Slashdot Mirror
Answers From Lawyers Who Defend Against RIAA Suits
You had some excellent questions for attorneys Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman, who maintain the Recording Industry vs The People blog. Here are their answers, verbatim, as they were sent to us by Mr. Beckerman.
1) Guilty?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by PrinceAshitaka
If you are completely guilty and are sued, but do not have the money to pay, what are your options?
Beckerman:
One option is to defend yourself, relying on the affirmative defenses. If you can find a pro bono lawyer, great. If not, go in to the pro se clerk at the courthouse and ask for a jury trial. Another option, if it's acceptable to you, is to default. They will usually get a default judgment against you for the exhibit A list (the songs they downloaded) x $750 plus court costs.
2) Biggest Mistake?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by eldavojohn
What's the biggest mistake you've seen people make historically in cases where they're charged by the RIAA?
Beckerman:
It's hard to generalize about that, because each person's facts, each person's personality, each person's intellect and ability, are different. Generally, there is no real good way to handle these cases, so anything anyone does is a mistake, in that sense. But in another sense, there are no mistakes, because there is no right answer.
3) How can we prevent needing your services?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by Software
What should we do to prevent needing your services? Another way of putting this is, how do we avoid getting sued by the RIAA?
Beckerman:
All of the cases that I have seen stem from people who are using a Fast Track sharing program such as Kazaa, Imesh, Gnutella, LimeWire, etc., having a shared files folder with copyrighted songs in it, even if the song files were obtained legally. So even making sure to pay for all of your downloads wouldn't protect you from a lawsuit. The only way I know to avoid the present litigation wave is to avoid having shared files of copyrighted songs.
4) Systemic Problem?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by ZachPruckowski
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?
Beckerman:
I think some good rulings by the judges would shut the whole thing down, so no I don't think it's necessary to revise the statutes. I do think it's important for our society to get behind the defendants financially, because if they don't there are going to be a lot of wacky rulings by judges which are going to dismember the internet as we know it.
5) Lawyers from outer space?
(Score:5, Funny)
by hawkeye_82
You guys are lawyers AND like to help people? What's it like on your home planet ;) ?
Beckerman:
Lawyers are just like any other people. There are good people and bad people. The people who come out the strongest against 'trial lawyers' are the big corporations' PR departments. They want the 'common folk' to think ill of lawyers, because the law -- as imperfect as it is -- is the only equalizer left. And it's being eroded rapidly. And people dissing lawyers all the time helps that process.
6) allofmp3
(Score:5, Interesting)
by giafly
What's the position of Americans who buy from legal offshore music sites, such as allofmp3 [allofmp3.com]?. Is this safer than downloading "free"?
Beckerman:
I don't know what you're talking about. The litigation wave is worldwide. The RIAA isn't American. 3 of the 4 members of the cartel are "offshore corporations". There are different versions of the RIAA everywhere. In France, and certain other places, they bring CRIMINAL cases, not civil ones.
7) Gray Area Questions
(Score:5, Interesting)
by Four_One_Nine
Over the years I have attempted to educate some of the 'younger' generation about the do-s and don't-s of music copying and sharing. The following questions have come up out of real experiences and I have never had anyone provide a reasonable (justifiable) answer.
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?
Beckerman:
Isn't this kind of a multiple question?
You shouldn't be trying to educate the younger generation about this stuff. The law is unsettled. Even lawyers don't know how it's all going to play out. Plus you seem to have a general misunderstanding about the basic principles of copyright law. When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea.
1. There's no such thing as a listening right, I don't know where you get that from.
a. I don't know what MP3 files you are talking about, how do you know you were entitled to make those copies legally?
b. See b above
c. Ask your insurance co.
d. Same answers.
2. I doubt it.
3. I doubt it.
4. I don't know.
8) Why aren't you going on the offensive?
(Score:5, Insightful)
by Civil_Disobedient
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 petitioned the Attorney General to bring RICO charges against the members of the RIAA?
