Slashdot Mirror
Interview Lawyers Who Defend Against RIAA Suits
Attorneys Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman maintain a blog called Recording Industry vs The People, subtitled, "A blog devoted to the RIAA's lawsuits of intimidation brought against ordinary working people," which was most recently linked from Slashdot on Sept. 10. They've agreed to answer your questions about RIAA suits -- and they obviously will not preface their answers with "IANAL," although we must note that they cannot give specific legal advice about specific cases. For that you need to engage an attorney yourself. (Luckily, their site contains a directory of lawyers willing to defend against RIAA suits.) In any case, these guys obviously know more than the average bear (or lawyer) about how the RIAA goes about suing music fans, how to keep from getting sued by the RIAA, and how to fight back if you do get sued, so we're glad they're willing to help us learn more about this apparently endless legal mess. Usual Slashdot interview rules apply.
If you are completely guilty and are sued, but do not have the money to pay, what are your options?
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
What's the biggest mistake you've seen people make historically in cases where they're charged by the RIAA?
My work here is dung.
Out of curiosity, if I was sued by the RIAA (falsely or not), how much would it end up costing me to defend myself?
Do you have a high percentage of your clients that are guilty or do you specialize in the exceptions, the clients that have good legal ground to defend themselves?
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
You guys are lawyers AND like to help people? What's it like on your home planet ;) ?
A lot of people settle out of court when they are sued and it turns out to be between $12,000 & $17,000. Now, this looks like chump change compared to the $150,000 per violation and 1,000 songs shared means $150,000,000 lawsuit. Is this smart or stupid? I mean, don't you, the lawyers that these people consult, tell them to fold and pay the little amount of money?
Follow up to that, do you believe the RIAA would actually win a $150,000,000 lawsuit if the out of court routes weren't taken? They seem to imply they wouldn't win if they offer these tiny settlements en masse.
My work here is dung.
What should we do to prevent needing your services? Another way of putting this is, how do we avoid getting sued by the RIAA?
Ok, so the RIAA's modus operandi seems to be filing suit against someone living half way across the country. If someone in California is charged for file sharing in New York (like what happened here, what can they do to stop this? Doesn't our justice system prevent this we-know-you're-not-going-to-come-all-the-way-over- here-so-just-settle-out-of-court strategy?
My work here is dung.
I hear a lot that the RIAA has the weakest evidence ever in these cases. Such as screen shots of dynamic IP addresses taken from Kazaa. How the hell do judges across this country uphold these cases with such lack of concrete evidence? I mean, give me five minutes in photoshop and I'll make you a "screenshot" of Kazaa with www.whitehouse.gov's IP address listed over and over on it. Can't an expert witness cause this evidence to be thrown out quickly?
My work here is dung.
Is it worth fighting a CRIA lawsuit for possessing downloaded music in Canada?
Oh You POS
Is there anyway to ask a judge to throw out cases when the RIAA's lawsuits become unbelievably ridiculous?
I mean, who is going to chase after these lawsuits and counter sue? What repurcussions can a counter suit have on the RIAA? And, if they do successfully counter sue, how much does that slow down the RIAA?
When will this end? Could there be an epic counter suit that would make the RIAA stop with law suits?
My work here is dung.
Do you see the current situation as a systemic problem in the current torts system? Specifically, do you think we need legislative intervention to correct the "money bias" in our legal system?
I mean, there doesn't seem to be much of a way to fight an RIAA lawsuit money-wise. It always seems to end quickly: Either the defendant ist so obviously innocent they drop the case or he/she settles for "pennies on the dollar". When do you think we'll see a few definite trials to answer the hanging legal questions about investigative tactics and what an IP proves?
You provide a great list of lawyers willing to defend us ... But would you happen to be able to post the names, phone numbers and home mailing addresses of your colleagues that work for the RIAA?
Don't be shy about telling us which one has won the most cases against low income citizens.
My work here is dung.
When I heard that the RIAA wanted to physically take possession of the equipment belonging to people they sued for discovery purposes, I was less than happy with that prospect. I use a hardware-encrypted hard drive that requires a bootup password. Without my cooperation, no one will every see what's on my drive. Given that the revelation of other content on my drive would place me in far greater jeopardy than anything having to do with pirated music (Assume the worst if you wish; you wouldn't be correct), I would never cooperate with such discovery.
Is there any mecahnism by which the court can compel my cooperation and are there any penalties for steadfastly refusing to provide it?
Interview Lawyers Who Defend Against RIAA Suits
I'm torn. This is about Lawyers, so I really want to make an "Interview with a Vampire" joke. And yet, they actually seem to be doing some good this time.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
There's a certain peer-to-peer music filesharing client which, erm, a friend of mine uses frequently and loves dearly. They claim on their website to be all about sharing music between independent artists who've agreed to release it royalty-free, but in practice the content's all copyrighted. It's just like what Napster was in the good old days, only better. It's an absolute Aladdin's cave. What's more, if you want to jump people's download queues and get the music you're after without waiting your turn, you can pay the organisation behind the network for privileged status and ransack people's record collections left, right and centre.
I'm sure you know the network I'm talking about. My question is, given that they came down on Napster like a ton of bricks, and chase people like Kazaa and the torrent sites relentlessly, how the hell does this lot get away with it?
Not that, erm, my friend's complaining, you understand...
Is there any way to get lawyers to see these kinds of abusive clients like the RIAA as threats to the lawyers, instead of just threats to defendants (when they win) or the RIAA (when they lose)? Or are we stuck with funded organizations like the RIAA "playing the numbers game" and suing anyone with any chance of being found guilty/liable, getting lawyers paid on both sides of the lawsuit?
