view.
Why?
RIAA wants P2P networks shutdown due to these copyright issues.
Universities and other organizations block P2P because of these same copyright issues, under pressure from lawsuit threats by the RIAA.
===
The RIAA is a threat to P2P, even if you are just sharing original works of art.
Legal users may not have as much of an interest in seeing RIAA get a punch to the kidneys, but there is still some cause for interest, I'd say.
[Legal uses of P2P filesharing are an innocent bystander, but they still will get gunned down with illegals]
(( this coming from someone who had his access removed at a university for sharing the Project Gutenberg DVD on eDonkey ))
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
I am sorry you are modded troll. But I do agree with you. Unfortunately everyone doesn't agree. Everyone wants free, as in beer
Ooops sorry .... my mistake : Mod parent up please ;)
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
I'd be interested in seeing what evidence you have that shows that she did infact download copyrighted songs. She claims that she "has never downloaded or distributed music online."
FTA: "No downloading or distribution activity was ever actually observed. None ever occurred." Now you may not believe her, but it certainly isn't black and white as you make it out to be.
Reality test... am I dreaming?
Some of this appears to be crap, or at least just lawyers playing hardball. She claims that there was no such material on her computer, and that the RIAA broke into the computer to locate such material. The first
may be true - it may be a genuine mistake, but the second argument I really doubt. I believe that the RIAA does not do any more than search public P2P search engines for their copyrighted content, and her argument that this searching is trespass to chattels is nonsense.
That being said, I would blame her lawyer, not her personally. But still, it's hard to know how seriously the RICO allegations should be taken, or whether they're just a way to make the case a pain for the RIAA.
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that her last name is Anderson?
This isn't applicable to the RIAA sueing people who haven't downloaded music
Besides Record companies are just experencing a Laffer curve due to their greed. How come price gouging on oil is illegal but it's not illegal for music?
Good luck I suppose is in order.
While we may all feel that the RIAA has all all the trappings and actions of the Soprano crew, somehow I don't think that particular claim is going to wash with the the courts. On the other hand, it is out of the books of law enforcement in terms of hitting the accused with a large number of charges, most of which get thrown out, but some stick. Enough to make it worthwhile to go to court. This is a civil case, but the idea is the same.
The interesting thing to me is that is a sign of the RIAA cases startng to get out-of-hand from the RIAA's point of view. People are counter-suing, and now with omnibus claims. Rather than backing down against their legal might, some people are starting to fight back and they run the case of making sympathetic figures of those they are going after and making themselves out to be bad guys to the general public. Up to now, all the publicity in the mainstream has gone for the most part, the RIAA's way. This type of thing if it continues can harden the general public against the RIAA making their present tactics counter-productive. And as a by-product, can make it harder to find sympathetic jurors and judges to their cause.
The big fear I would have if I were the RIAA, is that sooner or later unless they change tactics, they could face class action lawsuits.
This is a nice shot across the bow of the RIAA.
I can't find the pay pal link to contribute to the effort.
Couldn't that be construed as a violation of DMCA? And while we're at it, who gave MediaSentry the authority to conduct an electronic wiretap?
I sincerely hope that Ms. Andersen's countersuit is successful and MediaSentry is forced out of business as a result of the damages awarded.
Yes which is why I don't, I pay for my downloads if I do them which is rarely since I don't see why Apple/Napster or the record companies get to say what I do with that file as long as I don't use it illegally. I will pay £0.99 for an mp3 quite happily, I will very rarely and very grudgingly pay £0.99 for a DRM-crippled song. That is my objection to the record companies' heavy-handedness. I'm not a criminal, I'm a customer and as such should be treated as someone who pays their wages.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
everybody might know that..
but they if riaa can't show to everyone that's what she did then it's just bullying with mass and fear.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
May the force be with you lady!
is that in this litigious society such as ours, nobody sued before with the hopes of getting rich quick the easy way.That is suing a large corparation and hoping they'll settle out of court.
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
Are you new here? RIAA and MS Bashing are staples of /.! Without those articles no one would post a thing, and poor Cmdr Taco would go bankrupt ;)
Look up "fair use" on Copyright. There are instances where you can download music without violating copyright. There are also works that can be considered public, so no permission is needed. People have been doing this with other forms of music distribution for years, and some studies show "illegal" downloading actually increases Sales. The RIAA hasn't gone after those! Of course they are now threatening the #1 Legit Source of Downloads (iTunes) since iTunes won't charge more than 99 cents/song. It's illegal in many cases but what the RIAA is can also be considered illegal. Sometimes to make changes happen you have to play outside the "rules". If everyone was so concerned about the rules all the time, there would have been no Boston Tea Party and so on..
Ah but you must remember that this is the United States, and the truth has no bearing on the legal process. Despite that her arguement is all wrong, and has major flaws if he gets a jury trial that means that we will have twelve luddites trying to solve technical support issues between an evil corporate interest and Holly homemaker, all she has to do is wear a revealing house coat and she will win. If th lawsuit was concerned about the truth, or for that matter if any lawsuits were concerned about the truth would the IBM~SCO thing had lasted as long as it did? This is th US, anyone can sue anyone and everyone for any reason just because they feel the inkling to do so, didn't you see that South Park episode? Oh well, I am ranting... Jeffy
Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
I have an idea to get the RIAA to shut up...
:D
Maybe we should contact the Iranian Hackers Sabotage (based on this) and have them hack the RIAA web site...
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
RICO should be easily recognized by programmers. A RICO crime is like an array of individual crimes. It's the more manageable collection structure, both for racketeers racking up crimes into organzied crime businesses, and for prosecutors targeting them with evidence of those crimes. It's like the inverse of a "class action suit", which itself should be familiar to object-oriented programmers. With the law reinventing various programming patterns, how long will it be before we can submit new laws to a "justice compiler" to test whether it will execute? Something like a lintian "constitutionality validator"?
--
make install -not war
The RIAA's going to have to walk carefully in the middle of a road between suing people who are judgement proof, but who might receive pro bono representation and suing the rich or connected who can afford to fight. Anything that throws a monkey wrench in their efforts to maintain their distribution monopoly is a good thing.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
I am not sorry about being modded troll. Trolls are scary little individuals with thier own opinions unlike the group think that is observed quite pointadly here on slashdot. I haven't achieved a -1 troll for a long time so it is kind of a trophy. Please don't mod me up and ruin my day ;)
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
The real way is for someone who hasn't been accused of downloading to sue the RIAA on racketeering charges. That way you're only dealing with the music industry's business practices and not the fact that x person has downloaded music.
Fuck Yes!
But after reading the article, it sounds like many of the complaints would fit really well as a class action lawsuit representing everyone threatened by the RIAA. Maybe it wouldn't be as strong of a case, but if it were strong enough, I'm sure a class action could go after enough money to actually hurt the RIAA.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
How come price gouging on oil is illegal but it's not illegal for music?