Beckerman:
I'm an ordinary lawyer doing the best I can. How do you know who I've gone to or spoken to? As far as going to the Attorney General, haven't you been reading? The US Attorney General is on the RIAA's side. See Statement of Interest of U. S. Dept. of Justice in Elektra v. Barker.
9) Evidence?
(Score:5, Insightful)
by eldavojohn
I hear a lot that the RIAA has the weakest evidence ever in these cases. Such as screen shots of dynamic IP addresses - http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13747 - 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?
Beckerman:
I've tried, eldavojohn, I've tried. Look at our court papers in Motown v. Does 1-149. The judge didn't want to hear a word I was saying. You are absolutely correct that the entire underpinning of each case is a joke. An astute judge would laugh them out of court, as the Netherlands and Canadian courts have done.
10) Other drive content and RIAA fishing expeditions
(Score:5, Insightful)
by BenEnglishAtHome
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 mechanism by which the court can compel my cooperation and are there any penalties for steadfastly refusing to provide it?
Beckerman:
There will probably be a lot of litigation over privacy issues in the hard drive inspection thing. But if you just want to play hardball, the judge would probably just strike your answer and give the RIAA a money judgment by default.
1) Guilty?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by PrinceAshitaka
If you are completely guilty and are sued, but do not have the money to pay, what are your options?
Beckerman:
One option is to defend yourself, relying on the affirmative defenses. If you can find a pro bono lawyer, great. If not, go in to the pro se clerk at the courthouse and ask for a jury trial. Another option, if it's acceptable to you, is to default. They will usually get a default judgment against you for the exhibit A list (the songs they downloaded) x $750 plus court costs.
2) Biggest Mistake?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by eldavojohn
What's the biggest mistake you've seen people make historically in cases where they're charged by the RIAA?
Beckerman:
It's hard to generalize about that, because each person's facts, each person's personality, each person's intellect and ability, are different. Generally, there is no real good way to handle these cases, so anything anyone does is a mistake, in that sense. But in another sense, there are no mistakes, because there is no right answer.
3) How can we prevent needing your services?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by Software
What should we do to prevent needing your services? Another way of putting this is, how do we avoid getting sued by the RIAA?
Beckerman:
All of the cases that I have seen stem from people who are using a Fast Track sharing program such as Kazaa, Imesh, Gnutella, LimeWire, etc., having a shared files folder with copyrighted songs in it, even if the song files were obtained legally. So even making sure to pay for all of your downloads wouldn't protect you from a lawsuit. The only way I know to avoid the present litigation wave is to avoid having shared files of copyrighted songs.
4) Systemic Problem?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by ZachPruckowski
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?
Beckerman:
I think some good rulings by the judges would shut the whole thing down, so no I don't think it's necessary to revise the statutes. I do think it's important for our society to get behind the defendants financially, because if they don't there are going to be a lot of wacky rulings by judges which are going to dismember the internet as we know it.
5) Lawyers from outer space?
(Score:5, Funny)
by hawkeye_82
You guys are lawyers AND like to help people? What's it like on your home planet ;) ?
Beckerman:
Lawyers are just like any other people. There are good people and bad people. The people who come out the strongest against 'trial lawyers' are the big corporations' PR departments. They want the 'common folk' to think ill of lawyers, because the law -- as imperfect as it is -- is the only equalizer left. And it's being eroded rapidly. And people dissing lawyers all the time helps that process.
6) allofmp3
(Score:5, Interesting)
by giafly
What's the position of Americans who buy from legal offshore music sites, such as allofmp3 [allofmp3.com]?. Is this safer than downloading "free"?
Beckerman:
I don't know what you're talking about. The litigation wave is worldwide. The RIAA isn't American. 3 of the 4 members of the cartel are "offshore corporations". There are different versions of the RIAA everywhere. In France, and certain other places, they bring CRIMINAL cases, not civil ones.
7) Gray Area Questions
(Score:5, Interesting)
by Four_One_Nine
Over the years I have attempted to educate some of the 'younger' generation about the do-s and don't-s of music copying and sharing. The following questions have come up out of real experiences and I have never had anyone provide a reasonable (justifiable) answer.