--
make install -not war
(I 'heard' that if you go through Canadian customs you can be required to give them access to the computer, and in the UK can be jailed for not giving the password.)
Everyone is asking about how to defend against the suits. I want to know the other side of things:
What do you think that the RIAA should do to prevent piracy? Do you agree or disagree with the lawsuits as they are doing them now? Do you suggest a better way? How about your opinion on the current state of copyright law?
I have an open wireless network. If the RIAA tracks music sharing to my IP address am I liable for traffic which is possibly produced by my neighbors?
I Don't Work Here
What's the position of Americans who buy from legal offshore music sites, such as allofmp3?. Is this safer than downloading "free"?
Reduce, reuse, cycle
What do you call 500 lawyers with cement overshoes?
At what point does it become illegal?
- Simply having the music on your computer?
- Downloading more music?
- Actually uploading and sharing the music?
I understand how uploading songs could be construed as a violation of copyright laws, but I fail to understand how downloading them for personal use puts the downloader in violation of those laws.
Some years ago, the RIAA's legal actions tended to be againt companies, such as Napster, that created the tools or ran servers used by millions of people to share files. Much of this sharing consisted of alleged copyright violations, so the argument was that such software was contributory to infringement despite any non-infringing uses it might have.
Many people here on Slashdot were repelled (so to speak) by the attack on software that did truly have non-infringing uses, and argued that the lawsuits should target the individuals responsible, rather than the technology they were using. I had a lot of sympathy for those arguments.
Now that the RIAA does sue individuals instead, do you believe they do so because it became too hard to sue companies, or because they bought into the idea of individual responsibility? In other words, did the category of lawsuits change because the companies and software are now structured so as to be too difficult to sue?
Especially since you, as I understand, at least in the USA have the right to remain silent.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Are there any precedents in history of any industry doing anything like this before? I know there have been examples of cartels forming and the cartel using their combined power against other businesses, but is there anything in history like a cartel using its massive legal leverage against their own customer base?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Which RIAA executive's hard drive would you like to do an in-depth analysis of?
Are you hiring 3Ls?
If so, I would like a job.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
Could you finally settle that age old Slashdot bone of contention:
Is copyright infringement, theft (or not).
It seems to me that what the RIAA is doing is pure extortion using the courts. What line hasn't been crossed that has kept what they are doing legal?
"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." --leonstryker
RIAA presumably has a right to defend its copyrights in court, but its tactics seem to be designed to force people to avoid a fight that, while they might win, might also drain them financially. Does this count as racketeering? If so, could RIAA be subject to a class action suit under the RICO laws? If not, how can ordinary citizens who may have done nothing wrong defend themselves without burning through all of their cash in the process?
We have lots of kids/young adults visit our home, and often they borrow the computer. There's always adult supervision, but not necessarily internet-savvy supervision. If visitors were to download music illegally, am I in trouble?
Was curious re: some recent stories about (I think) EMI wanting to track down people who downloaded the recently noted Beatles/Beach Boys mashups. What would you think about the prospects of using the defense that these sorts of mashups (well, in some respects ANY mashups) are parody and thereby, protected speech?
I've always wondered this and I'm not sure entirely how it would work but if a household has a wireless connection setup and they maintain standard security (WEP, MAC filtering) and the such, which clearly shown to be vulnerable to attacks/intrusion, how can a court prove without doubt that it was in fact that person who was involved in piracy? Furthermore, would it be their fault? They implemented the security they could yet there are still ways around it. If it still holds up for the RIAA side, couldn't they just blindly point fingers at people (not that they already don't) and win?
I'm not sure if you're kidding or not.
These lawyers defend people who are being sued by the RIAA. That would make them the opposite of whom you accuse them of being.
I hope you are kidding. If you aren't, please RTFA or at least RTF Headline.
How do I find out if a song I'm thinking of singing is legal? If I write down the sheet music, or sing the forbidden notes, I've just broken the law if the work was copyright! How do I find out what it is that I can't legally say? :-(
More generally, how do I communicate to a lawyer what I'm thinking of expressing, without breaking the law by expressing under copyright?
So, how does legal advice regarding copyright work?
which come from Japan.
I just want to clarify.. the RIAA can't sue me for that, can they?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Which of the following are illegal and why? Which of the following are in a legal grey area?
...not asking them to delete it.
1) Trading CDs via US Mail
2) Ripping CDs that I own to mp3, and playing them on my computer.
2a) Backing up CDs to mp3 on my computer
3) Ripping CDs that I own to mp3, and then putting them on my mp3 player for my own personal use.
3a)Loaning the mp3 player to my friend with the ripped music from question 3
4) Borrowing a CD from the library, ripping the CD to my computer and listening to the music on my mp3 player, and deleting the music when I return the CD to the library.
4a) Never deleting the music from the computer/mp3 player
5) Emailing an mp3 from question 2 to one friend to listen to, and requesting that he delete it once he is finished.
5a) emailing an mp3 to 10 friends and asking them to delete it once its been listened to?
5b)
6) Using a p2p service to trade mp3s from CDs they own with mp3s from CDs you own
7) Using allofmp3 to download music
8) Stripping copy protection from iTunes or PlaysForSure music files, to play them on your mp3 player.
9) How does the RIAA show that the music you have on your computer are not backup mp3 files from CDs that were destroyed or lost by you?
9a) Can I use a p2p service to acquire a song I legally owned from a CD I owned, but was destroyed or lost?
i have read a few places that the RIAA doesn't make enough on these lawsuits to cover the costs of filing the suits in the first place. do you think that this is simply a means of instilling fear into people? or possibly a means of causing the masses to equate file sharing with theft?
