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.

Comments

Introductory sentence

[ergo98]

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.

Re:Introductory sentence

[oirtemed]

Go read Lessig's Free Culture, then come back to the discussion with a little more realistic perspective. Apparently you missed the real cruft of this situation. It is less about copyright issues right now and more about corporations abusing the legal system and bullying people into submission.

Re:Introductory sentence

[mccalli]

Is this really true?

No, as you correctly note it isn't really true. Reading the article shows that Ms. Anderson is stating she has never been a file sharer and has never used P2P software. By definition then, this case is not "the case P2P file sharers have been waiting for" as it is not involving the rights and wrongs of P2P.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Introductory sentence

[twitter]

If you use P2P to share original works of art ... why would you really care about someone fighting the RIAA regarding copyright issues?

You don't care if you have all of the wrong assumptions. You would not care if you presumed the woman guilty, as you and the RIAA have. The criminal justice system is not supposed to work that way, copyright is not a part of criminal law and a single mom and the RIAA are not the ideal equal oponents required to gain justice in a civil case. Most importantly, you would not care if your were naive enough to believe these cases were about copyright infingment rather than shutting down an alternate source of legal distribtuion like mp3.com.

Does that clear things up for you?

Re:Introductory sentence

[Matilda the Hun]

Actually, one could argue that it is what P2P people have been waiting for. All hashing around aside, you can't really argue that filesharing mp3s is illegal. However, if someone pulls something like this against the RIAA, based not on the fact that "It's not illegal to share mp3s" but "It's illegal to get information off my computer like that", it'll probably not only open the floodgates of other claims against them, but it might just stop them from bringing up these stupid suits in the first place.

Maybe.

Re:Introductory sentence

[mrchaotica]

All hashing around aside, you can't really argue that filesharing mp3s is illegal.

The fuck I can't! What about all the mp3s I record myself?

I bring this up because imprecisely stating that "sharing mp3s are illegal" instead of "sharing copyrighted mp3s for which you don't have distribution rights are illegal" helps the RIAA win!

Re:Introductory sentence

[Kythe]

I have to disagree. Since the RIAA's extortion cases--in other words, their campaign using lawsuits to shut down p2p networks--have basically consisted of no evidence of actual infringement, shutting down their current operations will most definitely be in P2P users' interests.

Further, it would appear from the counterclaims that MediaSentry may have been engaged in some highly shady and legally dubious behavior of its own (e.g. perhaps browsing people's computers without permission and using what they find, even if its non-p2p related, to "encourage" settlement. Maybe they've been doing so using default Windows shares, rather than Kazaa or other p2p sharing features. Who knows?). If this is the case, then many of the RIAA's claims about p2p filesharing may themselves be called into doubt. Again: something from which P2P users would benefit.

Ultimately, P2P users will benefit if the RIAA's terror campaign gets shut down. Ironically, given the fact that the record companies are seeing some record profits even as filesharing goes up, so may the record companies.

Re:Introductory sentence

[mrchaotica]

Thank you. With the RIAA's primary tactic being to try to confuse the issue to suit them, it becomes that much more important that we present the truth as clearly and precisely as we can.

Re:Introductory sentence

[Dashing Leech]

"Although one has to wonder whether this is going to work out."

I'm more wondering about the "slippery slope" of this approach by Limewire. There is nothing in any law, copyright or otherwise, that requires you to provide a license to share your own works. In fact, this action tends to remove rights from copyright owners, who will now be forced to provide some license with their works if they want to distribute their works this way. 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.

Re:Introductory sentence

[Pharmboy]

What you are missing is the big picture: The RIAA is trying very hard to make using any P2P system either illegal, or at least viewed as completely illegitimate. It is fighting a distribution SYSTEM, not copyright issues.

The problem with this is I personally like bittorrent (just one P2P method) and hope to see it incorporated into many other programs, particularly online gaming. This would make downloading the typical 150mb patches much easier than "waiting in line 20 minutes" at the typical gamer site, while being pounding about subscribing.

I also use it to download Linux and BSD distributions, as well as other software, legally. There are often bittorrent links here on slashdot for videos, etc. from sites who don't have the bandwidth to stand a slashdotting.

The real pisser is they are using flatly illegal tactics to do this, first by spying on people, second by extortion. Copyright infrincement isn't a crime, it's a matter for the civil courts. What the RIAA is doing, however, IS criminal in all 50 states.

They are wholesale extorting money from people, with no physical evidence, and using a threat of litigation to make them give money. An amount that is cheaper than a retainer for a lawyer, I might add, to insure it is "in their best interest" to just comply and fork over a few thousand to make the problem go away. This is akin to the mob selling you "insurance, so no one will burn your house down". If the FIAA was actually interested in justice, they would allow the cases to actually go to court, instead of hiring some collection agency goons.

Saying the RIAA is worried about the musicians being denied royalties is like saying SCO wants to protect their intellectual property. Yes, you can say it, but we both know its a load of crap. Like SCO, they just see this as both a way to prevent people from competing with thier distribution, and make a few bucks on the side.

Re:Introductory sentence

[timmi]

whoa there killer...

Downloading copyrighted material from P2P is a vastly different issue from ripping a CD that you own, or taping a television/radio/cable/satellite/Etc. broadcast. The the latter is explicitly permitted by the law under the home taping act, and the precedent of the Betamax Supreme court decision. Time shifting, (the ability to watch/hear a program when you want rather then live as it airs) transfering to new media, (Eg, making tapes for your car from LP's, CD's or even 8-track cassettes, as well as recording and encoding to MP3/AAC/Ogg Vorbis for use on your PC or other portable media device, (iPod, Creative Nomad or Zen, PSP, Yada yada...) and making working copies, to protect the original) are all accepted rights of consumers under the doctrines of fair use, and home taping act.

point is:

Having MP3's is not illegal
ripping your CD's is not illegal
P2P file sharing of copyrighted material has not yet been fully tested by the courts yet, so your guess is as good as mine.