Probably because we haven't had any large-scale panic-buying of CDs.
Like there's a GOOD week to be an RIAA exec. :)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
RICO statute and trial by Jury is the right way to do this. She just needs the money to sustain the effort. Please put up a paypal or another donation account so we can help.
This was about time. Why should the RIAA be treated differently than any other organized crime syndicate? It is good to see that finally someone has the guts to assert his rights and to do something about the RIAA and their practices of intimidation, extorsion, etc.
Damn! What some single mothers won't go thru just to ensure a steady supply of scammed porn...
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
...and all the other usual comments. The RIAA has a justifiable right to attempt to protect the intellectual property of those who assign them duty to do so. They are of course their own worst enemy. Like someone whose white Plymouth Reliant was stolen then going out, breaking down the doors of, and shooting, anyone who happens to own a white Plymouth Reliant. Way to go about things the right way people.
At the rate the RIAA and MPAA are going they will manage to set enough precedent to totally invalidate all copyright laws everywhere and cause world governments to start all over again.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Couldn't that be construed as a violation of DMCA?
Breaking into computers in order to spy on people is not a violation of the DMCA; it's a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (as it says right in the article).
And while we're at it, who gave MediaSentry the authority to conduct an electronic wiretap?
There's no evidence that they conducted anything resembling a wiretap, nor is there evidence that they broke into any computer. That's not how these P2P monitoring companies generally work (since it's so obviously illegal). They just observe which IP addresses are sharing which files. That's not a wiretap.
The RIAA's lawsuits are bad, but this countersuit appears to be overreaching in the opposite direction.
RIAA sues you!!!!
Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
Hopefully the industry will get bitch-slapped by this. If this lady were to win, then people the RIAA has "successfully sued" might ban together and sue the RIAA. It could potentially get really messy for the RIAA.
The industry basically needs to realize that their products are too expensive, and that the quality is not as good. They need to really get behind the legal download model, such as iTunes rather than making innuendos about "decapiting" it.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
I've heard Fraud isn't Fraud unless it's investigated. Who investigates RIAA practices? All the cases have been corporate layers versus starving students. The student is usually getting sued for 6x to 100x tuition they cannot afford in every case, I think there is something worth investigating there. I even heard that the RIAA attempts to recruit the student to pay off their debt.
If the songs she had on her computer were actual songs she owned the cd's of, she's safe. Also, if she had her P2P software set so that it wouldn't allow uploads (and therefore not show what songs she had), and they still found out, then they're in trouble.
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
The list of charges is quite long, and not a few will stick, most importantly the trespass to chattels and quite possibly barratry.
However you can firget about a case defining trial. The RIAA will simply settle, as they have forced others to settle, therby bypassing the entire justice system and leaving P2P eternally ambiguous.
May the Maths Be with you!
The brief never specified whether or not she had a P2P client installed, but my impression was that she didn't. In that case, it is invasion of privacy, because unless she happens to have her hard drive shared across the internet (not quite sure how you would do that...) it's not publicly available. I'm just glad somebody's finally fighting back. It sounds like the RIAA has a whole system set up specifically for getting money out of people, regardless of whether they have proof of sharing or not.
The only way to tell the difference between a hamster and a gerbil is that the hamster has more white meat.
Someone didn't "upload" music that wasn't theirs. What MP3.com did was take advantage of the Right to format shift, starting a music locker service that worked like this: a user put a legit CD in their CD-ROM and it "beamed" the music to the locker in MP3 format. Now what they actually did was buy a ton of CDs and rip them to MP3, so that users only had to have access to a real cd to instantly get access to the exact same songs in MP3 format. To that end, MP3.com went to great lengths to make sure what they were doing was legal to begin with...and remember, it is legal to format shift AND the user had to have a real, physical CD of the same music to access the service (at which point they could have just ripped it to MP3 to begin with).
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
"This is the case peer-to-peer file sharers have been waiting for. Tanya Andersen, a 41 year old disabled single mother living in Oregon..." or "5. Tanya Andersen is a 42-year-old single mother of an eight-year-old daughter living in Tualatin, Oregon. Ms. Andersen is disabled and has a limited income from Social Security." Which is it?
It was called 1952 - 2000.
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
There's an old saying that says pretty much whatever you want it to.
Sounds like others should join this one and turn it into a class action suit.
I feel sorry for the RIAA. There is no way in hell for them to win this one.
What is a 9 digit Internet Protocol Address (IPA)?
Law.com is reporting that MP3.com has filed a malpractice lawsuit again Cooley Godward , a law firm, alleging that it was responsible for allowing MP3.com to launch and subsequently be sued for copyright infringement by giving bad advice on the legality of My.MP3.Com ( MP3.com Sues Cooley Over Legal Advice ). The charges are quite loaded, alleging that Cooley was basically inept their legal analysis of fair use and other copyright doctrines, and perhaps even misrepresented to MP3.com about expert testimony the Cooley firm had secured.
This isn't a small lawsuit either. MP3.com wants $175
Ron Paul
Booyah, Grandma! Booyah!
Any way we can help?!?
This sig intentionally left blank.
The fact that an organization so huge could be so incompetent is mind-boggling.
It is a criminal enterprise that threatens to extort money from its own customers. Moreover there is self admitted collusion in this enterprise.
What good is a trial by jury if you are unable ... to speak?
You know it makes sense, a little reminder from jointm1k.
Everyone also knows that smoking weed is illegal yet there are forums around with people actively supporting such an action. So what's the problem?
Offering the RIAA a chance to settle for only $6,000.
Is Ms. Anderson the One?
[Insert pithy quote here]
If what she claims is true, i.e. that Media Sentry broke into her computer to snoop around, then THEY are guilty of copyright infringement whenever they opened one of her files and had it sent over the network for inspection!
Are you kidding? There are probably thousands of lawyers that want a piece of RIAA and will take the case for no cost (unless they win)...
RIAA Agent Smith: Tell me, Ms. Anderson... what good is a phone call...if you're unable to speak?
//had to. shoot me now.
-- often wrong; never in doubt
Dear Friend,
RIAA
I am Mr.Mitch Bainwol, Chairman And CEO, Recording Industry Association of America. I have an important business proposition for you.
On October 02nd, 2005, a person using your internet connection downloaded "Enter Sandman" by Metallica from edonkey.com, valued at US$ 4,583 (Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eight Tree Dollars only) according to my collegue Mr Ran Dom Guess.
It is no secret that the intellectual property assets of our nation are under assault, as never before. That is why we support S. 2560, an effective, bipartisan bill drafted by Senators Hatch and Leahy and introduced only a few weeks ago. Our bill... erm I mean their bill is aimed at ensuring the vibrancy of both our creative community and our technology community.