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
I haven't looked at so-called screenshots that the RIAA produces in court, and haven't myself looked at a Kazaa screen (or limewire, etc) to see what kind of IP addresses are shown, but there are two possibilities: the public IP address or the Private IP address. More and more on the Internet, each public IP address has behind it some private IP addresses, that typically can't be connected reliably for a given time to a specific computer, let alone a specific hard drive.
Questions:
Does current 4th amendment legal precedent allow for the confiscation of anything capable of storing files from behind a public IP address?
In otherwords, if I'm running a 'Internet cafe', and someone in my place allegedly downloads a music file, and the public IP shows up on an RIAA screenshot, is it legal for a judge to order everything in my cafe to be confiscated and searched? Does 4th amendment legal precedent allow for such mass grab-everything-and-go searches?
Has anyone ever pointed out to a judge how easy it is to fake a screenshot? Are there any rules of discovery regarding such flimsy evidence? I mean, suppose I want to accuse the RIAA of threatening me with murder in a court, and produce a piece of paper with a death threat that has the RIAA's corporate headquarters letterhead on it, all on a very good looking piece of laser printed output. Wouldn't most courts throw out something so easily faked? What if I just handwrote in crayon "I'm the RIAA and I'm coming to kill you" on a piece of paper, and them sued them using that as evidence? How far would that get in a court of law?
Are there such things as 'vexatious litigant' laws is some states? If so, how does someone get declared to be a 'vexatious litigant', and what are the consequences?
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
I am a podcaster ( MSBPodcast.com ) and one of my big concerns is that the RIAA will make all my music disappear or tie me up in legalities.
Could ASCAP/BMI (and other worse regimes, like the European models,) force me to pay a licence fee for my very small audience (only 0.0833% of the population has MS.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
What is the most outrageous lawsuit (that you have been involved with) brought by RIAA?
-- There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Here are what I believe to be the relevent sections from the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992:
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording device" as: "Any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use ...".
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" as "any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.
Such term (digital audio recording medium - my addition) does not include any material object--
(i) that embodies a sound recording at the time it is first distributed by the importer or manufacturer; or
(ii) that is primarily marketed and most commonly used by consumers either for the purpose of making copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works or for the purpose of making copies of nonmusical literary works, including computer programs or data bases."
Section 1008 says "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the non-commercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog music recordings."
Based on my reading of this act, I cannot be sued or arrested under a certain set of circumstances. I.e., using a set-top CD recorder and taxed Music CD blanks. Are there other laws that circumvent this and make it illegal?
Slashdot has an international audience of technology-savvy readers. Many of us have laughed at the hilarious responses to international threats made by some who seem to believe US law applies worldwide. More seriously, what, if anything can the RIAA do to folks outside the US?
Anybody want a peanut?
At least some lawyers are willing to fight the 'terror machine' known as the RIAA. And in regards to the cost, you DO have the option of asking around to the various lawyers who are on this list if you are nailed with a lawsuit and finding out if any of them are willing to take the case pro bono. As far as the RIAA terrible 'proof' they seem to have it in their heads that since they have all the money, they are above and beyond the 'innocent until proven guilty' motto. What we need is some legal precedence to establish real and true evidence not easily doctored screen shots. Offering as proof any evidence that even someone with extremely limited photoshop skills could alter is not only foolish, it's dangerous. Dangerous because if estabished as proof, the RIAA can target ANYONE they so choose.
This sig will self destruct in 5 seconds.
Not really. In criminal cases (IANAL, etc.), prosecutors can compel self-incriminating testimony by granting immunity. If you can't be charged for anything you say, nothing you say can be self-incriminatory. Thus, the right to remain silent (which exists solely to protect you from self-incrimination) disappears. At least, that's the way I understand it.
My question was aimed at civil proceedings. Can I say "No, I'm not going to cooperate. Depose me if you want, but I'm not going to utter my password" without finding myself sitting in a jail cell for contempt, or worse? I dunno; that's why I asked.
Say it along with Dave Chapelle: "I plead da fif!"
You cannot be required to incriminate yourself.
That would be funny if someone compelled you on your premesis, with the threat of taking your machine if you didn't comply. Unfortunately, if your machine is taken, they will of course create a master raw image and put the drive into storage, working off copies of the master image after that. Your evidence will not be destroyed. You have to make sure they don't get it in the first place.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
Your right to remain silent has nothing to do with examination of your physical possessions. For example if a man driving a Delorean with a cracked mirror and one tail light robbed a store, the fact that you own said Delorian could still be used as evidence.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?
. a. Are the .mp3 files of that CD on my computer legal or do they now belong to the thief too?
. b. Can I re-burn a CD from the .mp3s and is that legal?
. c. Does me having a backup copy of the files on my computer mean I can't make an insurance claim?
. d. What if it is destroyed (for example by a fire) rather than stolen?
2. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently scratched or broken to the point where it is not playable, can I legally download the songs from that CD from a file-sharing network?
3. If I purchase the DVD for a movie, could I legally download songs from the soundtrack for that movie from a file-sharing network?
4. If I purchase a CD that our entire family listens to, and then my daughter leaves for College, can she legally take a copy of an .mp3 ripped from that CD with her on her computer? or - similarly - could she take the disc and could I keep the .mp3 on my computer?
I did it for Johnny.
If copyright infringement is the basis for the suit, then would not the copyright holder have to bring on the action against the suspected infringing party? The RIAA does not represent all studios and artists, yet they are bringing actions against an individual without their group directly being infringed upon. I understand that they are representing the interests of the studios and or copyright holders, but doesn't the actual copyright holder have to bring their case forth?
