Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Drops P2P Lawsuit Strategy, Goes Local
An anonymous reader writes "Wondering why the RIAA hasn't announced 800 lawsuits per month any more? Well, they're still suing people, but have developed a new strategy according to Slyck.com. Instead the RIAA is looking to be more localized, focused and personal with its new strategy."
As another reader puts it, the RIAA "will opt to file lawsuits on a weekly basis and work with local media to give it a more geographically relevant feel." Perhaps they'll also pick their targets a bit more carefully.
The MPAA most certainly does. For example: 20th Century Fox is part of http://www.newscorp.com/operations/other.html which owns the NY Post, The Sun and the Times in the UK, and many many many more news outlets all over the world. There is not a snowball's chance in Hell of getting negative publicity over any MPAA action in a News Corp media business.
And so on with Time Warner and the rest...
While they are not the RIAA per se - there are connections between all these players, and a joint vested interest.
Any PR org. should know how to game the system. To understand how this is done, read Paul Graham's "The Submarine" which does a nice job covering the subject.
How does the RIAA control the media so well?
CBS - Owned by Viacom
ABC - Owned by Disney
NBC - Owned by General Electric, who also owns Vivendi/Universal
CNN - Owned by Time/Warner
Fox - Owned by News Corp., who also owns 20th Centrury Fox & Fox Broadcasting (couldn't find any musical ownership, we are discussing the RIAA after all)
While you're at it, remember that the music cartels have been prosecuted mutliple times for price fixing CDs
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
How is it not a defense? How about coming up with a good argument against it, rather than your own little rant. Google for Candy Chan and the RIAA and this is one you'll get. http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005 /09/priority-records-v-chan-riaa-case.html
Since it wasn't the mother, she had no knowedge of computers, they moved right on to her daughter.
"The RIAA sued the defendant Candy Chan, who had no experience or knowledge of computers. It was possible that her 13 year old daughter may have had a file sharing account.
The RIAA continued to argue that Ms. Chan was indirectly liable for providing a computer to her teenage daughter. After taking Ms. Chan's deposition, the RIAA moved to add the 13 year old child as a defendant.
Ms. Chan's attorney, John Hermann of Berkley, Michigan, objected, arguing that the daughter was a minor and that the Court would have to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the child, before for the child before they could proceed.
In the meantime, Mr. Hermann indicated that he would make a motion for summary
judgment on behalf of Ms. Chan.
The RIAA then immediately moved to withdraw its own case against the mother."
That's true (is it five, six, four, or three major labels this week?)
Anyway here's a (somewhat outdated) family tree outlining who owns whom in the music business:
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho2.html
Think you're really buying from indeoendent labels? Check this diagram before you buy.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Well, the law doesn't call it theft, it calls it copyright infringement. "Theft" is a loaded word used by the RIAA's publicity material to brainwash people like you into thinking it's something that it's not. Seems that they've been successful.