I therefore made further investigation and discovered your contact details and that you did not pay for the music you download. The sum of US$ 4,583 is still waiting to arrive in my Bank and the interest is being rolled over with the principal sum at the end of each year. We will never stop coming forward to claim it. According to inheritance Laws that we are currently paying to have created, the money you owe will transfer to the debt ownership of any of your dependants upon your death whether this is due to us or some other fortunate reason. If it is due to us then we will add our costs onto our claim.
Consequently, my proposal is that **YOU WILL PAY US NOW BITCH OR ELSE** so that the fruits of your theft will not get into the hands of some other corrupt music thief. This is simple, I will like you to provide immediately your full names and address and the full names and addresses of any of your friends so that the attorney will prepare the necessary documents and affidavits that will put you in place as the person who is paying us the US$ 4,583 owned.
We shall employ the services of an attorney for drafting and notarization of your WILL and to obtain the necessary documents and letter of probate/administration in your favor for the transfer. The money will be paid into our account for us to share in the ratio of 60% for me and 5% for Metallica and 30% for Expenses Incurred in the course of our transaction .
There is no risk at to us as all the paperwork for this transaction will be done your attorney at your cost and with my position as the CEO at RIAA guarantees the successful execution of this transaction. If you are interested in staying alive, please reply immediately to my private email box : mitchthemoneycollectingbitch@riaa.com
Upon your response, I shall then provide you with more details and relevant documents that will help you how you can stay alive. You should observe utmost confidentiality, and rest assured that this transaction would be most
profitable for us because I shall require your assistance to invest some of my share to further government bribes.
Awaiting your urgent reply.
Thanks sucker and regards.
Mitch Bainwol
Tip: What the RIAA is doing is legal.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
- Well documented widespread use of drugs among execs and performers
- Alleged extensive use of bribery to ensure air time
- Women singers expected to look like prostitutes
- Male performers expected to look like and behave like violent criminals
- Large output of music advocating abuse of women, carrying and use of guns to settle disputes, drug taking and attacks on police.
In what way are the members of the RIAA NOT like organised criminal and racketeers?Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
For all that is wrong with court, it can be a good way to ask your enemies questions so that they have to answer.
Indeed. They will have to explain in a non-technical way to the judge that they did not in fact "enter" the computer, but only gathered some information floating around on the internet relating an IP address (which purportedly identifies Ms. Anderson) to certain (descriptions of) copyright-protected files. In doing so their case against Ms. Anderson will hopefully fall apart, which would be a great service to P2P IF the case ends up in the relevant case law search engines.
At least not since Micheal Jackson's legal problems started.
Hey,
............
I'm anti-american and a terrorist but I think file sharing is ok as long as it is good wholesome music. None of that slutty Britney stuff. I like metallica but they are posers. All angry for show but would never be seen dead in a explosive vest. ( Get it dead in an explosive vest ) Oh well! Definately gotta go with trial by jury though. They will never bring out the juicy stuff they have on you in public. It's your only chance to avoid G-Bay once they get you. Go Go GPL. BTW the koran is open source or creative commons, gotta check that one. Stallmans coming over for tea so we will thrash that out. Keep rockin the free world. I'm with you man. Gotta run, I hear choppers
kisses Osama
However you can firget about a case defining trial. The RIAA will simply settle, as they have forced others to settle, therby bypassing the entire justice system and leaving P2P eternally ambiguous.
Her lawyer might convince her to stick it out through trial. True, the RIAA may offer up a carrot for a settlement. But if the woman and her lawyer think that the RIAA can get spanked for big punitive damages (or if she is in pursuit of justice more than cash), then there is nothing to stop this from going to trial.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
From the linked article:
Ms. Anderson's suit contends that the use of MediaSentry amounted to electronic trespass. She also points out that she had taken steps to protect herself from unwanted intrusions. Is contravening an electronic security measure not illegal under the DMCA?
I don't care why you're posting AC
This is an example of what to expect if we let the Government aggregate various sources of data on the people, both from their own records and from private companies via "patriotic" and "for safety" laws.
Couple this massive database with the phenomenon of law enforcement favoring the more "profitable" side (traffic tickets, etc), which probably leaves less personnel for the parts involving heavy thinking, I expect that a lot of the research process for narrowing down (or indeed, generating) suspect lists will happen in the computer. Which, I should remind you, "does not lie".
Not to mention the obvious possibility of blanket application of "the law" via simple matches in a database, kind of what RIAA is doing currently. Only that when the government does it, there will be much less recourse, what with the imposed gags, secrecy and unaccountability they seek.
The RIAA might try plea-bargaining, but they can't settle the case out of court. Or, they might get a friendly judge to dismiss the case.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
no one has been sued or extorted for downloading anything, its the uploading part.
please get this upload/download problem fixed in your vocabulary.
upload = sending
download = recieving
...is that the USA has "the finest government money can buy" and congress has completely ignored these orwellian lawsuits. bought and sold to the RIAA.
IMHO congress should set a cap of $10 per incident or something along those lines.
Bah, I see the RIIA taking people to court, trying to shut down P2P, as a means of keeping control of the market. Let's say people have an opportunity to check the contents of a CD before they buy it..... If there is 1 good song on it, would you at all bother to buy the CD? I wouldn't. But if the CD was great I'd buy it in a heartbeat! Same goes for movies. As to the case at hand, you go girl, teach them a lesson about the power of the little woman against the big moneygrubbing bastards!
The Euclidean path integral over all topologically trivial metrics can be done by time slicing and so is unitary when an
I called this over two years ago.
6 062
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77984&cid=692
I should be a lawyer.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I've been thinking for ages that the RIAA should be sued for Electronic Theft/Illegal access. I hope this pans out, and the RIAA's practice of tracking users. I strongly suspect that they use trojans/viruses as a means of "obtaining" IP addresses, will be brought into the legal spotlight. Sorry, no links but if someone finds some good info, let me know :)
Furtehrmore, the RIAA has repeatedly attempted to force ISP's to drop PAID user connections to 0 upload - which sounds a lot like M$'s monopoly practices:( http://www.charter.com/help/RIAA.aspx )
Ms. Anderson is one of the mothers previously mentioned who is taking a stand against the RIAA. (Slashdot article, direct link) She was sued by the RIAA, and after offering up her computer to their investigators and explainging that she did not and could not have shared those file, the suit was dropped, only to picked up a short time later by another member of the RIAA.
From the article:
"I have the least expensive computer system you can buy from Dell. The type you order off television for $499.00. It was purchased in the summer of 2002 and has the smallest hard drive they make. I have no cd writer on it and the cd-rom that I do have, does not even work correctly.
"I live alone with my 8-year-old daughter (who would have been seven at the time the alleged occurrence took place). I am a single mom who is disabled and unable to work. I live on Social Security disability and struggle to support my daughter and myself. If I am put in a position where I need to defend myself regarding this situation, it would create extreme financial hardship on me. I have no money and did not do what is being said. I also must admit that all this stuff that has been occurring with this whole ordeal has triggered my medical condition to flare lately.