From what I've read of the RIAA, they seem to be instigating actions against individuals, but there's not been mentioned any direct copyright holders bringing actions against individuals. Could you clarify this please?
Let's say you have acquired some digital audio files through some legal means and have these stored on your computer. What is the level of care required of you to protect these files from redistribution? Can you put them on a drive that is shared without requiring a password, what if it has a weak password? What if your computer gets compromised without your knowledge and the files become publicly available? How much is required of you?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
How can we, as average citizens, help combat or forestall the kinds of legal tactics the RIAA uses?
In particular, do you have any advice for people considering going into law who oppose the RIAA?
What are the exact legal laws for ownership of a particular piece of content, such as a book, CD, or DVD?
If I buy a CD, can my wife make a copy? If my son-in-law buys a CD, can I make a copy?
If two people each contribute $5 to buy a $10 DVD, can they make a copy?
If 100 people each contribue a dime to buy a $10 DVD, can they all gather together and watch it?
Can a corporation own a DVD? Can they make the DVD or DVD content viewable on a secure intranet for all employees of the corporation? Can they make it downloadable?
Are there any specific cases or laws relating to this? How many people can own a CD? Is it limited to one person? One household? Also if you could address any possible permutations or exceptions I may have missed, that would be great.
In your opinion is there a percentage of countersuits (compared to the number of suits filed by the RIAA), particularly percentage of countersuits won, that would dissuade the RIAA from filing suits of this kind?
On a related note, is there such a thing as a class action countersuit? Can those sued by the RIAA gather together and countersue the RIAA?
What exactly do you, as a lawyer, get out of this if you're successful and the RIAA stops going after everyone?
Has anyone ever considered Jury Nullification to get folks to simply declare the concept of intellectual property and perpetual copyright invalid? If most folks agree (and I don't know if they do or not) that the law is broken, isn't the judge obliged to agree?
90% of everything is crap. Also, crap is relative.
What proportion of those pursued would you estimate are violating copyright?
Is the concept of "Fair Use" as defined by the Supreme Court (time shifting, media shifting, etc...) being eroded. What are the important battles to stem this erosion?
I'm a parent, and my kids have inter-tubes skeels whereof I dream not. If my teenage werewolfs get on the bad side of the Tune Nazis, am I also vulnerable? And should I already feel responsible?
Realistically, what safeguards are there against someone simply suing you, on any grounds or no grounds at all, and offering a settlement which is slightly below the minimum it would cost to defend oneself? This isn't just the RIAA; DirecTV did the same thing against people who bought perfectly legal "unloopers", and when they countersued, the judge slapped them with DirecTVs legal costs.
It's pretty clear that the RIAA's lawsuit strategy is based on forcing a settlement rather than seeing the case go to court. Furthermore, it seems like these cases are pretty groundless and the only reason they keep winning is because it's cheaper to settle than it is to fight.
So that being the case, isn't that barratry? Why hasn't the RIAA been charged for that?
When I heard that the RIAA wanted to physically take possession of the equipment belonging to people they sued for discovery purposes, I was less than happy with that prospect. Better yet, what provisions are made to prevent the RIAA from PUTTING their stuff on your drive and claiming they 'found' it? I don't think that's paranoid. When the RIAA acts exactly like the mob in most of their actions, would you expect them to change their tactics once they get hold of the equipment?
- Can we share with a family member, friend, non-friend, anyone, everyone?
- Can we make copies, backups, archives, etc.?
- When and where can we listen to our music... copy in the car, boat, iPod, etc.?
AFAIK, "fair use" has not been defined for electronic copies of music since the RIAA "settles" all cases.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Based on the current news about a summary juedgement request in an RIAA lawsuit:
Can you comment on these issues about evidence fishing: What sort of evidence in general is required for a judge to order someone to surrender their computer equipment to the other side for examination? How specific does the request (and resulting evidence) have to be? What results are admissible and not admissible? How in general does this sort of thing stop being a fishing trip? What sort of questions do you have to answer? (Under penalty of perjury, I imagine?) I assume failure to cooperate or refusal to answer is the same as affirming guilt?
(I know we've seen those "Law & Order" discussions where they say "we're looking for a pair of his shoes - we can't look in anywhere unless it's his room or a common area, and we can't look anywhere that can't hide a pair of shoes...". Now, I know, that's a criminal warrant which I asume is different. Does "plain sight" rule include tearing your hard drive apart?)
If they find something completely different, or something that in no way validates the original complaint is that admissible? i.e. "...we claimed he was sharing - uploading - with eDonkey but we found he had downloaded music with FTP only." If they find MP3s but no evidence of sharing? Since the original complaint is essentially sharing, is possession sufficient proof or do they need to find the specific sharing program alleged? (Do most cases even allege a specific sharing program or P2P network?)
Well, sure, examine the evidence all you like. But one's right to remain silent, as I understand it, includes all speech acts. So if they can't get the password on their own, tough.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Instead of playing Whack-a-Mole by defending clients that are being extorted by these thugs in Gabardine, why aren't you doing anything about stopping it in the first place? Why haven't you petititioned the Attorney General to bring RICO charges against the members of the RIAA?
I would be more worried about the RIAA getting to AllOfMP3 through their financial records. Somehow western money (American money?) has to get to Russia. Get that list, and start chasing the clients.
That's essentially what happened to the people who used some overseas porn servers; some of which were child porn - the authorities ended up with a big long list of people who had paid by credit card thru a place in Texas. So, they started working their way thru the list; even if you had only gone to legal porn or had your credit card stolen, you ran the risk of your reputation being destroyed. One guy in Ontario Canada committed suicide before he was finally cleared...
