Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Ends Harassment of Grieving Family
denebian devil writes "According to Cory Doctorow at Boingboing, the RIAA has dropped its case against the family of a dead man. 'Today, an RIAA spokesperson, Jonathan Lamy, contacted me today with this statement: Our hearts go out to the Scantleberry family for their loss. We had decided to temporarily suspend the productive settlement discussions we were having with the family. Mr. Scantleberry had admitted that the infringer was his stepson, and we were in the process settling with him shortly before his passing. Out of an abundance of sensitivity, we have elected to drop this particular case.'"
They can say that all they want, now that the only person who could confirm it is dead. If they really had the goods, they'd be all over the stepson with a lawsuit.
It is called social disabdience.
Really, nobody has a problem with buying music, just the price.
The market is speaking, adopt or die. Laws fail when the fly in the face of what the majority want.
I wonder how much of what is considered 'pirated' is outside a sane copyright law(like 14 years.)?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
1. Wrong, my entire argument is not a straw man. Most of my argument doesn't even speak to this particular case. Good job avoiding my points, though.
2. I really don't care whether the RIAA was right or wrong in this one particular case. The fact is that, even though automated, the RIAA is correct most of the time that people are sharing music that is under the RIAA umbrella.
3. In this case, the father (the dead man) was probably the one legally responsible for the internet connection and was likely also a legal guardian of his stepson. Whether you agree with it or not, there can certainly be legal culpability on the part of someone who is legally responsible for a particular item (such as an internet connection). I have literally no idea how this holds up in the context of music sharing; just pointing out that fact.
4. Again, fabulous job ignoring the rest of my post by writing it off as a "straw man".
I'd probably be fine with a lawsuit leveled against commercial infingers (ie, people selling material they don't own the copryright for). Likewise, small suits for non-commercial infringement I could support (by small, we're talking at most the commercial value for the material, eg 10-20 dollars per CDs worth of music, or per movie), if they were carefully executed and if the defendant was able to actual stand up for themselves in court.
What I, and other people, can't stand is the use of legal brute force against people who can't realistically fight back. Following the letter of the law with the intent of ruining someone in a civil suit which they cannot afford to defend themselves against isn't "protecting their copyright", it's mafia style intimidation.
Software company suing another software company for breach of copyright on their code? I'm fine with it, as long as the suit doesn't abuse the court system (think SCO and their delay tactics as an example of such abuse). Record company launching a small suit against a major uploader (instead of massive suits against everyone)? I would at least be on the fence, and acknowledge their rights.
Part of the problem of course is that the way the law is set up, the corporations have the upper hand. They can sue for the maximum possible amount per infringement, and they can drag out court cases longer than any individual could afford, forcing an out of court settlement. Plus, they aren't held to a high standard of evidence when it comes to bringing the case before a court.
For the record, I don't pirate. However, at this stage I've completely stopped buying RIAA label music, since I'll be damned if my money is going to pay their bloodsucking lawyers.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
the trouble is that they can distinguish between A and B, but not B and illegal copying. So in fact you're right - there shouldn't be a problem. But the industry will claim that the explanation is anything BUT option B regardless of whether that is true or not.
The fact is that, even though automated, the RIAA is correct most of the time that people are sharing music that is under the RIAA umbrella.
Where do you get this fact from? I'd say it's entirely unsubstantiated.
It's along the same lines as me saying "The fact is, Dave Schroeder is a corporate shill.". This is just based on what I've read online. No evidence, just a guess - could be wrong, but I don't need to back it up, do I?
JB
Or permanently dropped?
All dislike of the RIAA aside, the fact this was even an issue shows how twisted and out of touch these people are.
If the public hadn't heard about it, i bet they would on the kids doorstep with a warrant.
They are sick.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
On a more general level, this is an area where I'd say legal reform is needed, specifically to favour the smaller party. We have a heavy bias in criminal law favouring the defendant, to offset the advantages the government has over individual citizens.
Why not apply similar rules to civil cases where a corporation is pursuing legal action against an individual? Currently we have far to many cases where the recipient of a RIAA type lawsuit has no viable option but to settle out of court; this essentially means they pay regardless of their guilt or innocence.
Note that this is a criticism of civil law more generally, rather than the RIAA specifically. However, when they exploit the letter of the law in order to strong arm people into settlements, I think there is a problem. If the letter of the law can be abused in such a manner, then the law is itself in need of change.
Duely noted. My point however was that perpetual delaying tactics are an abuse of the court system.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
This really pisses me off. In Canada, we pay a levy on blank media regardless of what we are using it for. There are plenty of "legitimate" uses for blank cds, such as burning ISOs of Linux distros, sending digital photos to friends and family, backing up legally purchases music
It's bad enough that I'm fined for the illegal behaviour my government -- and the cultural gatekeeers at the RIAA -- just know I must be engaged in, but I would *really* resent paying it if I were an independant artist producing my own cds to sell at gigs or on a web site. Imagine the struggling artist who, by choice or circumstance, decides to produce his own cds. He not only has to compete against the huge RIAA steam roller for the mindshare of his fan base, but he also pays them a percentage of every cd he produces, that they can then use to bribe radio stations and finance lawsuits against their customers.
I agree with the original poster. The only thing that is going to end this nonsense is to *stop* listening to music produced by RIAA member labels. Stop watching movies produced by MPAA member studios. No more commercial radio or television. Use the money you spend on cds and movie tickets to attend live performances of independant artists in local venues, and buy a t-shirt or a cd from them while you are at it.
They've turned art in to a commodity, like soap or toilet paper. It's time we tuned them out.
I don't care why you're posting AC
"How do you send them a message that the crap they're pulling won't be tolerated by consumers when they in turn are going to spin that message as justification for the very behaviour you boycotted them for?"
