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

[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

[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

[Kythe]

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

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

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

Re:Introductory sentence

[mrchaotica]

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

Re:Introductory sentence

[Dashing Leech]

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

I'm more wondering about the "slippery slope" of this approach by Limewire. There is nothing in any law, copyright or otherwise, that requires you to provide a license to share your own works. In fact, this action tends to remove rights from copyright owners, who will now be forced to provide some license with their works if they want to distribute their works this way. Granted, they can chose not to use Limewire, but if this catches on in P2P in general then there is little choice left (hence the "slippery slope). I hope it doesn't catch on.

Re:Introductory sentence

[Pharmboy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Introductory sentence

[timmi]

whoa there killer...

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

point is:

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

Re:Introductory sentence

[ultranova]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Introductory sentence

[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

[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.

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!

[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.

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

[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.

As you can see Ms. Anderson

[DrugCheese]

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

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.

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"?

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. :)

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

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

Next step is to send them a letter...

[clambake]

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

And the biggest Irony...

[clambake]

If what she claims is true, i.e. that Media Sentry broke into her computer to snoop around, then THEY are guilty of copyright infringement whenever they opened one of her files and had it sent over the network for inspection!

Re:And the biggest Irony...

[clambake]

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

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

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: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.

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".

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."

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: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?

[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]

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?

[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:Worse yet

[JWW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[LordLucless]

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

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

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

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

This is the kicker. "Average organized crime syndicate" is so blatantly over the top that the obvious intent is to stir the hornet's next of pro-piracy advocates on Slashdot (which has become P2P piracy central in the past couple of years) to generate page hits.

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

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

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

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

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[ScentCone]

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

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

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[diablomonic]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[The-Trav-Man]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[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.