"We see you spent $30 at allofmp3. That's 600 songs at $750 a pop." I guess the next trick would be to prove that you bought songs covered by RIAA member copyrights, but that's another topic.
only download music that has been blessed by the artists as downloadable.
if you aren't sure, don't click the damn download link.
but you will click anyway, they won't notice YOU. besides, you can always hire a lawyer to fight the RIAA. the cause needs martyrs, eh?
It's called double encryption with truecrypt. Put an encrypted volume within an encrypted volume. If they manage to even find the first one, and on top of that manage to force the password out of you, your volume that actually has the sensitive files within just looks like another file, as the first one did. If you're really paranoid, you can nest infinitely (space providing, of course). If you're that desperate, you could actually have tc volumes that appear as legit mp3 files (ie, you own the CD), which actually contain the illicit files.
Of course, that 20GB MP3 file might look a bit suspicious, but I've got a number of mp3 files over a gig in size for audiobooks and whatnot. Perhaps a better approach would be to make a truecrypt container that's the exact size of an image of a CD you actually own, and this ~700mb "iso" would contain several albums of questionable MP3 files. The iso file itself wouldn't actually be functioning (as it's an encrypted container, not an actual disk image), it would just appear legitimate.
A royal PITA, but if you're that concerned, it's a viable solution. You could fit a Nano's worth of music in a container that appears to be a single DVD image, and as it's of a plausible size, they almost certainly wouldn't check it (and if they did, "it got corrupted") Especially since you can try to mount *any* file in truecrypt (and just get a "wrong password or not a TC volume" error when the attempt fails).
Plausible deniability for the effing win.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Heh, remember the little old lady who got sued even though she never owned a computer? [slashdot.org]
I always prefer the "massive electromagnet in the door frame". As long as some asshole with an EMP device across the street doesn't screw things up...
Could you explain the differences between how a criminal case is tried, and a civil case is tried. It's my understanding that it is a crime to "steal" music via the internet, but all of these cases are being tried in civil court. Are the protections or the defendant weaker in civil court? I'm recalling how OJ Simpson was acquitted in criminal court, but "held liable" in civil court. Similar dynamic here?
Is there any mecahnism by which the court can compel my cooperation ... ?
:-)
Yes, the mechanism is called "unregulated methods of interrogation". What I have heard that's been a popular way for your goverment to make some people much more cooperative lately (for the little time they had left to live). Dunno if that's within RIAA:s powers, yet
Plausible deniability
"All debts are wiped out in Chapter 7 bankruptcy."
You wish. Certain types of debts cannot be discharged (erased). They include child support, alimony, government-issued or government-guaranteed student loans, and debts incurred as the result of fraud. It's also very unlikely that a judge will discharge legal settlements you've been assessed, such as money you've been ordered to pay to someone who sued you. 12 myths about bankruptcy
Changes in the law have made liquidation under Chapter 7 much more difficult: Bankruptcy filings fall to lowest level in 5 years
Barratry is legal (and profitable) for corporations.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to prove that and very little evidence to disprove that statement. The possibility of a corporation, like the RIAA, getting punished for barratry is very nearly zero. Anything without punishment is, de facto, legal. That is reality.
I just went down to my local Justice of the Peace, and got a restraining order against the RIAA. It was easy and inexpensive. The RIAA didn't even bother showing up.
Why doesn't a firm take on some kind of mass action like that. Have about 3,000 file sharers in each state kick in $100 a piece to hire firms to get courts to issue a massive number of restraining orders.
If the RIAA thinks it can bury hand-picked individuals with overwhelming force, why don't the public unite to fight back. At $100/person, it seems like the average joe can take the offensive for less than one year's costs of buying music.
If this could be organized in only a handful of states, it would still result in tens of thousands of legal actions against the RIAA with hundreds of different locations/courts/judges. The RIAA would be buried by it. And the lawyers could stand to make plenty of money driving the RIAA into the ground.
The tables would be turned.
Assuming someone is smart enough never to be downloading or having in a shared folder more than one song at a time, isn't it true that RIAA have never sued anyone with only a few songs? And if they did, what about admitting in the responsive pleading you had only one (or two) unauthorized songs and moving for an assessment of damages? Isn't the Court mighty likely to assess the minimum $750.00 penalty per unauthorized recording? Seems in this case all you'd have to do would be to file an answer to the complaint and then let them move for summary judgment, whereupon you might get off with a single one-hour hearing to decide what damages you should pay. How likely would the Court be to go with the minimum statutory damages in such case ($750.00 per)?
If they file suit against you, they've most likely got a list of songs you're supposed to have pirated. Given that, you write a shell/perl/whatever script that examines every file on your hard drive and applies a list of filenames (to be supplied by the RIAA). Then run the script with the judge watching and recording the results.
This would allow you to show that you didn't have the files they allege you downloaded/uploaded without any person actually inspecting your hard drive.
Has anyone tried to create a RICO case against the RIAA for extorsion? It is my understanding that they are violating several state and federal computer intrusion laws while trying to protect their constituent's IP. Just because they are doing these acts to protect their constituent's property does not make them immune to laws of our land.
Recently I was speaking with a friend and she told me that she was being sued by the RIAA. She then mentioned that it was a different group of companies than last year. I was curious by this and asked a few more questions. It ends up she was sued last year by three of the RIAA member companies, and this year she is being sued by two of the others.
Last year she settled as they told her they had a list of her shared folder. I found out she was using Kazaa. She also stated they listed many songs that she never downloaded and some songs she had never heard of (songs not anywhere related to her listening habits). At her lawyers suggestion she settled out of court and had to declare bankruptcy. Now she is being sued by the other companies with the same information as last year.
Does she have any course of action in this besides settling again? I told her she needed a new lawyer and to do some research online at Groklaw and at the EFF and to see what her options are and to make sure her new lawyer knows more about what is going on.
I guess the primary question is this:
If someone is sued once and settled, what are their options if sued a second time by different companies using the same evidence as the first suit?
Lets say I install Windows on a box on my network and hook it up to the Internet with without a firewall. It, of course, gets hacked and the hackers use my 750GB hard drive as a data store for all sorts of illegal and copywrited stuff. I discover this when the RIAA sends me a lawsuit claiming that I allowed people to download their intellectual property from a web site running on my computer.
Am I innocent because I was unaware that it was occuring, or can I be held responsible for anything coming out of the IP address assigned to me by my ISP?
Let me add one to your list:
-- Open standard for _robustly pseudonymized P2P;
Just because the problem exists in the legal sphere doesn't mean the solution needs to.
Pi Ran Out
1. Are the continuing lawsuits still indicative of the RIAA's stated desire to curb illegal copyright violations via file-sharing, or have they crossed over into being a profit center in and of themselves?
2. If this activity is actually profitable for them, what motivation would they have for ever calling a halt?
I ask because there seems to be no interest whatsoever on the part of the RIAA's legal machine to properly vet these cases before filing suit. Guilty or not, they want their pound of flesh from their terrified victims, and my understanding is that the money received from these out-of-court settlements pays for filing additional suits and extracting even more settlements. This kind of rolling thunder can be hard to stop if it is making money. Lawyers don't like being out of work any more than anyone else.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
What you propose would be consider withholding evidence, and push your case from a civil manner into the relm of prison time felony..
THey dont even need to know the contents in that case. You lose by default on the RIAA case, and you get contempt of court to boot.
Its a better idea to kill your drive before they come for it. accidents do happen.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Short Answer: Almost certainly.
Long Answer: They probably won't.
Most members of the RIAA are multi-national entities who own the same companies that own the copyrights to anime soundtracks in Japan. (Does the name "Sony" ring a bell?) They could sue you in American courts for violating Japanese copyright under the TRIPs agreements.
Even ignoring that, many anime soundtracks are licensed for distribution in the US, even if not released on CDs. Part of the complexity of licensing anime for US distribution is that all of the rights to a series are not always held by one entity. The anime distribution companies sometimes have to separately license the soundtrack from the video and the dub track. In that case, you'd be violating the American company's rights. Most of these companies are independent and turn a blind eye to all copyright violations short of the redistribution of translated episodes or movies that they own the rights to because it's free advertising. However, some of these companies are owned by RIAA / MPAA members. (e.g. Pioneer/Geneon)
Given the lack of commercial viability of anime soundtracks in the US compared to the ripped works of big pop stars that the RIAA searches for, the long-reach and expense of pursuing the violation of Japanese copyrights, and the general disinterest of American holders of those rights, you're probably safe.
But you're only safe because they don't want to go after you and not because they can't.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Set up a meeting with the RIAA attorney to arrange payment. Have a gun and a piece of paper that says that the suit is dropped by the RIAA.
Meet the RIAA. Pull the gun. Tell the creep that either their signature will be on the paper or their brains will be. If he doesn't sign the paper dropping the suit, then blow his brains out. If he does sign, then don't harm him. After all, you are a man of honor even when dealing with worthless scum like RIAA lawyers that the world would be better off not having anyway.
If he laughs at you, shoot his hand apart like in "Taxi Driver". If he stares you in the eye and offers to reduce your fine by 20%, then shoot him in the leg. Take his wallet and leave. If he offers to go down to 50% of the fine after you shoot him in the leg and blow his hand apart, then agree to the 50% fine. Then pay him a retainer and have him become your lawyer in all future dealings with the RIAA. He's a pit bull.
If everybody did this then we wouldn't have this kind of trouble from these asshats. Nobody in Iraq or Russia or the Congo ever has to worry about the RIAA, why should we? After all, killing an RIAA lawyer isn't exactly killing a human being, is it?
I wish I could describe it as well as done here http://monolith.sourceforge.net/, but what is the situation in terms of sending music encrypted, or as part of another file? For example, a part of a Britney Spears song might also be present in a Word doc, or the Britney Spears song, when in ASCII, might represent my password for my home computer. At what point is it illegal to actually transfer/upload/download these files? Is it only in the playing?
I know that's more than one question, but they're all related, and pretty critical when it comes to the concept of ownership/copyright in the digital space.
Actually it is still a grey area.
... well, you're in trouble. The best thing you can aim for is:
IANAL. I think soon I may become one, if I continue to read that much about it.
First of all, you have the right to remain silent only when testifying against YOU in a CRIMINAL case. If you testify against others, and the said material can be used against you, the court cannot accept it as evidence.
I read that if the existence of the data itself can be enough for a conviction (i.e. forged finance books, this was tried in an actual case), you cannot be compelled to provide the data, because that court order will disregard your right to be presumed innocent: If you provide it, you're found guilty. If you don't, you're presumed guilty. I am not sure that this can apply for civil lawsuits.
If it is a civil lawsuit
1. Deny all electronic evidence - screenshots?!?!, IP addresses?!?!
2. Deny there is encrypted data.
3. Deny ever knowing the password.
4. Plead that the data has been destroyed due to buggy hardware/software, but make sure you can prove that was done BEFORE the court order to give the harddisk.
5. Use plausible deniablity.
Your aim is to make the existence of the said data so hard to prove, that it would actually be unusable in court. Well, if you're doing something bad and the authorities try hard enough, you're going to get convicted on the rest of the evidence, no matter how you protect yourself. That is why I am very fond of the idea of encryption - it actually might slow down some convictions, but will not be an obstacle before a determined police force. But on the other hand, it will ensure my privacy.
It is interesting that in my country MS lobying has made computer high-sea plundering a CRIMINAL offence, so I cannot actually be made reveal the said password - assuming the upper remark is true for my country, it is for UK and US for sure. Anyway, I won't give my password. Never.
What current U.S. code, state or local laws are most alarmist or obfuscated with regards to the rights of the end-user using these RIAA-sanctioned distributed online music/medias?
What area should our local congressperson focus on the most to clarifying the laws regarding distributed online medias?
The original reason why radio broadcast was permitted was to make it possible for the record companies to sell their records, because nobody is going to buy music they haven't heard unless it's a "name" artist and usually, not even then.
This has evolved into the current situation where every second of music you hear on a commercial radio station has been bought and paid for by a record label. The upside is that this locks indies who can't afford to do this out. THE DOWNSIDE IS THAT PEOPLE ARE MOVING OFF BROADCAST RADIO.
Little known fact about Metallica? They got a following because people were trading tapes of their material. The Grateful Dead became a megaband the same way, but everybody already knew it.
P2P is essentially people redistributing reduced-quality copies of material, some of which is copyrighted by labels. On their own dime. The sound quality of 128K MP3 is slightly inferior to FM radio.
The right answer? Put up with indie competition and make P2P work for the record companies as a distribution channel. Since record companies can afford better producers and better equipment than indies, their stuff is going to sound better on the average; if record companies can't compete despite their bigger budgets with indies, they need new management. The real upside? Record labels can stop paying payola with the Internet as a distribution channel Not to say that FM radio will disappear, they're just going to have to get used to living wihtout a cash flow other than selling ads that don't pretend to be anything else. The other upside is that the cost and risk of breaking a new band goes way down.
Bottom line: make "fair-usage" any kind of digital redistribution of copyrighted audio material that's FM quality or below, make 128K the boundary for MP3, 15K/channel bandwidth for any kind of streaming audio media. Reserve higher-quality tracks and streams for the paying customer, make ALL the material from the vaults available for sale online at the record company sites, and shift to a "burn on demand" kiosk CD and beyond model for record stores, pressing CDs only for people who can be reasonably expected to sell a million+ CDs at a time.
. . .
Profit.
Tech Public Policy stuff
This should probably be tacked on to the parent.
I have a few computers. One of them has a handful of TrueCrypt containers on it. Given that I can plausibly deny that the files are indeed containers full of encrypted data, and also given that it will take a LONG time to test whether or not there's anything worth seeing in there, is there really any way for them to compel me to unlock the containers if I deny their existence/significance?
~ C.
Hold you in civil contempt and put you in jail. Do you remember Judith Miller?
Sigh.
Differences between Civil and Criminal Law in the USA
The RIAA insists on a forensic examination of your computer hard drive by their expert, and one case so far has been lost be the defendant due to a LACK OF EVIDENCE on his hard drive. The assumption was that he'd erased incriminating files and was therefore guilty without any actual evidence of illegal music files present. What information could you maintain on your hard drive that would PREVENT the plaintiffs from legally being allowed to inspect it at all? Also, if you've encrypted it with a number of commercial products, including those that require the inserting of a unique USB Key Device that you need yourself in order to use your computer system, can you Constitutionally be forced to turn over this information to your own disadvantage? Allegedly they already had sufficient evidence against you to have filed a case in the first place.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
How much court time is wasted by the assholes of the RIAA showing their clout? How about someone sueing them for greed, or for a monopoly in forcing all artists to give them money for their works and getting nothing in return from them? What is the purpose of the RIAA or MPAA or other similar leaching organizations? From what I gather from wikipedia theyre basically the PR firm for the record companies, perhaps the true problem is their doing a pisspoor job, or perhaps their product sucks as a whole with some alright individual works. Considering theyre a PR firm wouldnt it then be very easy for them to spin anything however they want it spun? Got propaganda?
Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but all this talk about file sharing made me think of the open source movement - after all, most of the file sharing software that people use is open source. And as we all know, open source software is inherently inferior to commercial software, mainly because the programmers are of lower quality and there is no customer support. Even big, reputable companies like Microsoft end up with buffer overruns and other security glitches in their code, and these often go unfixed for months at a time, so one can only assume that the situation is worse with OSS.
Which brings me to my great fear. Wouldn't it be just awful if a foolish but well meaning newbie was editing the source for one of the major file sharing programs and accidentally left a minor security hole in the thing? This security hole would be minor enough not to allow hackers to access your system and do any real damage, but just big enough to allow them to, say, load a bit of code into your file sharing program that would do a random Google search, download and share the first torrent that it found, and continue running your program as if nothing had changed. The end user would have no idea what was going on, as this would all happen behind the scenes - a diligent control freak might notice the extra file in their shared library, but who ever checks there anyways?
It would just be so unfair! One might end up on an RIAA list of illegal file sharers without any knowledge at all that such a flaw existed in the software! ("Malware downloaded K-Fed, not me, I swear!") And since this bug would make its own downloads look exactly like the user's, there would be no possible way to distinguish between the two. All that's left would be the hope that the legal system would be gentle in such a case, as the end user should never be responsible for the actions of a malicious piece of code on their computer...but what would you say if you were on the jury? We certainly wouldn't want to deprive the RIAA of a sorely needed settlement check just because we couldn't know for sure whether the sharing was intentional or not, would we? Probably best to be cautious and award the money, no?
Worst of all, such a bug could concievably persist in the codebase indefinitely, since as I've pointed out before, OSS is well known to be inferior to commercial products, and Microsoft tends to leave known security holes open for months. With the sorry state of OSS, it could be years before such a vulnerability was tracked down and fixed!
Just remember - it's a bug, not a feature.
Wouldn't that suck?
What is the RIAA lawsuit response latency for an ambulance load of DRM cracked, mp3 laden, iPods travelling down the freeway at 65 mph?
This is very interesting... both the criptography and the legal advice.
Ignore this signature. By order.
IANAL, but that is not enough. There are plenty of stories which show you can be DMCAed or sued even if you don't share their files. Just having a file called christina_stripped.mpg on your website could cause problems for you (their bots seem to have a wide swath). Even if it had nothing to do with any pop star named christina or a song named stripped.
And in many places it is against copyright laws to knowingly receive the files too, so only downloading doesn't magicly protect you. Though it would be more difficult to get a judgment against you, as they may be required to prove you "knowingly" accepted copyright violating files...
How do we go about changing copyright laws to prevent this kind of nonsense from continuing?
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
My PC once got hit by a trojan which created a zillion copies of itself in my downloads and shared folders , each with a different name , all names of warez what if I got hit by a trojan which created fake files the same size and names as popular copyrighted MP3's in my download folder. from someone else's point of view, it would seem as if i was sharing and uploading copyrighted music. I found out about the trojan when i went hunting for the missing disk space.I immediately deleted it , as well as all its copies. If i delete these 'fake' files, and later my hard disk was confiscated and it found that i had deleted those files, will i be responsible for destruction of evidence?
Imagine I share lots of files that are copyrighted by me, but have names such as bimbo_singer_of_the_month.mp3. I then get sued for infringement, but the files they have downloaded from my computer are actually copyrighted by me, and *they* are guilty of illegal copying of *my* work. Would this stand up in court?
Torrents seem harder to track than regular old P2P. Is there a record of people using bittorrents being sued by the RIAA? Or are they just going after sites like Kazaa? Also, if I use my wireless router and other people (strangers) are able to share my bandwith (Wi-Fi), am I liable for them using P2P software? I'm assuming that I am liable, but for a while, I didn't know that my router was broadcasting an un-secure internet signal.
Given your experience defending folks on copyright violations, what do you think the law should be?
The podcasts that I listen to usually source their music either from the podsafe Music Network at http://music.podshow.com/ or directly from artists they know.
from others, and their mistakes, and learn how to do cost analysis.
There are countries were piracy is the norm, yet they cantineu to produce and not concern themselves with piracy with the exception of large scale warehouse operations.
They need to look at the total cost of all this snake oil anti-piracy crap. DRM, More lawyers, advertising, continued failure or prevention, and the facvt that it can not be technically prevented. Is.Not.Possible.
That need to look at iTunes a little closer on a social bases. People do not mind paying a reasonable price to get it delivered they way they want. You don't have over a billion downloads if people aren't willing to pay.
The up and coming generations will demand to get there media online. If it is available in the quality and cost that is reasonable then they will apy for it, otherwise they will get it for free.
If you talk about internet delivery in China, they are far more concerned about channel overlap then they are about piracy.
Copyright law will either change or become irrelevant. You can't put everyone in jail.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
We at Boycott Riaa advise a total boycott of all RIAA affiliated music. Yes, that means you should do exactly what the RIAA pretends they want you to do. DON'T download or share their tunes. (Only support independent music with your interest!) The major labels know damn well that they would be much worse off if folks didn't promote their product for free via p2p and online sharing. (The dirty secret is that they actually WANT you to share those crappy .mp3 files. It helps them sell records.)
PLEASE avoid being an un-paid promoter of corporate music.
I wonder if it's possible to have a Class Action Defense, so to speak. That is, the accused could name at least 2 more people as codefendents. There has to be at least 1 other person involved, that is, you can't commit copyright infringement alone, can you? Anyway, those people could each drag in another 2 or more defendents, who could involve more, and more. At exponential growth, won't take long to have several million people in the dock. At that point, I'm sure the RIAA would be frantically trying to back out and drop the case, lest these millions of victims decide to do something such as apply irresistable pressure to their representatives to change the law, or launch countersuits, or demonstrate outside RIAA headquarters, or all of that and more.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Questions and moderations after this post don't count - I'm now selecting the 10 questions to forward.
- Robin
As I recall the door magnet worked after the EMP was used. I didn't buy it. One pass through a magnet is not going to replace seven passes of writing various bit patterns right on top of the old data.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
Declaring bankruptcy would discharge a debt based on copyright infringement unless the creditor can prove the copyright infringement was malicious and willful. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has recently written an interesting article on the subject. It would be extremely difficult, and quite cost-ineffective, for the RIAA to try to do that in these cases.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Just keep all your illegal stuff on an encrypted wireless NAS device hidden away in your attic.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
It is one thing for an American organisation like the RIAA to sue those in the US, but how likely is it that they will really chase people in, say, Australia, where I am? You have to understand I would never engage in illegal P2P activities myself (GULP) but just wondering if there is anywhere the RIAA won't go. Does it mean you are unsueable if you are downloading songs via a proxy based in another country?
On the same matter, is it really true that it is legal to engage in copying songs in Russia, and that websites like allofmp3.com are in fact legal?
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?