"I have always been against music downloading. In fact, I have been a member of BMG's music club for quite some time and I purchase my music either from there or from Target. When I first got my computer set up almost three years ago, I had a friend set it up for me since I did not know how to do it. She had put Kaaza Lite on there and told me what it was. I never used it and had no interest in doing so. I deleted it since I had no use for it. Even though I deleted it correctly, as is recommended by Microsoft, Mr. Eilers has told me it can hide out in my system and play without me knowing about it. I have done a total check
of my computer and it is no where on there.
"These files you are speaking accusing me of sharing (which Mr. Eiler told me about), are not and never have been on my computer system. Several of those artists, I have never even heard of! One, I understand, is a rap song. I am 42-years-old and do not even like rap music. The login that this person who did this apparently used, which Mr. Eiler told me of, is not a login name I have ever used or heard of.
"There is no one at my household who could have done what is being said at all. Mr. Eiler had brought up the fact that maybe a babysitter could have done it and that is impossible because I seldom have a sitter since I can't afford to pay one and am usually home."
I'm not saying that this particular woman is wrong. I'm not saying that I like current copyright law. (The terms should not be effectively permanent, and the rights of first use, personal use, and first sale have been eroded way too much.) I just think it's way too easy to go with the Slashdot groupthink effect and say "RIAA sucks."
Find free books.
100% true. Anybody can send you a "bill." Happens all the time, and there's nothing you can really do about it, unless they either
a) sue you, in which case you can defend yourself and/or countersue,
or
b) report you to a credit agency, in which case you can sue them for damaging your credit.
But, by and large, a bill/receipt, unless it's been acknowledged by the debtor, is just a piece of paper.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
I thought you could only demand a trial by jury under criminal cases, not civil cases... or is this a criminal case?
Your Rights Online: Another Victim Countersues RIAA Under RICO Act
Okay, right from the start, the headline is an editorial via the use of the term "victim."
from the racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-organizations dept.
This is rather self-explanatory. Despite Slashdot calling for the RIAA to go after individual infringers back during the Napster lawsuit, Slashdot has done a 180 and is against that now, using anti-capitalist rhetoric to avoid discussing the issues of music piracy. You scapegoat "greedy corporations" with non-specific accusations in order to distract from discussing the artists not getting paid.
devnulljapan is one of many users to let us know that another single mother is taking the fight to the RIAA. More than just standing up to them however, Tanya Anderson has decided to go on the offensive and countersue.
Okay, this is reasonably neutral, although the "standing up to them" phrase is questionable. The RIAA did what it is legally entitled to do; go after infringers of its copyright that it found on the P2P networks. Again, CmdrTaco and company were supporting this idea back in 2000.
In a move that aims to put the RIAA on the same level as your average organized crime syndicate the suit identifies violations of the Oregon RICO Act in addition to 'fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.' Ms. Anderson has also demanded a trial by jury.
This is the kicker. "Average organized crime syndicate" is so blatantly over the top that the obvious intent is to stir the hornet's next of pro-piracy advocates on Slashdot (which has become P2P piracy central in the past couple of years) to generate page hits.
These kinds of skewed posts, with obvious propaganda and rhetoric, are what paints Slashdot in a poor light and keeps it from being taken seriously as more than a niche geek site with very rigid agendas and a strict groupthink policy, which goes like this:
1.) Everything Google does is newsworthy and good
2.) Everything Microsoft does is newsworthy but bad
3.) Any attempt by the RIAA in any way, shape, or form to protect its copyright is an infringement on the natural rights given by the Creator of a person to pirate stuff without having to pay for it
4.) Violating the copyright of the GPL is "stolen code" that the EFF should pursue legally, going after individual infringers
5.) Linux on the desktop will take off real soon, promise
"Sufferin' succotash."
If the federal DA's in the US weren't corrupt, they'd have investigated and prosecuted this long before it had affected this many people. The behavior on the part of the RIAA is so worthy of a RICO investigation it is disgusting.
There are many bigwigs in the music and film industry who deserve a nice long prison sentence for this extortion campaign. I'd rather see them in jail than Gotti Jr.
The RIAA invades private home computers? Since when is montoring net traffic an actual invasion of a home?
Think about it.
A world where copying is all legal, is it really that bad?
Think of all the derivative works that are now illegal and could be created. Of all the developers and artists liberated from the financial instutitions as they crash, and starting to compete on artistic grounds alone...
Before reading the statements I thought, ok, single mother, it's possible she doesn't know what her kid was doing with their PC, then I saw 8yr old and 4:24am. There's no way an 8yr old is going to be up after 4am.
"10. When Ms. Andersen contacted Settlement Support Center, she was advised that her personal home computer had been secretly entered by the record companies' agents, MediaSentry."
15. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained, however, that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit their debt collection activities because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies' claims.
This is assuming all her statements are true and what she claims the RIAA agents said is also true.
It would be nice for her if she recorded her calls, after telling them she was recording it, to the RIAA Collection Center, I mean "Settlement Support Center" and getting their statements in writing couldn't hurt.
She claims to not like "gangster rap" and that MediaSentry, oh look we finally have a name for the IP bounty hunters, hacked/secretly entered her computer. So do the files exist on her computer or not? If she has no interest in it then the files should not be there unless downloaded by some spyware they infected her with or the files don't exist and MediaSentry lied and made up the list. And they tell her that even though they believe she is innocent they cannot drop the case because it would be an admission of error, either way it doesn't look good for the RIAA.
And what's with IP address being IPA? IP=Internet Protocol NOT Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property = Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property != IP! greedy bastards
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
haha i love #37
"37. The record companies have falsely represented and pleaded that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen's alleged downloading and distribution of copyrighted audio recordings. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment...."
that looks like something i have seen before... oh now i know it was on one of those day time talk shows like jerry springer...
(yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
The MORE people that sue RIAA the better!!
Come on, you don't think that the statement "legalized extortion" isn't inflammatory?
And you don't think accusing someone for downloading music who hasn't isn't inflammatory?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Death To women's Rights
:). I'm sure she's extorting money from her husband via childsupport and alimony... yet now she complains that others are doing the same to her?
Hope the bitch gets what's handed to her.
(note: above sentance doesn't really say anything, but there is no doubt that the woman is a feminist pro-women's rights whore... they all are today, really).
Oh and the single mom should be tried for adultery and stoned to death like they did in the good old days
Bitch who should be shot.
Death To women's Rights.
...if she won the case, but if I had it I'd be willing to bet several thousand dollars that she won't. If one of President "Damn it Feels Good to be a Gangster" Bush's friends on the bench is presiding over the case, she's got no chance. That's what got Microsoft off in the end...the case against them was dropped around five minutes after Bush got elected.
People can forget about any successful criminal cases being brought against corporations for as long as Busholini is in office. The judicial branch is almost entirely in his pocket, and they won't allow it.
