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

Boo!

[BlindThePoodle]

We're the RIAA. Boo!

Re:Boo!

[innerweb]

I wonder how much money the RIAA has made off of this for the labels. They seem to be police, judge, jury, and collections for profit. I wonder how much of their record profits are from these lawsuits.

Well, I know the RIAA has helped me. I have purchased no new media in over a year now (never downloaded it). And it has helped the local band scene as many people I know go watch the bands and purchase the CDs where the bands play rather than feed the beast. Overall it is less expensive and I have made more friends.

My kids, and many of their friends are growing up on live performances from local artists. We have been to Beef and Board (a very *nice* playhouse), the local small playhouses, the parks, ethnic presentations, and much more. I never could have forced them to go to these things until the RIAA (and now MPAA) stepped in. I never thought I would live to see the day where the labels would make that happen.

InnerWeb

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

[ejito]

Napster was fully shutdown years ago, regardless of whether the songs on the network were legal. MP3.com had a vast free music network, but someone decided to upload music that wasn't theirs; mp3.com got sued and had to sell their domain (and no longer do we have access to those files). Limewire will now require licensing in its files, hardly something you'd do for your own personal files.

Even if you are sharing legal items, RIAA is making it harder to do so on p2p networks.

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

[ergo98]

They've already essentially shut down Napster, Kazaa, and Grokster; would you agree?

Well you could say that the copyright violators are the ones who shut those networks down. I know it's easier to blame the Goliath, it just seems rather simplistic. If the local video arcade is filled with 95% drug dealers (no I'm not equating sharing files with drug dealing - this is an analogy at a higher level), and the constant police presence and legal liability causes the arcade to close shop, who's to blame? The police?

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]

"Crux", not "cruft." Typos are one thing, but that error completely reversed the meaning of the sentence.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Napster was really shutdown because of "mission" statements made by the founders/creators of Napter. Those statements basically stated that they developed the tools as a means to undermine RIAA, etc. That is what pushed things over the edge in the courts eyes.

Re:Introductory sentence

[Mulkiatsch]

Note: The following is a bit off-topic.

Limewire will now require licensing in its files, hardly something you'd do for your own personal files.

According to an article at heise.de, LimeWire is going to support attaching a Creative Commons licence to your own works and sharing them.

Although one has to wonder whether this is going to work out. I mean, what prevents your average W4r3Z D00dZ from attaching a Creative Commons licence to a work ripped from a CD? In the end, LimeWire LLC is probably going out of business, anyway.

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

[NotBorg]

Nope not a copyright issue either. Its about the RIAA going after innocent victims because they believe them to be an easy target for striking fear into the public. Innocent targets and public fear==Terrorism? IMHO, if the counter suit's allegations are true, it is terrorism.

I hate to say it, the RIAA has every right to go after those committing music thievery. But it must be done legally or they are no worse than those they go after.

FTA:
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.

At this point it ceases to be about what the RIAA wants (copyright protection) because terrorists don't have rights.

Aww fuck it, mod me down WTF do I know I make about what the victim does for income.

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

[KingSkippus]

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 greed alongside the poor victims whose personal fortune it has already taken by blackmail.

Dude, don't you think that's a bit of an exaggeration?

Nah, it sounds pretty much on the mark to me, too. Other than that, though, they're not so bad...

Re:Introductory sentence

[mstone]

There is nothing in any law, copyright or otherwise, that requires you to provide a license to share your own works.

That's not quite correct. Technically, copyright law does impose a default license on the use, copying and distribution of any protected work. That license is: none at all.

Copyright law also grants creators the right to choose some other, less restrictive license if they want to. It doesn't say they have to choose a less restrictive license, and unless someone can prove that they do have a less restrictive license from the creator, the default "none at all" license is the one the courts will use.

Thing is, that "none at all" license doesn't give a creator any legal way to distribute their work to others. It gives them the legal tools to lock the work in a vault and throw away the key, but that's about it. Any creator who wants to distribute their work does have to choose some kind of license that's less restrictive than the default "none at all" one, because without that alternative license, there's no way for the distribution to be legal. That's just a basic fact of copyright law, and has nothing to do with P2P at all.