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?
Beckerman:
Isn't this kind of a multiple question?
You shouldn't be trying to educate the younger generation about this stuff. The law is unsettled. Even lawyers don't know how it's all going to play out. Plus you seem to have a general misunderstanding about the basic principles of copyright law. When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea.
1. There's no such thing as a listening right, I don't know where you get that from.
a. I don't know what MP3 files you are talking about, how do you know you were entitled to make those copies legally?
b. See b above
c. Ask your insurance co.
d. Same answers.
2. I doubt it.
3. I doubt it.
4. I don't know.
8) Why aren't you going on the offensive?
(Score:5, Insightful)
by Civil_Disobedient
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 petitioned the Attorney General to bring RICO charges against the members of the RIAA?
Beckerman:
I'm an ordinary lawyer doing the best I can. How do you know who I've gone to or spoken to? As far as going to the Attorney General, haven't you been reading? The US Attorney General is on the RIAA's side. See Statement of Interest of U. S. Dept. of Justice in Elektra v. Barker.
9) Evidence?
(Score:5, Insightful)
by eldavojohn
I hear a lot that the RIAA has the weakest evidence ever in these cases. Such as screen shots of dynamic IP addresses - http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13747 - 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?
Beckerman:
I've tried, eldavojohn, I've tried. Look at our court papers in Motown v. Does 1-149. The judge didn't want to hear a word I was saying. You are absolutely correct that the entire underpinning of each case is a joke. An astute judge would laugh them out of court, as the Netherlands and Canadian courts have done.
10) Other drive content and RIAA fishing expeditions
(Score:5, Insightful)
by BenEnglishAtHome
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 mechanism by which the court can compel my cooperation and are there any penalties for steadfastly refusing to provide it?
Beckerman:
There will probably be a lot of litigation over privacy issues in the hard drive inspection thing. But if you just want to play hardball, the judge would probably just strike your answer and give the RIAA a money judgment by default.
7) Gray Area Questions by Four_One_Nine
1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?
2. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently scratched or broken to the point where it is not playable, can I legally download the songs from that CD from a file-sharing network?
3. If I purchase the DVD for a movie, could I legally download songs from the soundtrack for that movie from a file-sharing network?
Beckerman: 1. There's no such thing as a listening right, I don't know where you get that from. 2. I doubt it. 3. I doubt it.
I don't know about you, but I'm depressed after reading this answer.
You would be cheered up immeasurably by buying non-RIAA music. The following companies should be avoided like the plague: SONY, UMG, Warner, Arista, Interscope, Motown, Elektra, Priority, Maverick, Loud.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Regarding question 9, this bothers me... it bothers me quite a bit. I know virtually nothing about court procedures (just what I've seen in movies, so might as well change that to nothing), but isn't there ANY formal way to make them account for their evidence? I've read a little bit about digitial forensics, and the exacting procedures specialists go through at each step to be able to say for certain that the evidence is untainted- under what basis are screenshots allowed at all as evidence? Is it pretty much just because the MPAA/their lawyer says they should be?
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
The responses to Question 7 seem vague to me. Do fair use laws not take effect here??
.mp3 files of that CD on my computer legal or do they now belong to the thief too?
1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?
. a. Are the
1. There's no such thing as a listening right, I don't know where you get that from.
a. I don't know what MP3 files you are talking about, how do you know you were entitled to make those copies legally?
1.If there is no such thing as a listening right, then the purpose and sole existence of the Audio CD medium becomes moot. Does it not??? Are we really purchasing CD's to have the mental concept that they contain Audio tracks that we once heard, and to the best of our knowledge, contained on this legally purchased CD?? What is the purpose of purchasing an Audio CD, if not to listen to it??
a. Does fair use in the privacy of ones home, concerning legally purchased copyrighted material, become NEGATED just because its not explicitly stated on the CD packaging the extent of that fair use?? I thought we lived in a free market and a free world here.