"Are you some kind of Pokemon that you always have to throw your own name in between paragraphs?" - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02, @04:58PM
That the best you have?
Ahem (cough) ->
"Lame"...
That's right, my opinion of yourself, just as you offered yours to me. I have this right, so do you... but on your end? I'd like a few facts... 1 simple one, ready?
Hey - Do you have a PhD in English to back up your critique of others' writing styles/methods?
NO?? Thought as much...
Above all - Don't like how I write, or what I write?
Hell, don't read it!
(Simple enough?)
APK
P.S.=> Don't bother reply, unless you can produce proof of your PhD in English, ok? Because until you do??
You don't merit enough for me to reply in return... you'll be waiting until the 12th of never for a reply out of me, until you prove you have that PhD in English... & bottom-line?
If you cannot understand what I wrote? Well, maybe YOU have the problem if you cannot draw the meanings of words or sentences via the context wherein which they are used.
All I could say, really, is read THIS post, rinse/wash/repeat, until you supply what I ask for...
Thank-you! apk
You have a problem with authority, Ms. Anderson. You believe you are special, that somehow the rules do not apply to you. Obviously, you are mistaken.
------------------
As you can see, we've had our eye on you for some time now, Ms. Anderson.
There is nothing in any law, copyright or otherwise, that requires you to provide a license to share your own works.
Quite to the contrary: you do not get to pick and choose what people can do with your copyrighted works. If you publish in paper form, there are quite a number of rights you implicitly "license" to your buyers (it's not called a "license" because it's set forth by copyright law, but it amounts to the same thing).
Limewire is certainly in the spirit of that: "if you use this network for distributing your content, you automatically agree to certain terms". That's particularly appropriate because the people paying for the distribution of your content are the people receiving your content.
Granted, they can chose not to use Limewire, but if this catches on in P2P in general then there is little choice left (hence the "slippery slope). I hope it doesn't catch on.
I hope it does. If you want to distribute content under more restrictive licenses, you should bloody well pay for your own bandwidth and not use P2P networks.
She alleges that she has not downloaded any music, but there must've been a reason why they are suing her. I mean, you don't throw down a lawsuit for nothing. Unless MediaSentry secrewed up.
What I want to know is what evidence they found. She's probably guilty of downloading (or someone in her household is), but she's using the system to maneuver out of it because the evidence of her infringement was obtained illegally, and that gets the whole thing thrown out the window.
...I am proof that intelligent beings are not always intelligent...
In the interests of fairness, when I wrote
First you say the money does actually go to the artists, then you make an excuse for why it doesn't. To me, that's not being terribly consistent.
I wasn't responding very well to what you wrote. Rather, what I should have done was point out that there are other reasons besides doing well financially in the deal why artists might sign record label contracts, such as not having much of an alternative in the business.
Kythe
Anyone here illiterate on the issue of the music industry operating like organized crime synicate - needs to pop payola into google - 710,000 entries pop up.
Have you ever heard a slashdotter admit to how badly they are screwing the hundreds of other people besides the band and the bigwigs at RIAA that are involved in making their music? For every band member and CEO, there are countless sound engineers, managers, marketers, designers, etc whose livelyhood is being threatened.
I also get sick of the "new business model crap", unless it is explicitly followed by a suggestion of what business model is going to compete with free music. iTunes et al are drops in an ocean and are not the correct answer to my query.
Quit whining and pay for your music.
I mean at least that's how it is here in canada, every godamn cd we buy there's a charge on for the nice music/movie industry
It's the same in the US, all recordable media that's sold blank has a charge or tax that's supposed to go to entertainment companies. Cassette and vhs tapes as well as cds and I wouldn't be supprised if blank dvds are included. This brings up a question I have. What if you are an artist yourself and you produce all your own stuff, I've met some people that do this, how do you buy media without having to pay the tax? And how can you get a share of the tax?
FalconShould there be a Law?
thanks for being more clear than I was originally...
No prob, I sometymes have a problem in not being clear enough myself.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Is it? And I thought downloading was perfectly legal and uploading (distributing) which was the problem. I think you should contact the RIAA and tell them they've been suing the wrong people!
Also I thought that copyright infringement was a civil matter and therefore not against the law (except under certain special circumstances). But hey - I forgot . . . "Everybody knows . . . etc"
... and this is very important - you have automatic copyright to anything it is declared you have created.
"For example, if you write a poem or a story, and your roommate steals it in the middle of the night, and submits it to a publisher, or takes it to his attourney, he can claim copyright on your work (mostly because there would be no way for you to prove that it was entirely your time and effort that was used to create that work). To establish that it was yours, you would have to provide a legally defined proof (Notary, attourney, respected individual, etc) that you created or held ownership of the work before your roommate stole it."
Which is, I point out, what you just said here.
+++ATH0
The $25,000 may not be a big deal, but that may stop all future lawsuits.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Bzzzzt, wrong. But thanks for playing.
From www.copyright.gov
"Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration."
and if you look at www.copyright.gov/register you'll see that you don't need a laywer, don't need to file a petition, and costs between $30 and $70, depending on what form the work takes. But hey, don't let little things like facts get in the way of your comments you stupid twatwaffle.
--I don't want the world, I just want your half.
Perhaps the best way to fight the RIAA is to use cases like this countersuit.
But let's get serious about this and make some money.
The law firm sets up an web bank account and links to PayPal or some other global small payment funds transfer provider. People who hate the RIAA put up a $1 to this firm's defense fund related to the case. If a million people send a $1 to destroy the RIAA, then there is a million dollars to fight the RIAA. Then the firm countersues for $10,000,000 in damages. If they win and collect, then each person who put in $1 to the defense fund gets $5 from the settlement minus expenses. If the countersuit loses, everyone loses a dollar. But the RIAA is now going up against an organized force that has millions of dollars and a serious desire to destroy them and take their money (and the money of their corporate sponsors). The RIAA will think twice about just randomly selecting people to fuck with.
In the real world, there is no justice and fairness. The only thing that works against a large corporation with a lot of money is an large organization of people who each contribute a small amount of money with the specific purpose of forcing the corporation to back off. (and pay them back for the trouble). Get used to it.
"Ms. Andersen, You've been living a double life. During the day, you're Ms. Andersen, a humble housewife. But during the night, you are known as gotenkito@kazaa.com, a peer to peer downloader. Only one of these lives, Ms. Andersen, has a future."
:D
Now it makes sense! Ms. Andersen is THE ONE!
They only identified the offending IP down to a /24 subnet??
KeS
Considering that the **AA has been taking on "Prove you paid to listen/view this media, or 'accidents' will happen." mob style protection rackets as of late. Only, instead of tossing molatov cocktails into storefronts, they're settling for economically destroying customers for not visiting the storefronts they prefer.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
...just waiting to be made. It would seem to be easy to effectively market one's own recordings of one's own music. Janis Ian is apparently doing good business although she already has a cult appeal to work with, and still isn't exactly hitting the (comparatively) big time. Still, a good living is a good thing, music isn't necessarily an oilwell.