So instead of saying that Limewire is forcing creators to choose a license, it's more correct to say that Limewire requires creators to post the licenses that copyright law forces them to choose if they want to distribute the work at all.

Copyright law doesn't force anyone to distribute their work, but it does force them to choose a license if they decide to distribute their work.

At a more general level, the idea that some protected works have licenses and others makes things complicated and messy. It's much tidier, from a legal point of view, to say, "there is always a license", and then let people bicker about the specific terms of the license on any given work. Copyright law sets the default license that will be used in the absence of any other word from the creator, and gives the creator the right to set any other terms that they choose.

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.

Re:Introductory sentence

[Mr. Underbridge]

Though it was, in this case, actually more accurate.

Re:Introductory sentence

[ultranova]

Do insane people rattle on about the RIAA now, instead of Masons or Elder of Zion or English Bankers?

Insanity would require my post to have some factual errors; otherwise it is perfectly in harmony with reality, after all. Perhaps you might show some of them, since you've obviously noticed some; after all, why else would you speak about insanity ?

And give me a break, everybody knows P2P networks are almost entirely used for copyrighted works. Just because the GP post hasn't done a formal study doesn't invalidate this.

Everyone once knew that Earth was flat, Sun orbited the Earth and nothing ever changed in the spheres higher than Moon. Just because they hadn't done a formal study didn't invalidate that. Only it turned out to be a load of bullshit.

95% is probably a very conservative estimate - most P2P sites have very very weak collections of anything legitimate.

Since we are talkng about P2P filesharing networks, like Gnutella and Kazaa, here, would you please clarify what you mean by "P2P sites" ?

Your whole argument is based around pretending the obvious isn't true.

No, my argument is that

1. RIAA is responsible for its own actions; it's current actions (described below) are evil, so it is evil.
2. RIAA is abusing the US legal system to effectively blackmail people.
3. RIAA is trying to pass laws that would require all consumer electronics to have DRM, which is designed to give them control over said electronics.

Maybe it works great when rallying the similarly-minded against the RIAA, but it won't convince somebody who hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid.

I'm sure this would make a lot more sense if I was trying to rally the simple minded or knew Kool-Aid.

Put them???

[Black Parrot]

> 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?

It only takes a few...

[sribe]

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 ;-)

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.

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.

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

You go girl!

[fragmentate]

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...

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.

Re:You go girl!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Unless you have agreed to a settlement, or a court has entered a judgment against you, you have no outstanding debt. The RIAA at best has an outstanding claim against you.

This is an important distinction. If the claim has been reported to Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, etc., you can have it erased by following the dispute procedure outlined in sec. 1681(i) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Remember, this is not a disputed commercial transaction where someone can even allege the existence of a contract -- this is a private attempt to collect a penalty in the form of a 'settlement'. If neither you nor a judge says that the 'debt' exists, it does not exist.

Re:You go girl!

[clambake]

Don't pay. Contact the DoJ and tell the Cyber Crimes divsion that somone broke into your computer and is trying to extort money from you based on what they claim they found. Do it today!

Re:You go girl!

[uglyduckling]

You can fight the battles, though. I'm in the UK; I suddenly received a letter from a debt collection agency earlier this year demanding money for a mobile phone contract that I cancelled nearly two years ago. I called the agency, listened to what they had to say, then politely asked for a written statement detailing what I allegedly owed money for.

It turns out that the phone company don't actually inform the collection agency what they're collecting for, just the total outstanding debt. The agency had to go back to the company and ask for details - I called a couple of times in the last four months because I hadn't heard anything, and eventually got a letter a week or so ago saying that the agency had returned my account to the mobile company because they had produced no information. I'm wasn't trying to get out of anything - I genuinely cannot recall owing any money on that account - but it goes to show that polite persistence can work. What's really funny is that the mobile company phoned to offer me an upgrade about two weeks ago - obviously they still think I'm a customer.

Re:You go girl!

[Landshark17]

Just make sure you dump all the illegal stuff off your hard-drive first:-)

Re:You go girl!

[toddestan]

I really do wonder how the hell they decide those sums.. do they use random number generators or something?

Oh no. It's really quite simple. First of all, we have to determine how many equilivent tracks you have. To play a MP3 file back on a PC, you need atleast a Pentium 75Mhz. The typical home computer is about 2400Mhz. 2400 divided by 75 is 32. That means when you listen to a MP3 file on a typical home computer, it is equilivent to listening to it 32 times. Now, the Black album by Metallica has 12 tracks, and we have to assume you have all 12 tracks on your computer, so 32 times 12 is 384 equilvent tracks. Now, it is common for a computer to have two optical drives, so we must double that to 768 equilivent tracks because it is possible to have two burned copies of the song in the computer at the same time! But that's not all, surround sound setups are becoming more common. Most surround sound setups are 5.1 - that means whenever you play back the MP3 file it is coming out of no less than 6 speakers, so we have to multiply 768 by 6 to get 4608 equilivent tracks. Now, to convert those equilivent tracks to a dollar amount, we have to determine the market value of an equilivent track. Luckily, that is easy, as iTunes sells that very track for $0.99. $0.99*4608 is $4562. Now, we have to add in the retail value of the CD ($18), and the retail value of the CD single for the track ($3) - which brings the total up to $4583. I hope this clears things up a little.

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:Make the records open!

[Erik_the_Awful]

You can get the complete records on this by using Pacer. See https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl? court_id=00idx You need a credit card, but using pacer is suprisingly cheap. The case is properly cited as "3:05-cv-00933-AS Atlantic Recording Corporation et al v. Andersen". When you search, search Oregon Civil court, and use "Andersen, Tanya" has a search. You can see who the lawyers are, what papers have been filed, and the docket describing when the case will go to trial.

Re:Make the records open!

[oirtemed]

It should be public record, so I don't think it would matter. They charge a 'reasonable fee' to access, but the information is public information.

Tresspass? Don't thinks so.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Actually, it's not Oregon

[Aeron65432]

The RICO act is actually a United States Federal law, meaning you can sue under this act not just in Oregon. (Wink wink nudge nudge)

"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!

Re:Actually, it's not Oregon

[kramer]

Actually, it IS Oregon.

There is a federal RICO act ( (R)acketeering (I)nfluenced (C)orrupt (O)rganizations ), as wells as many state acts that cover similar areas of laws. There are a few practical differences. Most signifigantly, it is typically much cheaper to sue in state court as opposed to federal court.

Re:Actually, it's not Oregon

[rm999]

"Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison."

That's not a very big deal to the RIAA because:
a. 25,000 isn't much to them
b. you can't send an organization to prison. Even if someone did go to prison, it probably wouldn't be anyone very high up.
c. The most important reason? I think racketeering is too creative a charge in this case. I am NOT a legal expert, so this is just a guess and I may be wrong. Yes, the RIAA uses the courts to intimidate people, but so do plenty of organizations and people. It's not what I think of when I hear the word racketeering however. I think of someone in the mob or a corrupt businessman threatening your well-being. Not someone taking you to court for potentially stealing from them (and breaking the law).

I hate what what the RIAA is doing - they are esentially using tax payer money to attack the typical tax payer. Everybody I know and their mom has downloaded an MP3. But I don't think racketeering charges are the answer.

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.

As you can see Ms. Anderson

[DrugCheese]

we've had our eye on your for some time now.

Way to help her?

[mldkfa]

Is there any way to help her? Maybe a fund for her legal team? Or just a place to send her well wishes?

MediaSentry?

[imunfair]

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.

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.

RIAA vs. P2P ...

[mister_llah]

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 ))

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.

Some of this is Nonsense

[stevemm81]

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.

Re:Some of this is Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

The second arguement is important. It will force the RIAA to detail what information they collect, and how. That will demonstrate how thin the evidence is, weakening their initial claims. For all that is wrong with court, it can be a good way to ask your enemies questions so that they have to answer.

Re:Some of this is Nonsense

[Procyon101]

The issue is that they CLAIMED they had broken into her computer. They confessed to a crime. They can backpedal and claim that they did not actually break into her computer, but rather claimed that they had committed a crime in order to intimidate the victim... but that really doesn't make their case look much better. It is in the victims best interest to take their confession at face value and assume that they actually did commit the crime that they confessed and let them dig their own hole with the judge as they try to defend either the commission of the crime or the false representation of the commission of the crime.

If I say "I just killed your Father, John Doe, and now I shall kill you if you don't do what I want." and your father is actually missing, then I am in a pretty bad legal position even if I didn't actually kill your father.

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.

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.

RIAA violating DMCA?

[john82]

IANAL, but item 21 in the countersuit sounds interesting:

21. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to break into Ms. Andersen's personal computer (and those of tens of thousands of other people) to secretly spy on and steal information or remove files. MediaSentry did not have Ms. Andersen's permission to inspect, copy, or remove private computer files. If MediaSentry accessed her private computer, it did so illegally and secretly. In fact, Ms. Andersen was unaware that the trespass occurred until well after she was anonymously sued.

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.

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

Knuth, Justice and the American Way

[Doc Ruby]

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"?

Sweet.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

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.

Ouch.

[Hawthorne01]

Between this, the whining re: shariing in iPod revenue, and the demands to raise iTunes Music Store prices, it's not a good week to be an RIAA exec.

Like there's a GOOD week to be an RIAA exec. :)

Excellent. Lady put up a paypal account!

[ThoreauHD]

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.

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.

No

[Wesley Felter]

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.

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.

Not Fraud?

[tgraupmann]

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.

You are wrong about mp3.com

[usurper_ii]

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

nine-digit IPs

[netcrusher88]

From TFA:

"she was identified with a nine digit code (an Internet Protocol Address ("IPA"))"

I thought IP addresses were 12 digits... Someone call ICANN!

Re:nine-digit IPs

[LocalH]

A real IP is only 8 digits.

For example, slashdot.org is 4223FA96.

Class action?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like others should join this one and turn it into a class action suit.

MP3.com sues lawfirm over "bad advice"

[usurper_ii]

Here, MP3.com tries to get some of the money back that they spent going to great lengths to make sure their service was legal:

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

Re:MP3.com sues lawfirm over "bad advice"

[rkcallaghan]

This typo completely changes the point of the comment, so it's worth correcting here.

This isn't a small lawsuit either. MP3.com wants $175 million.

Here's the relavent quote from the original article:

The suit, MP3.com Inc. v. Cooley Godward, 266625, says MP3.com has paid out in excess of $175 million in settlements, judgments and legal fees.

I thought the same things probably everyone else did, wondering if that was sarcasm or MP3.com being silly; so I actually looked (holy shit someone RTFLink on /.)

~Rebecca

Re:MP3.com sues lawfirm over "bad advice"

[RobbieGee]

A hundred and seventyfive dollars?!? The greedy BASTARDS!!

Huh? Millions? Oh, never mind then.

In any case, MP3Tunes.com was started by the same guy that founded the original mp3.com, who is also the owner of Linpro.

Flawed logic

[ezthrust]

Isn't it self defeating to claim that MediaSentry broke into her computer to find evidence of copyright infringement, and then claim that there was no evidence of wrongdoing? I know I am expecting the RIAA and MediaSentry to be competent racketeers but really, if they HAD gone to the trouble of breaking into her computer, wouldn't they rather go after someone that actually did have some sort of incriminating files on it?

The fact that an organization so huge could be so incompetent is mind-boggling.

Yes I called it. It has ALL the attributes of RICO

[gelfling]

It is a criminal enterprise that threatens to extort money from its own customers. Moreover there is self admitted collusion in this enterprise.

Next step is to send them a letter...

[clambake]

Offering the RIAA a chance to settle for only $6,000.

Re:Next step is to send them a letter...

[sk999]

Not quite - the next step is to set up a "Settlement Support Center", filled with greedy lawyers, to act as the collection agency.

Then send the letter.

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...

[wk633]

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

They're probably guilty of a host of other things, but not copyright infringement.

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)...

Oy, Neo!

[j!mmy v.]

RIAA Agent Smith: Tell me, Ms. Anderson... what good is a phone call...if you're unable to speak?

//had to. shoot me now.

Re:You go girl!-was the RIAA letter like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Can You Say Settlement?

[Durandal64]

RICO statutes are criminal, so I don't think they can settle their way out of this. But I think that the case would have to be brought before a judge by an Oregon district attorney though.

Re:41 or 42?

[PSVMOrnot]

I'd go with 42; since, as sucsessfully proven by the corporation that publish the hitchhikers guide to the galax, beauty is truth and I consider 42 to be more aestheticly pleasing.

The recording industry and RICO

[panurge]

Let me see

• 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?

Re:The recording industry and RICO

[stwrtpj]

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

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:The recording industry and RICO

[interstellar_donkey]

In what way are the members of the RIAA NOT like organised criminal and racketeers?

Despite being criminals, people tend to respect mobsters. Not so for RIAA members.

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.

A little background on her case...

[MurkyWater]

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."

the other side

[bcrowell]

Wow, 199 posts so far, and not a single person is even willing to play Devil's advocate?

1. Illegal music copying over file-sharing networks is not in any way analogous to supporting the real free information movement. Supporting the real free information movement would mean, e.g., helping out on an OSS project, or writing and recording your own music and intentionally releasing it for free on the internet. Warezing and illegal MP3 sharing just help to give the real free information movement a bad name in the eyes of people who don't really understand much about it.
2. The GPL's enforceability depends entirely on the enforceability of copyright law. If you're wishing for copyright to become unenforceable because of the anonymous nature of the internet, you'd better be planning on a future in which the GPL is roadkill.
3. People who do this kind of copyright violation naturally try to hide their identities, and the copyright owners really do have a problem identifying who they are. For instance, I wrote a book, which is available under a creative commons license. I found out recently that someone has plagiarized a bunch of material from it and put it on a web site, without crediting me, and without reproducing the copyright and licensing information. All of the contact info in the whois database turns out to be bogus, so I haven't been able to contact him via e-mail, phone, or paper mail. I eventually found out who his webhost is, and they seem reasonably responsive so far, but anyway it's not surprising that the RIAA is having a hard time sometimes figuring out who's who, and may even make honest (gasp!) mistakes.

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."

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?

[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?

[Kythe]

I'm very much looking forward to the day in which most artists market their product directly to their customers, or use downloaded recordings on the Internet (perhaps via P2P) to promote tours, and cut out the middleman as completely as possible.

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?

[shellbeach]

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?

Please note that record companies != artists ... You might be interested in an actual artist's take on the situation. It's rather old now, having been published in 2002, but it's highly illuminating in terms of both the effect of free music downloads and the nature of the RIAA and recording companies.

Don't assume that the RIAA represents the interests of artists - it quite clearly does not.

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?

[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?

[Mashdar]

Just a few points:

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

This statement meants absolutely nothing. Something has to be the "#1 online music store" unless they don't exist at all. The record companies are fighting against the iTunes store for the very reason it became popular: it is affordable.

2)Touring is expensive and is usually done to promote an album release.

Sorry to say that touring is where the money is. If you are an artist you tend to make next to nothing on your CD sales because of the crazy slice the labels take. When you tour you make money directly.
To quote Forbes.com:
"The top 10% of artists make money selling records. The rest go on tour," says Scott Welch, who manages singers Alanis Morissette and LeAnn Rimes.
I think 10% is optimistic.

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?

[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?

[MorePower]

What the heck are you talking about? I signed employment contracts with every employer I've ever worked for, from McDonalds to General Electric.
Are you using some strict terminology about what constitutes an "enployement contract" beyond the papers you have to sign on the first day of work?
Again, not in the U.S. In 49 of the 50 states (Montana being the exception), employment is "at will" and generally without contract.
What does "at will" employment have to do with contracts? My employment is "at will", I know this because it says so in my contract!

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[ScentCone]

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.

Then... how do you explain artists (successful ones) that re-sign with record companies? Or successful artists that, at the end of their contract term, shop around, and sign up with yet another record company. I'm not talking about starving bar bands, either. Or how about successful artists that, having spent years within just such contracts, form their own companies, and then seek out and sign other artists?

Typical preaching from the top of the mountain bunk.

I'd say that your comment is more typical "all businesses and all contracts with businesses are evil" FUD. The notion that somehow starving artists are slaves to their business partners (who often as not lose everything they put into the relationship), is exactly wrong. Rather, those people that decide to pirate an artist's work are making pet entertainment slaves out of the artists.

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?

[soft_guy]

That's exactly the point. The government props up the RIAA/MPAA with immoral laws. They don't make money by pleasing their customers, they make it by illegal collusion to prevent the competition from being able to get movies into theaters and records into shops. The reason they hate the internet is that it helps put independent artists on a level playing field.

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?

[sumdumass]

To illistrate this somewhat, One of the news chanels did an interview with the dixie chicks. A question about how thier fame and fortune effected thier everyday lives was asked and they resonded with somethign about not being rich. After the interviewer told them how much money was being made form the reported sales of thier CDs, they were able to go back and get another contract giving them more then four time the amount they werre making from sales.

This was before the overseas political comments. I'm not sure if they could do it again or even now.

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?

[billcopc]

(quote)
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.
(/quote)

Nobody's holding a gun to the artist's head, but when you're at that stage, you want your music to get out there no matter what. A teenager doesn't learn guitar because he plans on striking it rich, he learns because he loves music. If that kid is suddenly offered a record deal, he's going to beam with pride and be happy that his product is getting out there, gaining fame and recognition. If he refuses the deal, he goes back to his basement studio and backyard gigs. The choice is rather simple, money usually has little to do with it.

The other way is to pay for everything yourself, and somehow manage distribution and advertising whichever way you can. It's not easy, and for most people it's downright impossible. This heavy-handed advantage is the reason why record labels are so ruthless and cunning, they have no competition besides each other, and even then they are associated in this RIAA cartel. They control the whole operation end-to-end, have enough power to sue any opponents out of existence, and leave no room for anyone else to enter the market. If they were to wield firearms and speak with funny accents, they'd be virtually indistinguishable from the mob.

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?

[hkmwbz]

Ah yes, have a look at this.

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:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[ArghBlarg]

Funny, I was just reading about this last night.. the book title escapes me, but it's something like "How not to ruin your career in music". Prince, upon gaining his independence and eventually his stage name back, actually did re-negotiate with a record company for his newest albums; when asked why he was willing to deal with record companies again, he stated that he was now in a position of enough power that the record companies would never dare to propose owning his master recordings, having copyright on his compositions, etc. You know, all the things they like to do to the little musicians.

So artists that make it big only deal with record companies once they have enough clout to deal as equals.

RIAA spyware

[E8086]

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

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

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.....

recordable media

[falconwolf]

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?

Falcon

Way to pull stuff out of your ass

[ArsonPanda]

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.

Entrepeneurial Warfare against the RIAA

[Simonetta]

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.

Re:Entrepeneurial Warfare against the RIAA

[tmittz]

One of the important things to note about this case is that under some of the acts she sued under, she is eligible to collect lawyer's fees. That's almost certainly why this suit was brought, and I can only imagine that the defense lawyers have stipulated that she won't pay them anything if they lose. RICO (and some other provisions) were implemented as such to help/encourage private citizens to report organized criminal behavior, knowing that people would be more likely to bring civil suit if they could collect rather than pay their lawyers out of the relief.

Re:Entrepeneurial Warfare against the RIAA

[billcopc]

Start by finding an honest lawyer. ...

Then find an honest banker. ...

Well ? ...

See, the futility of human nature is the reason we invented guns.

You are the one!

[Spy der Mann]

"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."

Now it makes sense! Ms. Andersen is THE ONE! :D

Re:You are the one!

[Cylix]

I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid... afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without rules or controls, borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.

Oh I had to do it...

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).

MediaSentry

[typical]

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...

How do they know it's a real *.mp3 file?

[Imazalil]

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.

How to make money by not selling music?

[hkmwbz]

"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?"

Whether piracy is right or wrong is something each person can make up his or her mind about. But one thing is for certain: If you download a song illegally, it doesn't hurt anyone or lead to losses for anyone.

"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."

This is always a tough question when new technology comes along which threatens someone's business model. Often, the business will die because its business model relies on a world quite different to the one it has changed into.

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.

Looks like MediaSentry is submerging...

[SpacePunk]

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