Re:Introductory sentence

[ultranova]

While what you are saying is generally true, it isn't the RIAA that is making it harder to share legal items on P2P networks, it is the people using them to share copyrighted works (which is probably 95% or more of the people). If all copyrighted works were removed (or even a vast majority of them, the RIAA wouldn't be going afterp2p networks, because there would be nothing to go after them for.

All works are copyrighted the moment they are created, and the copyright lasts until the world ends or Disney stops extending them, whichever happens first or until the author gives up his copyrights by placing the work in public domain. Simply because I happen to be the copyright holder to a piece of work I'm sharing, doesn't mean it wouldn't be copyrighted; also, simply because you happen to have a license (GPL, for example) from the copyright holder to share a copyrighted work, doesn't make that work not copyrighted. For this reason, I'm going to assume that by "copyrighted work" you mean "work that is copyrighted by someone other than you who hasn't given you a license to distribute it".

The users sharing files are most certainly not making it any harder to share works that you have a legal right to distribute on P2P networks. RIAA's constant abuse of power is what makes it harder to share such works. RIAA might be provoked to such actions by the copyright infringers, but that does not make those copyright infringers guilty of actions taken by the RIAA. The RIAA is presumably lead by human beings, and human beings are responsible for their own actions even when provoked. Nor can the RIAA leadership claim self-defense as justification for their actions, since the RIAA is not suffering any measurable harm from copyright infringment - no, claiming that each illegally downloaded song is a lost sale is not evidence of this actually being so.

So, the ones harming P2P networks are the RIAA and its kind, not users of said networks.

Finally, did you just make up the 95% figure or do you have any sources backing that up ?

So instead of screaming about the RIAA enforcing their copyrights (and whether you like it or not, they own the copyrights and should have the power to stop people from infringing on them) why aren't you screaming about the people who are actually infringing the copyrights and causing the RIAA to go after the p2p networks.

Actually, there is quite a bit of question whether those copyrights rightfully belong to the RIAA. After all, quite a bit of older music would have fallen into the public domain had the period of copyright not been extended; was that extension legitimate ?

Furthermore, the RIAA is basically engaging in blackmail - threatening to sue people and drive them to banckrupty with legal fees whether they are guilty or not if they don't pay a settlement to the RIAA. This is unacceptable behaviour; it essentially makes the RIAA a protection racket.

Finally, the RIAA is trying to force all consumer electronics to have DRM by law. I, for one, find it completely unacceptable that my computer would accept commands from the RIAA and let the RIAA intercept and prevent my commands from taking effect, nor do I like the idea that a document cannot be opened anymore when its publishers take their license verification servers offline. When one also remembers that it is already illegal to break copy prevention systems, it seems to me that the RIAA is fast pushing us towards a digital Dark Age, where information is only given to those who absolutely must have it to serve their corporate overlords, and can be made to disappear like it never had existed in the first place.

The RIAA is pure black nasty evil with absolutely no redeeming qualities. It is trying to crush entire Western civilization, nay, the entire world between its slavering jaws of DRM and DMCA, and swallow the shattered remains to be digested in its guts of

Re:Introductory sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

All works are copyrighted the moment they are created, and the copyright lasts until the world ends or Disney stops extending them, whichever happens first or until the author gives up his copyrights by placing the work in public domain.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are wrong. Copyright is something that is granted by the state. You must file a petition, and pay a filing fee to be graned copyright over a work. This is usually done through a lawyer, and can cost a good amount of money.

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.

Copyright is something that you apply for, and is granted to you by the government. It is not automatic by any means.
--
If you depend upon the goverment for your basic needs, prepare to be disappointed.

Re:Introductory sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

Because I want to download music I have on vynil, for which I do not have the tools to properly extract while preserving quality, but do not want to pay for the same music yet again.

Re:Introductory sentence

[Skye16]

Ah, but we do, if they're introducing suspect evidence (like the little old lady accused of uploading gangster rap and hip-hop "on a massive scale" (she lived alone, by the way)). I'm not concerned about the copyright infringement issue - if it really did happen, nail the fuckers - but if they're suing people and scaring them into submitting (or face crazy court costs) all because the process for identifying p2p uploaders is flawed, then yeah, I have a problem with it. What stops them from accusing me and fucking up my life (for a short period of time) until I can prove them wrong? (I realize it's supposed to be the other way around, but honestly, in these cases, it just feels like you're guilty until proven innocent).

Re:Introductory sentence

[EzInKy]

  Bull fucking shit. This is about people who want everything that can be expressed in 1s and 0s for free.


So which can't we use, the one or the zero? Have you really sat down and thought about the repurcussions of allowing people to copyright numbers? Sure for large multi-megabyte files it may seem benign but there are millions of works of much shorter length easily transcodable into less than a few hundred digits. What with never ending terms and courts allowing infringement claims on as few as six or seven notes if things continue the way they have been going eventually it will be impossible to transmit anything digitally without violating someone else's "property" rights.

Where can I donate!!!

[PaulQuinn]

Now her's is a cause I can get behind.

Finally!....

[mrdlcastle]

A little of their own medicine. As they say... What goes around comes around. Ain't Karma a bitch! :D

Make the records open!