Once you get beyond the basic editorial bias of Slashdot, you'll find even less agreement. Slashdot readers argue about everything. Show me a Slashdot article that didn't receive at least a dozen responses that were contrarian. Seriously. Show me one.
You mention "propaganda and rhetoric" and Slashdot "not being taken seriously as more than a niche geek site with very rigid agendas and a strict groupthink policy."
It's very difficult to send out propaganda via an open discussion forum. The term propaganda implies control of the message. Neither the editors nor the thousands of Slashdot users have control over anything but the expression of their own individual opinions. You're obviously using the more modern, less flattering interpretation of the word rhetoric, which denotes argument that sounds good but is lacking in real content. Individual posts frequently fit that bill, but such individual posts are merely part of an open exchange.
Slashdot is "news for nerds" in case you missed it. The whole idea is that it is a place for geeks to talk about things that are important to geeks. It's not trying to be the next New York Times. As for agendas and groupthink, let's take a look at them:
1.) Everything Google does is newsworthy and good
Newsworthy, yes. Good, not necessarily. Google is a technology company first and foremost, and it's one of the few places where geeks really do run the show. The company has a very bold mission statement that eschews conventional corporatespeak. Google is struggling with the contradictions of power and desire to do the right thing. There's nothing more newsworthy in technology right now that what Google is doing. Look at many of the questions raised by Slashdotters over the last few months, and you'll see that people here are watching closely to see if Google really is doing the right thing. The gestalt view of Google has definitely shifted from one of almost unmitigated adulation to one of cautious optimism. That doesn't seem too doctrinare to me.
2.) Everything Microsoft does is newsworthy but bad
Microsoft has a track record of doing illegal and unethical things. They were caught lying to a federal court, among other things. They are convicted monopolists. Their top managers keep on using phrases like "knife the baby," which only confirm people's suspicions about the underlying culture in Redmond. Every once in a while Microsoft does something that looks great on the surface, but Slashdotters are generally suspicious of these overtures until they're proven to be genuine. Some specific Microsoft products get good press on Slashdot (XBox springs to mind). Plus, there are a fair number of contrarians who like to point out that everything Microsoft does isn't evil.
3.) Any attempt by the RIAA in any way, shape, or form to protect its copyright is an infringement on the natural rights given by the Creator of a person to pirate stuff without having to pay for it
Sorry, but I have to call b.s. there. Every discussion about the RIAA draws heated responses from both sides of the aisle. Most Slashdotters think the RIAA is positively antideluvian in their approach, but beyond that it is very difficult to find common ground on how to deal with the numerous issues surrounding digital music distribution.
4.) Violating the copyright of the GPL is "stolen code" that the EFF should pursue legally, going after individual infringers
Violating the GPL is a violation of a contract not formed under duress. The GPL is not owned by a monopoly. It is not the result of corporate-sponsored legislation. Use of the
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The bigger reason why P2P if banned in universities is simple bandwith cost. At my university, ed2k and kazaa were blocked years before the local organisations started to bitch about piracy, simply because people liked running edonkey on computers with 100mbit connection to the backbone, thus doubling leading to a situation where p2p made up the majority of traffic (with bandwith costs in the 100.000s per month not to neglectable for a smaller university).
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
P2P sharing of copyrighted material has always been an accepted human activity. The RIAA's attempts to convince people otherwise is just a horrible cash grab at the expense of the legal system, and it brings all law into contempt for those who must violate the law to do what they believe is perfectly acceptable. It's prohibition all over again: a bunch of uptight assholes making life miserable for other people and creating an entire society of criminals.
fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.
My god that was beautiful.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
The lawyers representing the RIAA, Shook Hardy & Bacon, ARE the lawyers representing the tobacco companies: http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2005 /07/25/focus1.html
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Wouldn't the appropriate law for judging IP logging be that which regulates pen register orders? http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/views/articles /fellows/2001_swire.htm
Given that this nation has the best legal system that money can buy...she does not have a chance.
Her only option is to get into the court room with a bomb on, and blwo a few people up. It's called open source justice.
Andy Out!
Apparently (according to their website), MediaSentry was just purchased by "SafeNet Inc".
Slashdot has a new quandry -- SafeNet apparently makes Linux products.
But, on the other hand, they have a bunch of software patents (many of which appear to be devoted to doing DRM in hardware).
Good or bad, good or bad...hmm...
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
She's a bitch ass single mother who divorced her husband and is stealing his money via child support and alimony. The best thing you can do is help her into a jail cell.
Movie trading clearly doesn't seem to hurt movie attendance
...is ... independent artists trying to make a name for themselves. In the latter case, file sharing has significantly helped those independent artists"
First, movie trading is still pretty marginal, so its effects will be hard to observe in a vast market. But in any case, movie admissions have been plummeting in the last year, so at least at face value, it DOES seem that pirating is hurting the movie business. Of course, correlation is not causation, but it is evidence.
making the MPAA's little pseudo-PSA showing the person behind the popcorn counter utterly silly (since those folks will be employed as long as the theater doesn't completely go out of business).
Do you think a movie theatre has as many employees on staff on Wednesday as Saturday? Sorry, Charlie, but attendance affects employment. "the vast majority of time in recording studios
You are now confusing legal and illegal file sharing. There are many ways a small, unknown band can use file-sharing to gain some traction. This does not usually mean that they let all of their music be copied for free.
And that's really the problem with the RIAA's claims. For every sale that they claim was lost, someone else can claim with just as much validity that they gained sales because people heard music they otherwise would not have.
That is a wonderful argument for giving away sample tracks or 30-second snippets - not your whole album. Either way, the choices belong to the band, not pirates.
"Msssssss. Annnnnderssssssonnnn!"
;-)
Had to say it
Why do people on /. think the RIAA will lose this. The system is stacked against people. The majority of people do not care about P2P and who the RIAA is suing. The copyright laws have been rewritten in favor of the publishing industry (music, movie & paper) consistently for the last 30 years. WHY? Because they have most of the money and power. This is not a big deal to most of Americans. They are more interested in making a living, raising their kids, the war in Iraq. If you did a poll, most people would be more interested in if gay marriages will be legalized or not.
Even if this lady wins, they will fight this until they get a judge who they may have had a hand in appointing. It is only the first trial that get a jury. The rest of the appeals will be by judges only. Since most of these judges are appointed and not elected, their only not worried about what the public thinks.
The only way to win this is at the ballot box. Since this will not be an issue for the majority of Americans, it will be never come out in publics favor.
Hell, why take the chance... go get a CD or DVD at the Libaray and rip it... Borrow from your friends... Much safer ways to pirate than P2P... and the **AA can't trace it.