In additional response to his , if the above statement can be made by a lawyer who's fighting for the 'right side' on this issue, how does private and fair use rights have a chance in our present court system??
Sorry, Aaron. Would you rather I just told you what you want to hear?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Since he is a lawyer, and answering these questions as a lawyer, he has to be extremely careful. When lawyers actually write answers, they are generally four to five page memos with many citations to include all of the conflicting case law and possibilities. If he were to write something here, then someone get sued and use it as a defense because it was not understood completely, he would be open to a malpractice suit. He was attempting to keep the answers short enough to be useful, while at the same time protecting himself. These lawyers produced the answers for free. I am sure if you wanted an in-depth answer, they would write you one and bill you per their normal rates, as opposed to being free, as they did here.
Pretending you don't know where the mp3's came from comes off as very rude, at least to my eyes.
His attitude of answering questions he doesn't like with flippant "grow up" remarks makes him rude to mine. This guy has no sense of manners, grammar, or proper respect of others in a discussion.
I would not hire him as a lawyer if I needed one for anything.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Question 2: there is no right answer ...And it's being eroded rapidly ...The US Attorney General is on the RIAA's side.
Question 3: So even making sure to pay for all of your downloads wouldn't protect you from a lawsuit.
Question 4: dismember the internet as we know it.
Question 5:
Question 6: they bring CRIMINAL cases, not civil ones. (their emphasis)
Question 7: You shouldn't be trying to educate the younger generation about this stuff. The law is unsettled. Is it? I thought this was resolved years ago with VHS?
Question 8: I'm an ordinary lawyer...
Question 9: the entire underpinning of each case is a joke.
Question 10: But if you just want to play hardball, the judge would probably just strike your answer and give the RIAA a money judgment by default
1. An environment of fear of noncompliance has very successfully been created and applied to music consumers, and the lawyers won't rock the boat either.
2. Another example of "I'm not a criminal so I have nothing to fear." Where an artificial fear is created and maintained to enable psychological control on a national scale.
3. I agree that sharing the music is wrong, but the psychology of fear is being used to remove any personal ownership (as in personal copies) whatsoever. I thought personal copies were long ago approved by the courts. Someone please inform me otherwise.
Cut the crap, and donate to the EFF http://www.eff.org/ if you aren't going to spend your personal time making change on the issue yourself.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Lord Ender says:
It seems strange to me that a copyright lawyer hasn't heard of the fair use rights granted by US copyright law (Title 17, section 107).
The person asking the legal question is better informed than the lawyer!
In response, Ray Beckerman (Lawyer) says:
You don't know what you are talking about.
Ray: Slashdot groupthink usually reaches for the Fair Use Doctrine to justify ripping music to Mp3 and using it. Saying "You don't know what you're talking about" isn't a very satisfying answer.
I would love to hear, even in brief, a discussion of why Fair Use does not apply to these cases. It seems that you started to answer this question below with how Russia and the US have different laws about what copies are allowed, and which aren't, however, I'm not understanding what is allowed here in the US from your point of view.
Thanks!
Zapman
What do you mean by real answers?
(a)Correct answers which accurately state the law? or
(b)Answers which sound like the responder knows what the answer is when he doesn't?
It's real easy to do (b).
I don't play that.
The reality is
-the law is uncertain and in flux;
-it will be hammered out in cases where the corporate content cartel has all of the marbles;
-unless the tech industry gets wise and starts getting behind the victims of the RIAA/MPAA suits financially, the legal issues which are in flux may all be resolved in favor of the corporate content cartel; and
-the answer to every question will wind up being no, instead of what it is now: maybe.
So instead of getting on my case, do something about helping me win.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Personally, I wish they were criminal. Criminal cases in the US have a much higher burdon of proof. The require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases, on the other hand, only require a "preponderance of the evidence." Screenshots of dynamic IP addresses are more than just a reasonable doubt. Even criminal cases can result in fines, typically much lower than what the RIAA is asking for in its civil cases.
Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?