[boingyzain]

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.

Re:It only takes a few...

[mister_llah]

It only takes a few, aye, and only starts there.

If any of these cases against the RIAA are successful... I think we'll see many more people standing up to them.

Once you can prove that Goliath can be felled with just a sling, everyone wants to be David.

Because...

[TaleriaKNT]

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.

Re:Do the time pay the crime.

[J2000_ca]

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?

Shots Across the Bow

[Bullfish]

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.

Re:As one of the comments said...

[multi-flavor-geek]

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

stop the RIAA intimidation and extorsion

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Hoist, petard, mouth, foot, nose, spite face...

[suitepotato]

...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.

Might be something

[ericdano]

There might be something to her arguments. Industry does not want to stick with a $.99 a song model. They sue people, but never take it to court, and insist upon a "settlement". They have prices fixed for almost 20 years now. Sounds like a abusive monopoly to me.

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.

Re:Might be something

[schon]

Industry does not want to stick with a $.99 a song model.

Actually, industry does not want *any* downloadable music model, regarless of the price.

Why? Because it cuts into their business, which is selling shiny discs.

When people become accustomed to downloading music (and doing it legally), then the RIAA no longer has their distribution stranglehold. If you're a musician, there used to be only one way to reach a global audience - with the advent of P2P, that's no longer the case, and the RIAA is dancing as fast as they can to distract people from the truth.

They want people to think "downloading==illegal", because it opens them up to competition.

Re:You are wrong about mp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the official reason. The unofficial reason is that many bands (I personally know several) were using MP3.com to distribute their own albums instead of signing a contract.

BTW. Here's my suggestion to any band just starting out. Go to a lawyer and get a reasonable contract written out that retains your ownership of your work. Keep a copy in your pocket and another in your guitar case at all times. This way, when the industry guy tries to get you to sign some deal with the devil after a few drinks, you can just pull out your contract. If the guy is really persistent and you want to have some real fun, change the look so the signature area looks the same as on the one he keeps pulling out. Then, one night, you get him REALLY drunk...

Re:You go girl!

[DarkEdgeX]

What kills me is, how can they just "create" a bill like this and get it sent off to a collections agency? I mean, can I go to a collections agency and claim all my neighbors owe me $1,000 without actually proving it? You'd think they'd need a judgement from a court first. (And you'd think there'd be a law against fabricating "debt" against people, especially where the situation is disputed).

I mean, if it's that easy, I'm going to go get collection action started against a few hundred people and make some quick cash. Who needs a job.

And the biggest Irony...

[clambake]

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!

Re:And the biggest Irony...

[clambake]

Not so long as they had the permission of the copyright owner of the actual file(s) they copied.

Any document that she created on that machine that they looked at, emails, photos, letter, little notes, whatever (possibly even the file structure, assuming she didn't just use the system defaults but made her own), are owned by HER...

Re:Excellent. Lady put up a paypal account!

[slaughts]

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)...

Re:RIAA vs. P2P ...

[KillShill]

this is the same bullshit they used against web radio and broadcasters.

even if they were broadcasting ORIGINAL music, they still have to pay the RIAA. (or some copyright cartel front group).

no music has fallen back into the public domain in over a century and even if some do (like some of elvis' songs in Europe) they won't allow people in other countries to obtain that music.

a big F U to the aholes in the RIAA/MPAA/Software cartels.

Just to give myself credit...

[Loki_1929]

I called this over two years ago.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77984&cid=6926 062

I should be a lawyer.

Re:The recording industry and RICO

[stwrtpj]

What's scary is that someone modded this "Funny".

Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[Overly Critical Guy]

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

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[Kythe]

You scapegoat "greedy corporations" with non-specific accusations in order to distract from discussing the artists not getting paid

I'm not sure whether or not you mean to imply that illegal file sharing=artists not getting paid, but this does open the door to an interesting conversation I had recently with the former president of a prominent record company (retired about a year and a half ago). He told me several interesting things:

1) Most musicians don't do very well at all in their dealings with record companies. In general, under the current regime, the money doesn't go to the artists.
2) File sharing isn't damaging the record companies. This fact is also borne out by the record profits record companies are now reporting, despite the fact that file sharing has increased substantially over the last couple of years, and the fact that record companies are actually releasing fewer records.
3) Record companies could be making use of file sharing as part of major new business models. The biggest problem, though, is that most heads of record companies are out-of-touch old men who not only don't have a clue about the technology, but they barely have a clue about music in the first place.

To sum up, I'm not sure where you were going with your comment, and I'm also unsure as to why you think it's "biased" to claim the record companies' actions amount to legalized extortion, especially when it appears they may have been going after people with very little, if any, evidence of actual infringement. But I'll leave elaboration on those points to you.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[Overly Critical Guy]

1) Most musicians don't do very well at all in their dealings with record companies. In general, under the current regime, the money doesn't go to the artists.

It does, but this is an issue between the artist and the record labels. Those contracts are willingly signed, and it varies between record labels. Nobody's holding a gun to people's heads to sign up with record labels, but they seem to keep doing it.

2) File sharing isn't damaging the record companies. This fact is also borne out by the record profits record companies are now reporting, despite the fact that file sharing has increased substantially over the last couple of years, and the fact that record companies are actually releasing fewer records.

CD sales are down. It doesn't matter if you believe file-sharing is damaging record companies. It's their intellectual property.

Should we believe it's okay to not compensate John Carmack for his years of work on Doom 3 because he's rich enough to drive a Ferrari and id made millions off the game?

3) Record companies could be making use of file sharing as part of major new business models.

iTunes is the #1 online music store. The "obsolete business model" argument is, well, obsolete.

The biggest problem, though, is that most heads of record companies are out-of-touch old men who not only don't have a clue about the technology, but they barely have a clue about music in the first place.

Agreed, but that doesn't justify not paying artists for their work. People on Slashdot like to disregard artists in the equation and often don't mention them at all. It's all about the RIAA, corporations, greedy crime syndicates, etc. Nobody wants to talk about the human beings who shelled out time and money in a studio for three months to put out the music they hoped people would buy so they could make a living. Touring is expensive and is usually done to promote an album release.

So what you read here is "RIAA, RIAA, RIAA" with no mention of the artists at all who are singing and playing on the record.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[mlrtime]

iTunes is the #1 online music store. The "obsolete business model" argument is, well, obsolete.

And look at what the record companies are trying to do... control the retail price and threaten this new business model by pulling out.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[Kythe]

It does, but this is an issue between the artist and the record labels.

No, actually, it doesn't. At least, if you believe someone who used to run a record company. Call me crazy, but that's where I put my faith.

Those contracts are willingly signed, and it varies between record labels. Nobody's holding a gun to people's heads to sign up with record labels, but they seem to keep doing it.

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.

As for the contractual nature of the thing, no one isn't saying the process isn't legal. Whether it's fair is another story: people get screwed with contracts all the time, especially when they don't have reasonable alternatives.

CD sales are down. It doesn't matter if you believe file-sharing is damaging record companies. It's their intellectual property.

CD sales may simply be down because the record companies are issuing fewer releases. This doesn't appear to be the work of P2P, since, in fact, profits are up.

As for the intellectual property part: I never claimed otherwise. I was merely addressing the point that illegal file sharing doesn't appear to be damaging record companies, and by extension, the artists. In fact, given the evidence, the opposite--counterintuitive though it may be--may just as easily be true.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[SilverspurG]

Those contracts are willingly signed

You've either never had to sign one yourself or you're financially wealthy enough where you would never need to sign one. The contracts are crap and the only reason why the artists sign is because they need the money more than the company needs them.

You've voluntarily opted to give up all credibility with this comment. Typical preaching from the top of the mountain bunk.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[SilverspurG]

Presumably the musicians didn't sign their record contracts at gunpoint -- they were free to take their business elsewhere

Yeah. You too. The moment I hear this a little light goes on which reads,"Trolling". No one who's ever seen an employment or recording contract could maintain that they're a fair deal and keep a straight face. Either you've never had to sign one or you're financially wealthy enough where you can afford to turn them down.

You're obviously baiting an argument, nothing more.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[SilverspurG]

if people want to be rock stars so badly that they feel they can't turn down an unfair deal, fine

I completely agree. But don't make the signing deals out to be fair. At the same time the same laws which govern signing deals govern my employee agreement and I can't afford to be unemployed. This has nothing to do with wanting to be a rock star.

Are you even employed in an industry which has an employee agreement? If not then you've instantly lost all credibility in this thread.

hey did have a choice, they could have chosen to get a regular 9-to-5 job or whatever

Even 9-to-5 jobs require an employee agreement and, unless you're financially wealthy enough to be able to afford to turn them down, there's nothing you can do but accept an unfair agreement.

I'm not a bleeding heart for the artists. I do recognize that the media industry, as a general rule, is fleecing the artists blind and deserve none of the protections warranted by a responsible member of society.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[SilverspurG]

Whatever their sold on does not excuse the complete and utter crap that are the recording contracts. It's the same with my employee agreements. They're crap, I know they're crap, but the choice between unemployed/homeless vs. employed/getting screwed isn't much of a choice at all.

Individuals have no bargaining power against a company and companies are fleecing individuals blind. At least admit that.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[mankey wanker]

Your whole post is no more than a "straw man" style argument in which you misrepresent Slashdot's supposed editorial stands on the various issues presented so that you can more easily attack them. Well, I 'll just make a few points and then leave you to continue your trolling in peace...

"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."

The point was that suing and in any way bothering ISPs with these RIAA lawsuits was a bogus approach because ISPs should have "common carrier" status. Just as people can carry out illegal activities on phone lines while the phone companies are held to be legally without liability, so too should it be the case for ISPs who are mere carriers for the information being sent and retrieved by their customers.

No one advocated bogus lawsuits against individuals. No one suggested abuse of process (because this is more a scare campaign than anything else, let's face it). No one supported the RIAA going after people without even the ability to state a valid claim. In this case (the one under discussion) they weren't able to state an actual damage, just the potential of one - and even that might have been based on erroneous information.

Seriously, get your shit together first before coming here to talk utter nonsense.

BTW, you know who cares about Music Piracy? Maybe the RIAA and no one else. Why should our government be wasting resources for the benefit of so few? Why even discuss it? If someone infringes your rights and you can claim a damage - Great! Sue them in court. Leave everyone else alone. The courts are not there for the exclusive use of the RIAA and all of their thousands of bullshit lawsuits.

"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."

Um...okay. May I ask if you even know what RICO stands for? It's an acronym for: "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations." The history of RICO law in the U.S. follows closely with government attempts to squash the activities of organized criminal organizations (i.e. the Mafia, gangs, etc). So yeah, if it happens to be the case that you can hit an organization with a RICO lawsuit chances are at least even money that they are on the same legal footing as mobsters or your "Average organized crime syndicate." And you have a problem with that why? If it's proven out in court, the RIAA will be seen to have been using the courts to pursue an illegal agenda that was abusive of court processes and infringing upon the rights of individuals to boot. I can't condone that.

It seems to me that whomever modded your comment as insightful is as ignorant as you are. Your comments are barely coherent and you appear to be poorly informed.

FWIW, I guess it's kinda cool how I predicted this RICO move a couple of weeks back: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162628&cid =13592078

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[Overly Critical Guy]

Well, I agree, and Jobs will probably have the upper hand in keeping prices reasonable given Apple's recent nano success.

I'm not justifying their pricing. If you think they're too expensive, don't buy 'em. But that's not a right to pirate, either.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[SilverspurG]

Fine, They are not fair. But you know what -- life isn't always fair.

Perfect. Now let's here you say that to the recording companies with respect to p2p.

Checkmate.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[N1XIM]

"Touring is expensive and is usually done to promote an album release."
Apparently you haven't done your research either. Touring was, until recently, a way for artists to raise money that was entirely their own (which then, paradoxically, often went to pay off their debts to the record companies). Clear Channel Communications has been working with at least one of the record companies to change this practice--so the artist is getting screwed three times and not just twice (one:royalties,two:debts for publishing,three:having the ability to pay off those debts compromised). This discussion doesn't even begin to cover the rest of what is wrong with the industry--payola for example. SO yes, the problem is the RIAA and the record companies--the artists likely lost money in the publishing deal, and are not going to make any royalties at all until the record company has "recouped its losses," something which could take the rest of the artists' natural lives to happen.
In case it wasn't clear already, most artists make their money performing--they do not make money selling CDs.
(If you are at all familiar with the history of the recording industry, then you likely already knew all of this. The Carter Family was a perfect example of this misinterpretation of the public as to how the artist get paid. They didn't get rich, there were no royalties at the time--only one time payments.)

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[arpk4n3]

Hardly.

The linked article (a piece of legitimate journalism) should be unbiased, the headline need not be. Perspective is important as it creates an environment in which intelligent discussion can gestate. Rather than merely squelching what you perceive as bias with a random slew of generalizations, perhaps you should understand the issue at hand:

P2P filesharing. The two stances? Copyright infringement vs. legitimate music acquisition.

Why isn't it a big deal? The smaller labels aren't complaining about filesharing...independent artists aren't complaining...it seems only major labels care. Most artists on those labels make only 7 to 8 points on CD sales anyway, so they don't profit. If music sales decline (and a number of studies have shown that P2P does not harm, and may even boost sales, as shown here, here (PDF), and here, just to name a few) then the artists really don't feel the hurt, as they profit mostly from merchandising and live shows. Both of those require fans. Thus, the more people to hear their music, the more likely they'll sell out a show, or sell more merchandise, and thus profit. This is why more and more artists are endorsing file sharing. If you understand the real issue of corporate control (Infinity, Clearchannel, and Viacom control the vast majority of radio in America, as well as venues, and where I live in Cleveland, Clearchannel owns all of the billboards), then you will notice that a bias here isn't so bad.

Arists need an audience to exist. If they are not on a major label and thus can't get airplay, how can they find an audience? (hint, the answer is filesharing).

Rash generalizations and non-sequitors do little to address the issues and, rather than bias, 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.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[Doctor_Jest]

You are completely correct... however we get the shaft no matter what we do...

When we don't buy because they are too expensive, and sales inevitably slump, we get blamed for pirating. If we buy their CD's yet don't buy all the crap they shovel out, we get blamed for not buying enough. And of course, they say piracy is at the root. (Their numbers at the RIAA website are very different from their "poor-me" press releases most of the time.) We use iTunes and buy online... they want to raise prices. It is as if the RIAA is never happy.

It's a lose-lose situation. The RIAA will find a way to demonize their base.

That doesn't mean I defend infringement. It just means that not buying to the RIAA _is_ "piracy."

If even the MPAA can realize that crappy movies == fewer ticket sales.... why can't the RIAA stop blaming "pirates" every time their sales dip? They would rather invent a buzzword du-jour to exclaim how they are being robbed of their very shirts by that "evil" internet.

Bah. It's enough to turn your stomach sometimes.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[Anonymous Coward]

THey are immortal, ads, movies, background music, etc. You simply can't avoid paying something to them directly or indirectly. Not to mention the taxes on media in many countries...

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[LordLucless]

Okay, right from the start, the headline is an editorial via the use of the term "victim."

Victim does not imply innocence. If the RIAA sued her, then she is their victim, regardless of whether the RIAA's suit was valid or not.

from the racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-organizations dept.

The RIAA was convicted of price-fixing. Racketeering and corruption are fairly valid adjectives in that context.

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.

RICO was originally set up to attack organized crime. That's where the parallel to organized crime comes in. Not that the RIAA is putting out hits and charging protection money, but that the laws set up to catch organized crime is catching them too.

The RIAA did what it is legally entitled to do; go after infringers of its copyright that it found on the P2P networks.

Except that it has a history of getting the wrong people with it's scatter-shot lawsuits. If this person turns out to be one of those people, then no, the RIAA is not doing what it is legally entitled to.

No, slashdot isn't POV neutral, but when was the last time you saw a neutral mainstream news report? At least their editorializing is in some sense justifiable.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[ScentCone]

If I directly gave the artist the same amount of money he would have made from the sale, had I bought the CD, would that make piracy okay, since I wouldn't be hurting the artist?

That would be fine, if the artist actually wants it that way. But if you like the artist and say you respect them, why not do business with them in a way that they personally have asked you to? No artists wants to have to deal with what amounts to thousands or millions of transactions directly with them. That's exactly why they get in business with a company that deals with that for them.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[diablomonic]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Bonk (me laughing my head off) I'm sorry, whats your email address? head in sand @ living under ayers rock Quoting capitalist reasons (dont take this the wrong way, I believe true capitalism *could* be a good system, if it was ever actually brought in...) for why the RIAA's contracts are fair doesn't work. They are a bunch of convicted price fixers who hold (perhaps that should/will be held? here's hoping) an almost complete monopoly on the promoting, publishing and sale of of music.

When you said "Barring government protection, all companies ultimately serve the consumer" you forgot, the RIAA HAS government protection!! It seems almost every day I hear about yet another moronic law with no purpose except to screw the artists AND consumers out of more money, being promoted by politicians who are so obviously really just RIAA employees (or whatever other rich conglomerate decides to buy them off).

It's easy enough to say "just don't sign the contract" or to say that other people would gladly take their job (ie sign the contract in their place) but what you are really saying is "just struggle with your dream for another decade or two till you are to old and tired to get anywhere". In most industries, you have decent alternatives: if your a talented employee, and you dont like the terms in a contract, you at least have some chance of finding another employer with better conditions. In the music industry, the RIAA/ **AA is the Only one . The RIAA neither serves the consumer or the artist, only themselves.

As an artist (I have been playing music for over 10 years) , If I had a decent fair chance of getting radio play/other exposure by going it alone, and therefore a decent alternative to signing up, I would agree, and say let the RIAA put whatever they want in their contracts. But the fact is, with almost every radiostation owned by the same bullshit company, rampant Payola, and the price fixing, pressure to sell the approved products etc that happens in music stores, there is no decent alternative.

Of course I guess if I was a soulless bastard who had a government sponsored Monopoly on a multibillion dollar industry, I wouldnt want to let it go either.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[The-Trav-Man]

1) Most musicians don't do very well at all in their dealings with record companies. In general, under the current regime, the money doesn't go to the artists.

It does, but this is an issue between the artist and the record labels. Those contracts are willingly signed, and it varies between record labels. Nobody's holding a gun to people's heads to sign up with record labels, but they seem to keep doing it.

Ok, your original point was that we are hurting the artists.
The response was that the artists aren't really being hurt because they don't make money off the cd sales (which are impacted by piracy) anyway.
Your response is that whether the artists are being hurt or not is between them and the labels

You have failed to prove that the artists are being hurt. Your original point is still successfully contested.

On your second point, the well being of our artists is important to us the consumer. We care about it, and if we think they are getting a raw deal then we are not going to want to support that deal. The mentality of 'screw the guys who screw the artists' is a valid one and I think piracy is a way of doing this.

As an aside I was in a band a few years ago, and we lost money on cd's and made money on gigs. I would be happy to think people are pirating my music, I even saw a few mp3s turn up on a file sharing program a while ago and got a big kick out of it.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[timmi]

Simple. Once they're successfull they have power to negotiate far better deals. Not to mention that whole "Prince" "The artist..." thing...

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[sumdumass]

I think you are confusing the point of this story with your desire to fight piracy.

Piracy is bad. It is not legal in most situations and most everyone here recognizes that. What they have problems with is two wrongs making a right. If I steal your bicycle while and you find out, you need to contact the authorities and let them deal with it. You cannot go around breaking into everyones house or garage looking for your bike and then when you eventualy find a couple people with simular bicycles, threaten a laws suit and goto a colection agency to demand payment without ever notifying those people of a court date within the proper chanels. You also cannot demand serveral thousand dollars instead of taking them to court and attempt to colect that without formaly contacting them and getting some agreement for payment.

Some of the stuff RIAA is doing is just not legal. It is underhanded and needs to stop. If they can find violators and prosecute them to the full extent of the law without violating any laws themselve, the entire attitude would be different. Right now we have a greedy corperation breaking the law and a little guy breaking the law. Of course the support will go behind the little guy. It isn't about the artisty or copyright holder getting thier compensation at all.

From your previous post, I can tell you have trouble breaking the situation down to the actual problem. I will attempt to outline them and see if you can grasp the outrage and howmany times it happenes.

1)people for whatever reason, download copywriten material and usualy redistribute it.

2)RIAA,MPAA and other organizations see this and try to snuff out the technoligy and other advancments that might allow this to happen. (granted some of them basicaly encouraged this activity)

3)after running into dificulties stoping inovation and technoligies from be avalilible to the public, they violate copyright as well as other laws in an attempt to go directly after the people doing it to them.

4)RIAA and others decide not to forgo the legal system and just use thier position as a large company with "more money then the people they are going after" to influence settlments instead of dragging out expensive court proceedings.

5)Sometimes they are doing this without ever contacting the person being acused of harming thier rights and unfairly turning claims in to colection agencies. This effectualy ruins a persons credit and makes it near impossible for them to barrow the money that would be neccesary to fight the claims in an actual court even if a mistake was made and they are inocent of ther accusations.

6)They are publicaly attempting to humiliate some of these people who now presumably cannot afford to defend themselves from these claims.

If they could stop piracy without violating any laws, unfairly going after technoligy that isn't being used to pirate thier content, or trying to pull the fight from anyone who may be wrongly accused and attempting to dispute thier claims, we would have an entirley different view of them. Untill them they are like the crooks they act like and should be dealt with acordingly. People finding out they have been named in a lawsuite that never went to court and now owe thousands of dollars from a colection agency who has already reported the debt to thier credit record is just wrong wether they were guilty of violating the copyright or not. This si why you see a shift in opinion from the napster day compared to the crime syndicate days of RIAA and posse.

I have no problem with making sure an artist or company gets paid for thier work if someone makes use of it. I do have a problem with multi national corperations getting the right to violate the same laws it is seeking protection from as well as other laws in the process of colecting royalties or attemping to stop other from violating the same laws. You cannot steal from me because you think I might have stolen from you.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[Zebidiah]

What I find most amusing is that they will blame pirates even if profits are up. WTF!

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[hairyfeet]

Please allow me to chime in with my .02.It is fair to steal from the record corps-Steal everything that isn't nailed down.Why?Because they have robbed you and me and our children.

For over 200 years the laws were basic but fair,Then they buy off our congressmen and pass laws which robbed EVERY single one of us of one of our most valuable assets-Our public domain-Which was our payment for giving them the copyrights in the first place.

If they hadn't bought off our congressmen you and I would have a rich catalog of public domain music to enrich our lives.Instead the music which was old when we were children will not be ours even after we have turned to dust.

I don't steal from the *.aa for one reason-All i have seen and heard for many years has been mass market crap.But if you like mass market crap then PLEASE steal it.After all,They robbed us first.

And please don't give me the "you can change it with your vote/dollars" crap.Unless you have the cash to buy off congress nothing will change and it doesn't matter who your vote goes to--They are bought and sold before you or i ever even get a chance to vote.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[hkmwbz]

"CD sales are down."

I'm not sure this 2004 report from IFPI wold agree.

Some quotes:

"Global sales of recorded music were flat in 2004, with a slight reduction in physical audio sales offset by growing sales of DVD music videos and a sharp increase in sales of digital music."

"Even excluding digital sales, 2004 was the best year-on-year trend in global music sales for five years."

"Economic strength and strong releases helped CD volume growth of 2.8% and 4.5% in the US and UK, which together make up 47% of the value of the world market"

Note that Germany, where CD sales were down, saw an increase in DVD sales.

"Music sales in Latin America grew 12.6%"

"Music DVD sales rose 23% and have doubled their share of the world music market from 4% in 2002 to 8% in 2004 - with a value of US$2.6 billion dollars"

"CD sales increased in 36 markets in volume terms in 2004"

So basically, the IFPI is seeing an increase in CD sales in the biggest markets, and an increase in DVD and digital sales as well. 2004 seems to be a great year for the music industry, according to the IFPI.

Perhaps you could reveal your source now? You seem to put forth quite a few claims about various things, but you never seem to back up your claims and opinions with actual facts and figures.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[hkmwbz]

"If you had the choice of not accepting the offer and still accepted it, it must have made you better off then you otherwise would have been."

Or you thought it would make you better off. You expect people to be professionals. Someone gains your trust. They work for someone who wants you to sign a contract. It's their job to make you sign that contract. They make money if you sign that contract.

Money is a very strong motivator.

I wish I could find the text I read where this band was promised the world when they signed up. Their music made the record company millions. After they had paid all their bills, they were in the negative. They trusted the guy who signed them up. He was young and nice and looked and sounded trustable. But they got shafted.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[SnapShot]

Here's another hypotheses:

Each song has a natural audience that would be willing and financially able to purchase that song.

For a musician like Brittney Spears that "natural" audience numbers in the millions.

For a musician like Tom Waites that "natural" audience numbers in the thousands.

The financial success of that song therefor depends upon the number of individuals from that pool of consumers who: 1. hear the song and 2. are able to find the song in a place where it can be purchased.

Piracy of songs increases the percentage of the target population who hear the song while inspiring the RIAA to increase the places where songs can be purchased (does anyone think the iTunes wouldn't have been sued into oblivion if it weren't for piracy).

Okay, I'm done with the armchair economics for today. Where the hell is Steven Levitt when you need him?

Re:It only takes a few...

[Pharmboy]

They should have just stuck with crushing the P2P makers, and let the nerds carry on about the importance of placing responsibility where it belongs.

As overrated as your comment is, I will bite:

So they should go after Bram Cohen, the creator of bittorrent, because "everyone knows there is no legitimate use for bittorrent", right? Or go after eDonkey creator Jed McCaleb. After all, it's not the users responsibility, its the creator. Just like if you shoot me with a .357, it isn't your fault, it's Smith and Wesson's. They made the weapon, you just used it.

Of course, there are more than a few legitimate uses for P2P software. This is like going after Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and Bill Gates, because they created and contributed to the operating systems that allow computer crimes to happen in the first place.

I mean, if there was no operating systems, there would be no computer crime, right? Just like if no author made P2P software, no one would illegally share files. (um, I am being sarcastic if you haven't caught up yet...)

They can go after the people who are infringing their copyrights, but they are currently breaking more laws than the users by intentionally breaking and entering into their computers (and perfectly innocent people's computers) and using extortion against people who think may have infringed, without providing any proof.

If you people learn one thing today, make it this: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS A CIVIL MATTER, NOT A CRIME. Spying on people and extorsion, however, IS a crime.

Re:Some of this is Nonsense

[Proudrooster]

Sure, a lot of the allegations are crap, however that is how legal cases work. You throw as much crap as you can muster and see what sticks, even if the claims are mutually exclusive. Once the crap is shot down, you fight over the remainder, but making as many claims as possible in the beginning gets the legal ball rolling. However, making too many false claims can get you into frivilous lawsuit trouble.

As technical people, we know that many of the allegations in this case might be bogus, but that is for the RIAA and their lackeys to prove in the discovery process. We all suspect that this case is never going to see a courtroom. The RIAA is going to get out the checkbook and settle (assuming they are smart). However, an ambitious State Attorney General might decide to start an investigation in the racketeering allegation and then the RIAA is going to write a bigger check to settle and someone may even go to jail.

The RIAA might want to quit while they still can. If this case goes to trial, it will become the model for how to defeat the RIAA in court. You've got to feel a bit sorry for the RIAA, being a dinosaur on the edge of extinction in the modern world.

Would be wonderful...

[petrus4]

...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.

Worse yet

[Ogemaniac]

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.

Re:Worse yet

[JWW]

Ok, here is your new business model: SELL MP3S OVER THE INTERNET!!!!!

There are quite literally millions of people who would buy them. iTunes would have a serious run for its money (at the same pricepoint)for remaining the top site in internet music.

The record companies could do this and they would earn BILLIONS of dollars.

There are millions of people out there who will buy the music. There are millions of file sharers who will actually start buying the music.

All the RIAA needs to be is reasonable, but they're not. All they have to do is make it so easy and reasonably affordable (read same price as iTunes or less) and they can sit back and real in billions of dollars. And there are quite likely millions of people sitting on the sidlines right now, like me, who aren't downloading anything, but also aren't buying CDs.

But they won't do that.....

Re:Actually, it's not Oregon

[mstone]

That's not a very big deal to the RIAA because ...

You're missing the effect that losing this case will have on all the RIAA's other current and future lawsuits against other hypothetical file sharers.

Right now the RIAA files lawsuits with basically the same mindset spammers use: the cost is so low, and the potential benefits are so high, that there's no reason not to give it a whirl. Losing this case, having to pay damages, and getting a precedent that allows other people to sue for more damages will raise the cost on these kinds of lawsuits dramatically. Getting a judgement that finds the RIAA guilty of extortion, racketeering, or any other illegal activity in the pursuit of this lawsuit will give all other defendants the opportunity to use an "unclean hands" defense in their own suits, which reduces the RIAA's chance of winning and cuts into the potential benefits of filing a suit in the first place.

Remember that the RIAA is only suing everyday citizens because they've been forced to. First they wanted to make ISPs do their dirty work for them, but they lost the cases that would have allowed them to do so. Then they wanted to shut down the people who make filesharing software, but a series of defeats shut down that line of attack, too. Now they're stuck having to use PR-killing lawsuits against ordinary people on the street, and this case has the potential to put a few crimps into that strategy, too.

In the long run, there's a fairly good chance that the RIAA will be pushed all the way back to the point of having to do well-supported lawsuits against high-volume filesharers, which wil be much more expensive than their current form-letter campaign, and will have absolutely no intmidation value on the general public. Filesharing systems will become ubiquitous, non-infringing uses of filesharing will become well established, and the RIAA will lose any hope of being able to control the way people share information online. That will put the RIAA into competition with a huge, massively redundant, and utterly legal distribution system that it can neither overwhelm nor control.

The RIAA doesn't like that idea at all.

Re:The recording industry and RICO

[damiam]

You seem to focusing on a very, very narrow subset of the record industry. Does Elton John behave like a violent criminal? Does Modest Mouse advocate attacks on police? Does Green Day promote gun violence? Does anyone expect Meg White or Sinead O'Connor to look like whores?

There are a few very high-profile celebrities, generally rappers and pop divas, who fit your descriptions, but they make up for a tiny percentage of music released. It's unfair to stereotype even all rap as, say, misogynistic, let alone all music.

Re:RIAA spyware

[circletimessquare]

"There's no way an 8yr old is going to be up after 4am."

yes, but the 8 year old was up at 4 pm, and left the computer on all night sharing files

Reasonable

[Mark_MF-WN]

P2P sharing of copyrighted works is an old and well established custom. What else would you call loaning someone else one of your books? Even centralized sharing of copyrighted works is an established Human custom -- what else would you call libraries?

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.

Re:Reasonable

[gstoddart]

P2P sharing of copyrighted works is an old and well established custom. What else would you call loaning someone else one of your books? Even centralized sharing of copyrighted works is an established Human custom -- what else would you call libraries?

The analogy breaks down a little with digital files.

If I lend you my book, I don't have that book until such time as you return it to me.

If I rip a CD to MP3, and I give you copies, I continue to have my copy, and you continue to have your copy. There is no exclusive control over the resource -- there are, in effect, two resources.

Doctrine of first sale allows you to sell your book or CD to someone.

Doctrine of first sale does not allow you to photocopy your book/duplicate your CD and distribute it.

Or, at least, so goes the legal argument.

Yes, as in the case of photocopiers and VCRs in the past, the content distributors kick up a big noise and say they'll be robbed blind.

It's prohibition all over again: a bunch of uptight assholes making life miserable for other people and creating an entire society of criminals.

As much as I don't think the problem is as severe or really as damaging as the media companies say, I do have to concede that they are within their rights to make sure people are not, in effect, stealing from them. If a huge movement came around that said shop-lifting was OK, it wouldn't really change the legality of it, just that a bunch of people think it's perfectly OK.

This case, however, is much more about someone who claims to never have even traded files (and quite possibly never has). In which case, one would hope to see the RIAA finally held to a standard that doesn't allow them to be their own police force, and to stay on the right side of things like computer privacy and security laws.

The RIAA seems to wield almost their own judiciary powers, and their stronghanded tactics really do, to me, seem to fit the things covered by RICO.

Just my 2 cents (OK, 1.6 cents, I'm Canadia).