NOW... with this in mind, we all know that P2P is a great distribution system. The **AA should be concerning themselves with the hosting and tracking sites, not the users, and only after VERIFYING that the files WERE illegal... Let the technology be seen as it is, a tool that can be used for good or bad, depending on the people... This petty sh*$ that they are engaged in will only lead to the people "revolting" and thier eventual downfall...
Alas, like so many others, they would rather ban P2P, like guns and knives... But why not ban cars? Cars kill more than guns or knives...
Keep in mind that "loser pays" can bite you in the ass - if you sue Proctor & Gamble or GE or Ford over a faulty product... and you LOSE. They will send you an absolutely ruinous bill for their expensive corporate lawyers. This would have a chilling effect inhibiting citizen lawsuits against corporations. As it is, the worst off you will be is having to pay your own lawyers (who may work cheap or pro bono for a noble cause, or for a % of the settlement).
Freedom: "I won't!"
Finally, someone in this thread who knows what they're talking about. The music industry contains some of the most asinine contracts, hands down. (second only to cell phone contracts perhaps)
That looks a lot like an admission of illegal hacking activity to me. Isn't that classified as terrorism these days?? Maybe Ms Andersen should be engaging Homeland Security to harass the record companies...
mod parent up
whoever moderated this offtopic, I am sorry but you're an idiot. what RIAA is doing today demonstrates what the government will likely do tomorrow, if you prefer to narrow down your perspective to see just the piracy/sharing issue, so be it.
I did rtfa, and didn't see a single mention of the E.F.F. I have supported them in the past, and will again. I hope someone else will bring this to their attention. I have oft noted they don't just notice one voice.
Someone please mod this shit down. He ripped off the comment #6 from the article. Do the mods even attempt to RTFA anymore before modding? Come on people.
Think OJ.
I dunno, I seem to remember a couple Slashdot stories about this quite awhile ago...
The RIAA (or MPAA? both?) tried to pass a law to make it legal for them to hack into the computers of copyright violators in order to delete the copyrighted content. I don't think this passed, but maybe I'm wrong. Would you seriously believe, however, that deleing a few files would be all the RIAA would do if they had control of your computer and suspected you (or not) of illegally possessing their copyrighted material?
It surely does reveal that their current modus operandi had been in planning since even way back then. They probably realized that the whole hacking into people's computers bit was the weak link and tried to strengthen it by getting a law that would make the music industry more powerful than the CIA.
Most bands get their money from touring. The entrance fee, the t-shirts and assorted commerical wares. They get shit crumbs from the record company. Only with huge bands like Metalica that have power to make demands and who sell a fuckload of albums anyway does piracy really matter for.
You should read this article from Maximum Rock'n'Roll, written by a very insightful music industry producer. Please do read it and tell me your thoughts are. You can call me Mr. Gray if you want to reference me specifically.
You really need not stop listening to music all together, there are plenty of non-RIAA labels out there. Epitaph is a big one, they are mostly punk stuff, but there are independent labels for most types of music. Just do a little research.
A blog about stuff.
Rico ?! is it like uncle Rico ? do you get sent back to 1982 ?!
Just to highlight how shafted record artists are, if our jobs were the same as record artists jobs, in the interview we'd be promised million dollar salaries, but at the start of our job after we'd signed, we would be bought a new computer, desk, chair and stapler and be told we wouldn't be paid any salaries until you made enough money for the company to pay these off. Our company would spend millions of dollars promoting us, this too would need to be paid off by us before we got paid (we would have no control over how much was spent on marketing). Other departments within the company would also take their cut from your pay for doing their jobs, like HR and Administration and IT. We would have to work for at least 2 years for the company and could not leave, until we stopped making money for the company and would not have our contract renewed and be unable to find a job anywhere else.
(And you'd think there'd be a law against fabricating "debt" against people, especially where the situation is disputed).
There are laws against fraudulent misrepresentation in most countries.
bands, who make what little money they do from their gigs, not their CDs.
Different models will work for different bands, and it is up to them to decide what is the best way to attract an audience and for them to make a living.
In any case, we are again talking about marginal stuff. Most of the stuff flying around EDonkey and Kazaa is not your local band, it is Britney.
Just curious, from personal experience half the stuff available on P2P networks now ends up being pr0n, no matter what one was actually trying to download. Does anyone know if the RIAA actually has to verify if the file is indeed a proper mp3? Could I just create goatse clips set to the proper file size and name them 'top40hitz.mp3' wait to get sued, and sue back for slander. Would I get to present goatse's ass as evidence in court?
Im.
... this
So the specifics will probably reveal themselves when the time comes. Although, seeing as CD sales are actually going up in the US and UK, the biggest music markets, it doesn't look like the industry is hurting much at all. Despite the "pirate scare", people are still buying loads of music.
Anyway, specifics?
An artist can make money in different ways. People are still willing to pay for music even though it can be downloaded for free, so that's one way. The artist can also go on tour and do concerts, and make money that way too. You can also sell t-shirts, and whatever other items you might want to offer to your fans.
So there's no shortage of ways to make money. Maybe the music industry as we know it will die, but music won't go away, and artists will still be able to make money, even without selling music directly.
My guess is that the music will be a way to do marketing for a band. The music attracts fans, who in turn will go to concerts, buy stuff, and so on. The band can of course offer CDs or DVDs for sale, or even digital music, perhaps with special offers for people who pay for the music.
The business is not the hard part. The hard part is killing the current music industry and replacing it with something else. It'll take time to do.
Clever signature text goes here.
I will try my best to never buy another sony product. To the best of my knowledge I haven't given them a thin dime in 5+ years. I would rather give philips more $$ than I would have given to $ony even if sony products are better.
The only sony product in my home is a Sun Microsystems monitor with a sony tube which I bought at an auction several years ago, so even then they didn't get a dime from me.
Bottom Line: If you're gonna talk the talk, walk the walk. Vote with your $$
Who will guard the guards?
could the Agent model could explain the difference of interest between the "artist" and the Record Company? It has been known for years that the interest , motives , goals of the shareholders and their agent the Chairman/CEO/Manager are different and lead to scandals and bubles and economic ineficientcy... Has anyone seen an article about that?
I know this is a silly point but....... The RIAA has been missing a trick for years, radio has been broadcasting free music which you can record and keep and never pay for. and its been going on for years! theres millions and millions of ppl for the riaa to sue for listening to music they didnt pay a penny! The fact that iTunes is a big success should say something. If the RIAA embraced the new technology instead of demonizing it they would make loads more money. its a well known fact that artists make their money from concerts and other performances etc (advertisings, drinking pepsi (although i never actually saw wacko drink a single can of it) etc). Im gonna set up a new record company, signup artists and distrubute (promote) their music via bit torrent, radio tv etc. and then send them on world tours etc. anyone?
Rob http://scullyshouse.tblog.com
According to your own source, sales last year were flat, and last year was the best year in the last five.