Email would seem a good first choice.
No, I'm being serious. Every time you don't buy RIAA-backed music, or every time you buy non-RIAA music, email them telling them why. If they don't get the point fast, something is seriously wrong with them.
When the CREATORS of copyrighted works get compensated by these suits, we can speak logically on the subject of copyright. If you remove copyright, copyright law, and the *AA out of it... you have nothing to talk about. (Anywhere you see "you" it is the COLLECTIVE "you" who endorse or otherwise buy into the fallacious argument that somehow copyright infringement is "theft" and some faceless company has lost one red cent because the work exists outside of the secretive confines of their IP fortresses...) So don't get your knickers in a twist, because this is going to get ugly.... still with me? Read on....
HOLDERS of Copyright are just leeches on the creative works. They are sponges or parasites who GLOB onto the creative force and derive benefit from that creative force, often to the detriment of the force (Black blues men... anyone?)
The claim was against a deceased party. If they wish to continue going after the ESTATE of the deceased party, that's their gamble. But in a PR war where the *AA looks like a bunch of jackals (yes, they in fact are), going after a dead guy's assets with trumped up damages is just as bad as asking Mrs. Lincoln "Other than that, how did you like the play?"
If society wishes to have copyright for the CONSTITUTIONALLY PROVIDED "limited time".. I have no problem with it. Infinite renewals by things that do not die (corporations) and holding companies who make their living off the WORK of others is NOT "a limited time."
Until this is fixed, the RIAA will always be in the wrong... even if they have "proof". Copyright has been bastardized by corporate greed. It is broken... possibly beyond repair.... simply put the RIAA/MPAA and other complicit corporations have broken it off in the collective butt of the United States. It's time we beat them to death with the other end of the stick.
And no, logical reasoning, an appeal to human compassion, or anything similar will change our minds. The *AA's have raised the stakes. It's time they learned the consequences.
Sound harsh? So what. They asked for this. They started it. We will finish it.
Boycotts, new business models, etc. WON'T FIX IT. They just give fuel to the paranoia and more draconian measures come as a result. No, it's time to scrap it all. If corporations die off because of it, who cares. Multinational corporations are doing nothing but loading their coffers anyway. They can weather a little copyright reform.
Trouble is, THEY like the system. THEY want it to stay the same. And POLITICIANS are stupid enough to go along with them, even though corporations don't vote. Why? Because we have become lazy. We have given up our power and let the corporations tell us how and what we can do. We need to get that back. We need to remind the politicians WHO votes. WE DO. And if they want to stay in OUR HOUSE, they will represent US.. not the faceless moneychangers who give them free lunches and seminars on how evil computers are.
I'm tired of the logical fallacies that people bring forth to "balance" the debate. This debate hasn't been balanced since the FIRST time Congress extended copyright. It has been a steady downhill slide, from the DMCA, to the "analog hole" GARBAGE, to Orrin "hope you rot" Hatch wishing he could VANDALIZE computers of suspected infringers like some idiotic Mormon vigilante. I'm sorry. The logic went out the window with that one. The DMCA is just a cherry on top of a shit sundae that we are being forced to eat so some asshole in a high-rise can rape artists of their works and live off the profits until hell freezes over.
Peddle your argument elsewhere. The gloves are off. I'm done being nice to these people. And if my lack of purchases is seen as piracy.. who cares? Kiss my rosy red ass. Think they won't tighten the screws when we stop buying their crap? DREAM ON.
Your second footnote isn't even worth speaking about.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
The US was founded on social disobedience. Laws change when enough support for overturning (or ignoring) the laws occurs. Sometimes that change is in the form of action instead of speech. Downloading music has taken its place alongside speeding. Neither is presently legal, but it continues until an invidividual is caught **I know that there's plenty of legal downloads too--sometimes people actually drive the speed limit. Of course, money is also very effective at changing laws, at which the RIAA has been busy. How this one plays out I have no idea.
Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
Your point is valid, but with a so widely spread "pirating" phenomenon we should ask ourselves if something must be changed.
Why nearly eveybody today downloads "pirated" content?
Short answer: because it's much cheaper and more practical.
Long answer: Because music prices exceed by orders of magnitude what can be accommplished today with modern technologies. One must keep in mind that record companies were created primarily for communication, marketing, packaging and distribution of the material.
The high cost of manufacturing, stocking and shipping of records and CDs justified (at least to some extent) their high prices, but now each one of these steps can be eliminated by the Internet along with music labels.
It's called progress, which like every deep change in people culture sometimes requires to act against the law.
> [2] No one's arguing that the RIAA's model of figuring losses is valid, but it's equally (and massively) disingenuous, not to mention utterly ridiculous, to claim that nothing has been lost at all.
There is no mechanism to find out what has been lost or gained by RIAA members as a result of infringing downloads.
This all comes down to one thing: Does an infringing download constitute a lost sale or a gained sale?
Each person has their own personal motivation for downloading, and there is absolutely know way of knowing what their motive is, or what the future result of their download might be.
To make a fair and accurate accounting, we must evaluate the motivation of each individual infringing downloader, to see if it represents (1) a lost sale, (2) a gained sale, or (3) no sales impact.
Unfortunately, the answer to this is absolutely unknowable.
Asking them is useless because their activity is perceived as "illegal", so their answers would be completely unreliable.
You made the speculation that infringing downloads represent a net loss for RIAA members. You don't have a shred of proof for your speculation. The reason I know this is because it is absolutely impossible for anyone to have obtained such "proof".
For what? As I recall, at least in the US, spam is specifically commercial, no?
They don't need any proof to sue you. You'll have to spend a bit before they'll drop the case... even if they have no evidence whatsoever.