Clearly, the industry is facing smaller sales, despite the fact that populations are increasing and incomes are increasing. What is causing this? An amazingly-coincidental batch of crappy music (people have been making this claim for as long as there has been music)?
Eventually the public is going to get so sick of the RIAA that they do something permanent about them. The RIAA has millions in the bank and lots of lawyers. The general public has guns. Lots of guns. Who wins in the end?
No you see just because they maintain they are the aggrieved party does not actually make their behavior legal any more than say any other oligopoly meeting to set prices and predatory practices. I know you've probably been weaned on a steady diet of Ayn Rand psycholibertarianism but there are actual laws that even corporations have to follow. Maybe in your perfect Darwinian land there are no laws you can kill and eat whomever, but we've haven't really operated like that since the 19th Century.
Assuming the article is largely a reprint of the complaint filed by the law team at DS&H, I have to wonder where they went to law school. Powerpoint U? I've seen cleaner briefs in my hamper. (and no, I'm not a lawyer, I just work with them...and wash my hands afterwords)
Their are several virusses that delete all music files and filesharing programs on your computer. (I got my bittorent deleted by one of them, while actualy i only used it to download a linux distro that is free to distribute)
MediaSentry is illegal to.
How do we call these things?
Spy techniques, hacking, illegal data transfering, usage of connection that you don't own without allowance of the owner of the connection and so on.
Last time i checked even the secret services here in belgium need to request allowance to spy on somebody his data transfer, then a company isn't allowed to do that at all.
first point to sue them
Hacking, looking into computers without allowance of users is called hacking.
And its illegal.
second point to sue them.
Illegal datatransfer, Sending log data like process logs and keylogs aren't legal without the owner of the computer knowing it.
third point to sue them.
Usage of connection that isn't yours. who pays all the bandwidth?
The owner of the connection, so the owner of the connection needs to give allowance to use it. Since this hasn't been given to the RIAA they aren't allowed to upload data from your pc like logs and screenshots.
fourth point.
That are 4 things they do illegal.
+ Spreading of virusses that damages data (it deletes programs).
That are like 5 things you can sue them for.
So they better take a look at their own things before sueing other people...
The fuck I can't! What about all the mp3s I record myself?
I don't know what kind of MP3s you record, but if you record covers of copyrighted songs, you have the legal right to do so, but if you distribute them either online or via physical media, you are required to pay royalties for every song distributed, even if you're giving them away for free. *shrug* I'm sure you're distributing original work, though, so no worries.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
This is why America needs a loser pays system in the courts. These people sued by the RIAA have to settle, even if they are innocent, because lawyers are so expensive... Thank God someone is fighting back!
Sure... the multimillion dollar corporation isn't going to be able to hire much better lawyers than Joe Filesharer, right? Instead of $10,000 per song, they'll be charged $10,000 per song and the fees for $1000 per hour for the RIAA's lawyer. Bloody brilliant!
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
From their website...
"On June 2, 2005 SafeNet (NASDAQ: SFNT) announced its intent to acquire MediaSentry; the transaction closed on June 13, 2005. SafeNet, just named as the fastest growing of the top 200 IT companies by Network World magazine with 205% annual revenue growth, develops encryption technologies to protect communications, intellectual property, and digital identities, and offers a full spectrum of products including hardware, software and chips.
SafeNet has a successful and growing rights management business focus. The combination of SafeNet's strong security and existing copyright protection products and MediaSentry's innovative anti-piracy and business management services provides customers with a comprehensive suite of best-of-breed security offerings."
It's now SafeNet (most likely to try to shield itself from any RICO complaints), and the contact information is...
4690 Millennium Drive
Belcamp, MD 21017
Tel: 410-931-7500
TTY Users: 800-735-2258
Fax: 410-931-7524
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
As a general rule, about 1/3 of the collected proceeds of a successful lawsuit go to the winning law firm. In this case, I assumed that about $5 million would be the expenses for the law firm, taxes, and the cost of setting up the distribution and recording network for all the people who contributed small 'investments'. It's a simple ballpark figure. A kind of lawsuit lottery.
That's really what we are discussing here. Someone else owns it and people want to steal it. Just let us know where you live. I could use a new DVD player. It's the same concept. If you want to fight the record companies, stop buying their product.
Haha. You obviously didn't even read your own "evidence" which states the opposite conclusion.
What happens when we do some basic research? Oh, we find out that midway through 2005, CD sales are already down 7.5%.
Hell, I don't expect you to ever acknowledge this. You'll dismiss these facts and just attack me some more. Meanwhile, the truth still stands. The pro-piracy contingent has a real problem with hard facts and common sense.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Exactly I've gotten so feed up with the whole situation I'm just NOT buying anything. Crappy CD's with one or two OK songs, that or download singles that cost as much as a CD if I download all the songs but have crappy bit rates and usually a bunch of copy protection on them. (funny thing copy protection but it doesn't seem to actually protect me?) I've even taken a bunch of road trips and all I have done for the last year or two is listen to 'free' FM radio. RIAA your profits are down because you have LOST CUSTOMERS period.
Linux Works
nt
Can anyone tell me how to access the "FAQ" section of slashdot. For weeks I've been trying to read the answers to the "FAQ", and all I get is blank white screens. I took off my popup blocker, that didn't help.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Yes, they absolutely did! Posters, editors included, were saying the RIAA should be going after the individual infringers, the ones actually carrying out the illegal activities. These comments were often +5 upmodded. Everyone was making the same point, that the P2P networks can't be held responsible for the actions of the individuals, and that the individuals are the ones who should be pursued, not the networks. Emphasis Mine.
Still, I didn't see anyone say that the RIAA should start filing law suits en masse without doing due diligance in order to ensure that there was some justiceable controversy. Nobody advocated abrogating the due process rights of defendants of these suits.
What the RIAA is doing is clearly an abuse of process to even the most casual observer.
You don't have the right to rip people off and pirate music.
Ok, let me take an ethics view of this statement. First of all, I am hardly convinced that downloading a few MP3's involves ripping people off. I have seen no hard evidence and the only arguments to this effect are entitlement ones, and their logical extension is that if I whistle a song you wrote while I walk down the street, you should be able to sue me for infringement.
This being said, I think that it is clearly damaging to the market as a whole for mass downloading of unauthorized reproductions of songs. The losers are not the RIAA. Indeed it is ethically problematic because it is further entrenching the RIAA in the marketplace.
Instead, we should be spending the time and energy we spend on this area promoting Free/Libre/Open Music (FLOM?). This is the real way to cause damage to those who are intent on unlimited entitlements to their intellectual real estate. If you want to stick it to the man, don't go on Kazaa, go to GNU Radio. Help show that these models are superior and growing fast enough to pose a massive threat to the current institutions. Unauthorized distribution of RIAA music is bad because it undercuts these models and prevents alternatives from becoming popular. This is where we need to put our effort.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP