Slashdot Mirror
LimeWire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes to tell us that in a recent court battle, Arista v. LimeWire, LimeWire has filed counterclaims against the RIAA for 'antitrust violations, consumer fraud, and other misconduct.' From the article: "LimeWire alleged that the RIAA's 'goal was simple: to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers.'"
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) will quickly dispose of this.
stay off my side? I agree with that LimeWire is saying, and I like LimeWire, but their business model is based off illegally downloading music, for the most part. I don't feel like I want this business model fighting fo rour rights. It doesn't give legitimacy to our side.
I think I understood your simile until it got to the point where I couldn't tell if you were making a racist comment or not. Try again!
How about a quick explanation?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.
Check his sig. I think he's doing his part.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
That explanation basically places subjective authority entirely in a judges hands.. This reminds me of the language from the "INDUCE act", except applied to frivolous lawsuits.
Notice how no lawsuits levvied by the wealthier interest in such cases are tossed out, but a class action lawsuit alledging numerous breaches of labor and antitrust laws against wal-mart is tossed out without a second thought.
Ahh.. have to love how congress completely skirts the issue of bribery by allowing the judges to take the suitcases full of money.
Souter ruling eat your heart out!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Tagging it as "hurray". Why didn't I think of this first? It seems obvious now - sue RIAA for antitrust. Ingenious! No sarcasm.
The icing on the cake would then be Rule 11 sanctions against counsel, counsel's firm, or even against Limewire itself.
You make a good point by citing 12(b)(6), however what exact relief is the RIAA looking for themselves?
Return to the status quo where all major distribution channels are in control of a few corporate conglomerates?... so they can in turn pay artists pennies for their work?...so they can dictate through there controlled channels of distribution the artistic media to be dispersed?
Sure they may want cash now, and they might get it, but 500 mil isn't going to stop the bleeding.
They could get limewire shut down, but there will be someone ready to take its place immediately.
The end result is inevitable. The people who control the distribution will not in 20 years.
So when I see lawsuits filed by the RIAA against p2p companies I find there request to turn back time just as much a
(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
as Limewire's.
LimeWire's lawyers are exactly right. Read the claim -- they cite an RIAA conspiracy "to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers." That's pretty much what happened and continues to happen; you can complain that nobody forced LimeWire to break the law, but that doesn't in any way get the RIAA off the hook for blatantly anti-competitive practices (and LimeWire's attorneys are right that unlicensed content sharing is the inevitable consequence of those practices).
If they are not in the music business then RIAA is not trying to squash them as music competition. But if they are trying to establish a competing music business and RIAA is fighting dirty, they might have an antitrust claim -- but then they are not just a generic file-sharing service.
IANAL
$META_SIG_JOKE
Even if nothing happens, at least I got a good laugh with (at?) Limewire and the RIAA (yeah, definitely laughing AT them). It just adds a new paragraph to this already hilarious and ridiculous saga.
Well no kidding, that's exactly the kind of determination that a judge should be trusted to make. News flash! Judges can also determine the outcome of court cases as well! It's kind of their job!
(Incidentally, you might want to cite all of FRCP Rule 11 instead of just the parts that appear to be most "subjective" to you.) Plus, I'm not sure I even understand your point. Determining whether or not a suit is frivolous is just one of a judge's duties. Judges examine the claims and evidence and make those kinds of determinations. And so? What would you suggest as an alternative? A differently-worded Rule 11...that judges would also be tasked with interpreting when they preside over cases? I'm not sure you understand how the U.S. legal system works.
not really, a judge's duties are to interpret existing laws and weigh evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of a party.
That should involve examining the evidence backing up a claim and rendering a judgment, not simply dismissing the claim because the judge thinks the defendant should be granted the priviledge of not having a trial.
if this rule applied to murder.. you'd have a judge saying
"you know.. that OJ is just such a good football player and such a beloved public figure.. i just don't believe he could have murdered anyone.. therefore I'm tossing out the prosecution's case without even scrutinizing the facts"
That would be the whole point of the judiciary.. accusations are supposed to be adequately weighed and the defendant proven guilty/found not guilty following a fair trial.. not the defendant having a free ride because the plaintiff just seems a bit too shady to the judge's subjective view.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Please mod parent down. This is absolutely, 100% just not true. Anything signed by an attorney in a court of law (motions, pleadings, etc.) must be based on existing law and have evidentiary support. That certainly includes counterclaims. Please read FRCP Rule 11(b) before you begin to dispense legal advice.
At least as I see things. That is the hope that in the 'exploitation' of this countersuit, the judge sees some evidence of wrong-doing by the RIAA, and that judge, in some way, agrees they are using anticompetative practices. If that is all that is firmly established in this court case, it is enough to let other lawyers build upon, or I hope that it is.
One thing is sure, as my grandpa used to say, there is no smoke without fire. The trouble is often seeing through the smoke to find the fire. I for one hope that Limewire and their lawyers at least make it more than slightly noticable to John Q. Public that the RIAA is anti-competative and anti-consumer. I hope they are able to blow aside the smoke so we all can see the smoldering fire of the RIAA's business model.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I'm glad that the RIAA is being sued. True that Limewire is a place for illegal file sharing but you could say the same for street corners. Hookers and crack dealers congregrate there so should we just tear them all down? Thats what the RIAA says. Its trying to destroy p2p without making an attempt to fix it. They just seem to bulldoze anyone they don't like with a flurry of legal court cases. Hopefully with enough resistance the RIAA will actually benefit us common people rather than just terrorize us.
Whatever they claim just doesn't sound right because, you know... That whole Napster thing... And, you know, those napster users were probably smoking teh pot too. Criminals. All of them.
The judge is thinking there's no way files can be legitimately shared... Who makes their own music? Why would they want to give it away? Smells like some kind of crazy thing my weird liberal parents might have done.
Let's not forget the judge has a windows desktop using totally proprietary software with antivirus and antispyware and anti-this and anti-that run by a system administrator who babysits the judge when the computer has a hic-up.
The judge experiences it all as working and working well, so where's the crime here?
End of LimeWire.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Now I'm just going to tell you this and then retreat from this argument, because I can tell you're not familiar with this subject. I don't think you've ever heard of heresay rules, for example, where judges determine whether evidence is admissable or not in a court of law (this is not "weighing the evidence, by the way--that is something different). Like most of what a judge does, it is a purely administrative function that has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of a party, but instead provides a kind of constructive legal environment in which that determination can be made. In fairness, I didn't know that either until I went to law school. Cheers.
P.S. These are rules of civil procedure (i.e. they work great for civil cases, you know...lawsuits). Murder cases use a supplemental set of rules that prevent exactly the situation you described.
As much as I wish someone other than a file sharing software maker was running the ball on this play, it's still a big deal for someone to be bringing up antitrust issues as a plaintiff against the RIAA - even if it's only as a "counter plaintiff".
For the time being, I say forget who LimeWire is and what the majority of their users do; get behind them in this. Whether LimeWire prevails in their defense pales in significance compared to the importance of these counterclaims.
IANAL of course.
Pi Ran Out
I'm glad to see someone finally attempting to take the RIAA to the mat on this one. There probably is some substance to the allegations, and it certianly would do a good job of airing the RIAA's dirty laundry, since this counter claim will entitle LimeWire to all sorts of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Unfortunately....
This is a very poorly written counterclaim. It reads like a junior-high anti-RIAA manifesto, not a pleading appropriate for a federal lawsuit. For example (this is all taken from the counterclaim):
"27. Counter-Defendants' latest attack on such 'disruptive' technology is not new, for history shows that when new technology is invented that potentially disrupts the exclusive distribution channels content owners are accustomed to and profit from, they usally attack such technology with a vengance"
"28. This case is but one part of a much larger modern conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models."
Now, I know allegations set forth in a pleading do not require specifics (that what discovery and trial are for...to prove facts), but c'mon. These are extraordiarily sweeping generalizations. Further, LimeWire may have problems actually proving the RIAA is attempting to destory "all innovation", as allegation 28 claims. I imagine that they are attempting to use this pleading as some kind of a manifesto, but that is not appropriate for a court of law, and virtually ensures limewire will not survive RIAA's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim.
Fortunately, pleadings can be easily amended, and I hope LimeWire will amend them so the legitimate issues can actually have a chance to be litigated. Such sweeping allegations do little to set precedent, even with a summary judgment motion (as a smarter litigator would lay out more specific claims, largely precluding any precedental effect); nonetheless, it makes the anti-RIAA cause seem childish and devoid of intellegent argument against the RIAA's monopolistic practices.
Change this to "whether certain types of evidence is admissable or not in a court of law, notably evidence that could be possibly be excluded under heresay rules. There are separate admissability rules and heresay rules and exceptions are a kind of subset of them." I wish this had an editing function. I still don't have an evidence rulebook in front of me and I'm doing this from memory. Just didn't want to give you the wrong information. Have a good one.
"you know.. that OJ is just such a good football player and such a beloved public figure.. i just don't believe he could have murdered anyone.. therefore I'm tossing out the prosecution's case without even scrutinizing the facts" ...if a member of the jury decided to act thusly.
I was on a jury in a drug case.
Even if I did not have a personal policy of "no guilty verdict" in any drug case, I still would have had reservations regarding the lead detective. At the risk of sounding trite - he just didn't sound believable. A couple of years later, he was indicted for fraud.
Jury nullification works.
and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Seriously though, I came to this same conclusion about a year ago. I could not have put it better myself.
Equating "warfare" with "murder" just doesn't make sense, especially to a bunch of geeks. Look at the quote in the title of my comment: how often did you hear that on television (or if you're old enough, in the theater)? I don't recall the protagonist ever actually killing the enemy in his declared war, instead going for painful humiliation. War nowadays in common usage means a conflict where you want the other side to surrender (unless you're a politician declaring war on poverty, drugs or terror).
How many were killed in the cola wars? When Microsoft declared war against Netscape, how many Netscape employees were killed? Or are you just trying to show that your analogies really are bad and thus disarm them preemptively?
The RIAA will have a hard time beating an MP3 LAN party....
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The purpose of Rule 11 is to prevent parties from engaging in abusive litigation. In the most general terms, Rule 11 means that if a party brings a suit, they need a minimal basis for that suit. Rule 11 is a court adopted rule and as such, it should be expected that courts will be responsible for interpreting and applying it. Remember, court procedure is merely about creating a fair forum so that a fact finder (judge or jury) can decide the ultimate issues. Shotgunning the court with baseless claims is detrimental to a fair process. Because it is the court's duty to provide a fair process, it must be able to step in when things get out of hand.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
well.. then for tens of thousands of citizens of this country.. rule 11 has failed to protect them from abusive RIAA litigation ^^
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I'm not going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole - 3.048 meter pole for those of you that don't use US customary units.
Never mind, I saw from your other post that you're just a troll.
My respect for limewire just went up ten fold. As for the RIAA, I still loathe them. I'm glad to see someone going for the jugular even though I somehow doubt this will accomplish anything. Perhaps it will motivate other businesses to gather arms against the RIAA?
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
a judge's duties are to interpret existing laws and weigh evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of a party Huh? Guilt and innocence don't have a godam thing to do with this. This is a law suit. Stop getting all your legal info from TV.
IAAL too, and I tend to agree that despite common perceptions, it would be unusual for any serious law firm to advise its client to file a totally frivolous claim just as a stunt - apart from anything else the lawyers themselves would be exposed to a follow up suit from their clients. Looking at the circumstances, it's obvious that this will be high profile, the RIAA will come down on it as hard as possible, and the potential costs are huge, all of which suggest that it wouldn't happen without careful consideration of the consequences.
As such I wouldn't be surprised if there was some merit in it too.
In addition, I tend to regard the question of 'frivolity' as somewhat irrelevant for all but the most obviously stupid claims. It is an unfortunate consequence of the adversarial legal system that once you get over a certain fairly low bar in terms of merit, money, quality of representation, luck, and tactics all have a great deal to do with your prospects of success (as the RIAA know very well). As such it would be pretty surprising if Limewire didn't at least get over that minimum bar.
Read Pynchon.
Not quite: "abusive" means without a basis in existing law or fact, or that there are no reasonable arguments to extend existing law. A law is not "abusive" just because one dislikes it. So for example, if a person violates another's copyright, the content-owner may sue the infringing-user for damages.
An example of abusive litigation would be if the RIAA intentionally sued someone when it absolutely knew he/she had not violtaed their copyrights. It is not likely to be considered abusive for the RIAA to sue someone if they have a reasonable factual basis to believe a violation took place. Note, a "reasonable factual basis" is not the same as an "ironclad case". So linking an IP address "owner" with shared music files is probably a strong enough basis to start a case. Other facts might change this during the discovery process but at least intially, it certainly wouldn't be "abusive" in the sense used here. For example, if in discovery it came out that the IP address "owner" didn't actually buy the network service, but someone else did after stealing his credit card, the RIAA would really need to drop the suit.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
How can anyone with brains defend Limewire? It's entire business model is based on making content they do not own available to entities not entitled to it.
Can we get three or more front page slashdot titles with the word "sue" in them today?
:-)
Times are a-changing
...and artists!
Thanks!
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
The RIAA is running scared. Thier stranglehold om the music industry is about end. THis is good. Not becasue the RIAA is EVIL, but becasue it is in my opinion Stagnant. The best artists it seem never get a good break as oftwen as it seems. THe interent is just beginning to open the floodgate on what is available in Music. The RIAA does not have control over what people are listening to any more and the music industry will change for the better. The people who take adavantage of the internet will profit for the good of us all. The RIAA is still trying to hold the status quo and is terrified of what the internt lets people do. Pick and choose the music THEY THE CUSTOMER wants. The actions of the Anti-trust suit is the defense of the individual from the dying Dinosaur on a rampage trying to stay alive. The RIAA NMust change with the times and accept what is happening or it will die a slow painful death.
Never mind, I saw from your other post that you're just a troll.
really now.. that's uncalled for.
Trolls say what they say with the express purpose of provoking people to anger.
I say what I say because I believe it needs to be said, no matter how unpopular it may be.
I admit I at times get zealous and even spring into hyperbole. You can think what you want of the points I try to put across, but I post to put an idea across and spark meaningful conversation (o.k... possibly debate, but with intent to expand points of view, not with malice)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The idea that a single person can cause a multibillion dollar industry "damages" is most definitely unreasonable.
This multibillion dollar industry turning around and bankrupting a single person for said alleged "damage" is abusive any way you slice it.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
You will need it. They have a tad larger war chest, and win the war of attrition pretty easy. But good luck anyway.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But what the hey, it's the thought that counts, right?
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
IANAL, but I do work in patent/copyright/trademark law. Antitrust counterclaims are so common, it's ridiculous. This counterclaim doesn't mean anything. Basically, antirturst counterclaims are just reflixive defensive maneuvers. What happens is that I sue you for infringement, and then you countersue me, claiming that my initial suit is knowingly baseless and that by asserting it against you, I am in violation of antiturst laws. That is, my suit against you is an unfair practice against competition; by filing it against you, I am using a baseless charge (which I know to be baseless) to stiffle competition. Almost all of these go nowhere. That's not to say that none of them do, but really, almost all of them have no bite except to add a few more filings with the court and a little more discovery and arguments on each side.
So what? The recording industries model is based on owning content they do not make. They are surplus to requirements nowadays as the artists themselves (or their agents) can handle distribution just fine.
I think this one is different, because it is totally true. Basically all of the facts it alleges are indisputable. As any antitrust lawyer knows, even under the purely undisputed facts, the 4 major record labels have definitely stepped over the line vis a vis the antitrust laws. The only question is whether the Lime Wire defendants have the staying power (read: "money") to see their excellent claims through to fruition. This is the most important technology case in the country, and I will be watching it closely, linking to the key *pdf court filings here.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
As much as I'd like to see the RIAA and it's international equivalents get a kick up the backside, 'see the light' and implement a decent, legal alternative that includes all artists at a reasonable price, this is just a silly claim.
First, it's reactionary - counterclaims seem to be a bit childish "You said I did this, but YOU did this, ner ner ner-ner ner" and most of them never even see the light of day.
LimeWire is a content distribution system, not a competitor to the record industry, and the content that they distribute is actually owned by the record *industry*. Were this a single record company that was dictating how and when it's music could be sold, and they were a record shop who had been denied the right to buy/sell their products, they may have a case.
Additionally, quite a lot of the content that flies over LimeWire is actually not legal at all, vastly outweighing that which may be legal. This is like a video shop that sells mostly pirate videos suing the movie industry for "monopolising" the video industry and not letting them distribute their videos as they see fit.
It won't go anywhere. It won't even make it past the court's most basic ruling stages.
you could have just said
"Motion to Strike will quickly dispose of this"
ianal but yart (you are a retard)
And yes, I know that they want us to pay each time we download it, until we die, over and over again. I know they're evil, but is there an option here for an effective defense?
Where are you two when we need to hear from you? :)
:)
j/k
(Note: Given that caitsith was a fake, how do we know that caitsith01 ISN'T a fake?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Open Source Development: The irrational belief that a group of script kiddies can produce a working program.
Your sig is bullshit.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
While I'm against piracy of all kinds, and see little justification for it in most cases, (despite pirates hypersensitive claims to the contrary) I see this as a good move.
i rember a older suit where they told the riaa they cant sue p2p networks but to go after users correct me if im wrong but wouldent that make the limewire suit total bs.
I'm surprised Limewire of all people is fighting back; I would have thought BitTorrent or such would have struck back before Limewire.
Nonetheless, I am happy the RIAA is finally getting hit with their own medicine; this whole online music fiasco is really starting to annoy me, let alone make me worry about the music I have and what punishments I may get for buying any RIAA-sponsored music labels. This is why I currently don't buy anything RIAA-sponsored.
I don't know what the status of the RIAA is, but in many European countries, there is a single organization tasked with finding and prosecuting copyright violations. In other words, competition is prohibited by law. If the same is true of the RIAA, I don't see how they can be accused of anticompetitive practices.
Ok, I think this is a simple misunderstanding. I am not a lawyer, so if I get some of this wrong, someone correct me.
First, in the USA there is no one organization that is charged with finding and prosecuting copyright violations. Second, the anticompetitive behavior RIAA is accused of is not the prevention of others finding and prosecuting copyright violations, it is the protection of the sales pricing of recorded music, or working to eliminate competition in the recorded music distribution marketplace. Limewire could be viewed as an competitive recorded music distribution company - it is therefore in competition with the old music companies - the attempt by RIAA to stamp them out is anticompetitive.
Having an organization that works to protect pricing of a product is illegal in the USA. I work for a trade association (the members are companies that produce products for sale) and we have to be very careful that nobody even mentions product pricing at any of our meetings because of the antitrust laws here.
Putting moderation advice in your
The problem with this logic is that despite all these supposed failings with the American Electorate, there have been times in our history where 3rd party candidates have gone so far as to win the presidency. However, in every case one of the previous two major parties withered and died. There really have never been more than two major parties for any extended length of time in this country's history.
I don't buy that Americans somehow are stupider and lazier than human beings sitting in other countries. Most of us wouldn't be here if our ancestors weren't among the most ambitious and motivated people in their home countries. The lazy Europeians and Asians and South Americans stayed home. Instead, it seems that there is something about our (rather unique) political system that naturally causes two (and only two) stable parties to form.
I figured this out the other day.
The eventual plan of the copyright cartels is this: First, continually lobby Congress for longer and longer copyright protections. That way, nothing ever falls out of copyright.
As time goes on, the cartels will buy up all the copyrighted content they can, from individual content producers. Not all content producers will be willing to sell to the cartels, but many will.
As the amount of copyrighted material piles up, it'll be harder and harder to produce something which doesn't resemble other copyrighted material, most of which will be owned by the cartels.
So the cartels will sue (or threaten to sue) the individual content producers for violating their copyrights -- and the deal they'll offer is either to buy the content for a pittance (and drop the lawsuit), or to take it all in the lawsuit (which they will have little trouble winning, most of the time).
The end result is that the cartels will control almost all copyrightable content. The only material they don't control will be the content that's been produced so recently that they haven't had time to sue the creator yet.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Been gone for months -- work contracts in fall take up 20 hours a day. Weird to be back.
I repudiate copyright. I make content -- written word, music, we even design lighting shows for congregations. We copyright nothing and openly allow people to copy it. I now produce 3 bands who repudiate copyright. At their shows, they say "Hey! Buy our CDs if you like our music, copy it for your friends and family." Why is this bad? The music is a nice income, but their SHOWS are their real labor. A great album takes me 4-12 weeks to produce, and can make significant money for the band over years of show dates.
How about bands (and content creators) get their music on Lime Wire NOW, and try to get their music into the music stores? How about anti-RIAA supporters download this LEGAL music from Lime Wire. Now individuals, NOT CLASS LITIGATION, can work together on a Wiki site that encourages EVERYONE to put together a nice lawsuit to file individually, locally. What does it cost the individual to sue the RIAA in small claims for hampering their freedom to transact business? The RIAA _can not stop_ all the lawsuits, so judgements might be had.
I'm not talking about any group boycott, I'm talking about enabling individuals to help each other in their individual testimony against the RIAA.
FWIW, I repudiate the law, as well, and I would never sue another person in court. If I have a beef, I get a third party arbitrator. I don't do business with individuals who won't agree to this basic hand-shake agreement. Just an idea for others.
The RIAA exists essentially for illeagle price fixing, and it's high time that somebody called them on it.
If it's dead, you killed it.
Actually, prohibition was a prime example that you can't enforce a law that the people aren't willing to obey.
The proponents of that law were in the extreme minority with little to gain by the population obeying it. For a law to succeed there has to be some resulting benefit desireable by the majority of the population. Murder is illegal because the majority of us desire to live in peace and without fear.
The RIAA on the other hand has a lot to gain and more resources to effectively make a dent in the enforcement. Copyright law no longer serves to protect the interest of the majority. Anymore it protects only those with deep pockets who want to keep it that way, so the majority don't hold it to high regard anymore. The RIAA will continue to stink the place up. Hopefully we will eventually see reform. Copyright law must be reshaped to represent its original intent: To assimilate content (art,music,literature,etc...) into culture with _limited_ protection on the copyright holder.
Yes, that's right folks, it was originally _limited_ protection, not _infinite_!
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
Much as I enjoy slamming the RIAA, I'm not sure how antitrust comes into this. There's thousands of artists distributing music online, either directly from their own websites or through sites like the Piano Society, download.com, Magnatune, emusic.com, and many others for free or for pay.
You need to apply the correct definition of "abuse" for the unique usage of rule 11. You are confusing colloquial "abuse" with "rule 11 abuse". In a rule 11 context we are not talking about the ill effect enforcement would have on the individual -- we're talking about whether there is a legal basis for the suit. When a lawsuit is filed for which there is no legal basis, both the court and the sued-party are "abused" -- but we're talking "abuse of process". So while a valid lawsuit may have a "non-rule-11-abusive" effect (under other definitions of the term "abuse"), "abuse" in the rule 11 context flows from specific circumstances, i.e, "abuse" exists only when the lawsuit itself has a no valid legal and factual basis.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Trust me: win, lose or draw - this is not the last time *AA will be sued. Their previous policy of attacking only the defenseless was mind-shatteringly brilliant. Unfortunately, now they're not involved with granny and her "computer thingie", or taking nickels off school-kids - they've attacked somebody's income, somebody with more than a few G's to lose! Damned straight they're gonna fight back like hell. I just hope the RIAA doesn't choose to settle out-of-court.
Yes, they would care.
The Record Companies and by extention the RIAA are just like the Agents in "The Matrix". "They hold all the keys, and they guard all the doors" If you are going to distribute music in a big way, you MUST go to the Lables. If you, as a retailer, want to sell popular music, you MUST go to the Lables.
The Lables, take most of the risk, putting out hundreds of albums a year, with only a few proving to be hits. But the ones that really are hits, make the Lables lots of money. Today, some of the best selling ablums, day in, day out, are Pink Floyd, and The Beattles. This back catalog, costs them nothing, but rakes in big money, day after day after day.
Why? Because in the indentured servitude of artist to the record lable. The lable owns the music forever and makes the big money off of anything that sells. If it is not fair, why then does the artist not sign the unfair contract and sell it themselves? Because the reality is, without a lable, you cant sell on a large scale or get airplay, for a large enough audience to hear your music.
P2P is one of the ways the internet changes that. And if ANY artist, any garage band, via there website sells their album, and via P2P, have people discover there music, and then there website. The record labels, see NONE of that money. They can't claim the lions share for taking the risk for the artist of putting the album out. They can't take the lions share for the burden of adverising. They can't take the lionss share for being the source of music that sells.
For the lables to continue to make the kind of money they are used to, being what, 80% or more of the acutal profit from record sales, they have to be THE SOURCE for music. P2P has the power to cut them out of that loop and reduce them to having to play fair with artits and retailers. Taking their fair share for the work they do, and the service they actually provide artits.
They may squeel like a stuck pig right now, over piracy, and how much they are loosing, even with them making more now than they ever did before. But in the shell game of what is real, and what is spin, follow the money. The shell with the money under it, the one they keep in motion, the one they are trying to distract you from. Is the one where P2P destroys their stronghold on both the artist and retailer.
vi +
Copyright is not a moral right, it is a government issued legal right. And guess who the government is? We are. Despite the bleating and brainwashing of the entertainment industry, it is not stealing, it is copyright infringement. Copyrights can be given and they can be taken away. And my respect for the entertainment industry's interpretations of copyright is right on par with the entertainment industry's respect for the general public's ideas about fair use.
You'll re-buy parts of your music collection every time there's a format change or a hardware change.
You will have to pay more for used CDs (the RIAA argues royalties are owed to the artists for each sale, not just first sale).
You will have to pay fees to the RIAA for the purchase of blank media, since it can be used for infringing purposes.
More frivolous lawsuits that cost them little but potentially innocent defendants a lot.
I'd much rather their lawyers were busy tangling with LimeWire than thinking more ways to tighten their copyright noose.
bah.
In your face RIAA bassturds
I think I'm going to put that in my journal under Best of Slashdot.
The role of laziness is beyond argument but let's give TV the blame it deserves. The big money goes for buying TV time. The first TV election, most people say, was 1960: how many good Presidents have we had since then? The three before were FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower.
Imagine this. You can regulate the time and manner of even political speech legally (no sound trucks at 3AM in residential areas, for example). From 1971 onward, tobacco ads were banned from TV on the grounds that they damaged society. It'll never happen, but what if campaign ads were banished from hypnotic, emotion-stoking, uninformative TV? What if anyone who wanted to win an election had to inspire enough volunteers to ring doorbells, persuade enough newspaper readers to talk to their neighbors?
The downside might be more power for party organizations.
This is the chance for you to support a case you believe in....
This is one of the best /. posts I've seen for legal interpretations - a lot of lawyers are explaining things in a manner that is educational for those of us not versed in law.
Kudos to all of you so participating.
I am sure this has come up before but I need to ask:
If the RIAA sues me because my IP address was noted sharing content, is it reasonable to say:
"You can't assume it was me - I have a wireless router running for my laptop and didn't set up encryption because
or
It's likely that a number of other people are using my connection at any given time."
Wouldn't this pretty much make it impossible to flag you as the guilty party then, especially after you received notice that you were being sued and removed all traces of the p2p program and illegal materials from your system?
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
Yesterday evening a critically important major antitrust suit was brought against the big 4 record labels. If this case is seen through to conclusion it will probably result in the breaking of the Big Music cartel's attempt to put a stranglehold on online digital music throughout the world.
And yet it seems that we are talking about everything but.
We are not even talking about the copyright issues that will be in play as a result of the RIAA's complaint which was filed 2 months ago.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
oops...that didn't work. Sorry the reasons didn't appear.
the reasons weren't important anyway - a lot of people run unsecured wireless connections - does that absolve you of guilt in this matter or would it blur it enough to get you cleared?
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
ive read this one like 10 times... time for somethign new_
It's about time. The RIAA has run over the rights of independant artists for so long, that no action to stop them is to extreme. Until we get weapons grade material, (we've already got the open source bomb project,) our best bet is to give donations to LimeWire for legal expenses.
Go Lime Wire!
Andy Out!
Very well put. I didn't mean to tear that poor kid down earlier. I'm reading several of my comments now and going "Wow, I'm kind of an asshole!" It was late at night and I had just finished a Scotch on the rocks...why I chose that time to answer questions on Slashdot is beyond me.
Anyways, thank you for explaining to him how far-from-strange it is for judges to interpret their own procedural rules. I answered it like "Seriously? But that's part of their job..." but you were kind enough to take the time to lay it out for him. Well done.
Oddly enough, I was just talking about you. I did come off as kind of an ass--I'm sorry about that. Don't let old lawyer bastards like me make you feel dumb. I love that you are eager and willing to learn about this subject, and don't let old lawyer bastards like me convince you that that's a bad thing. Take care.
Has everyone forgotten, that most of the big record companies that the RIAA represents, also have divisions within their companies that create recordable media? (i.e. CD/DVD Burners, Blank CD/DVD Media)
Good for them. I am buying a copy of LimeWire Pro, and will renew it every six months as long as they are standing up to the record companies in this manner.
Sent from my iPhone
Limewire is the last company who should be suing XXXAA.
If only Itunes would join suit....
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Here's an interesting link: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_15.ht
and their comment:
I was always fascinated by the punitive damages theory because it's not the way my countries' legal system works (there are several large legal traditions, ours is mostly based on the Spanish one which is itself based on the Roman one).
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Thing is, the labels don't pay the artists NOW. The current crop of contracts defines the artists' work as 'work for hire', and grabs the copyrights up for the label. Thus, the artists can be prohibited from performing their own songs!! Remember 'the artist formerly known as Prince'? Seems he somehow allowed his label to copyright his name and couldn't use it when Prince & The Revolution broke up...
Already there, IIRC. There's a fee for blank media to cover this, it came in with blank cassette tape, which, IIRC, back in the day, was decried to mean the end of 'record labels as we know it'. 'The Betamax decision' comes to mind...
Considering that's their current business model, that would be a given.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest." -- Robert Heinlein, "Life-Line" (1939)
I don't know the legal answer to this, but I think part of it may come down to if a person is responsible for the activity that goes on over an internet connection they have purchased. I tend to think they should be, but that is not for sure.
Your excuses may cloud the issue, or they may come back and say 'prove someone else has been using your connection without your knowledge', which you cannot do without showing that you could have known about it when it was happening. Or they may ask to provide the records of who was using it and when, same as your ISP provided to them when they got your name.
You can try it, but I think I would have a backup plan in place.
You should not be getting your legal advice from Slashdot discussions. That would be most unwise.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I know people will say it has nothing to do with his points, but written communication follows a syntax - the more we deviate from that structure, the more chance we have of missing the point, and perpetuating bad usage.
Oh, and "their" was actually used correctly at one point - why did it stop? I can take the occasional typo (even a "word" typo), but there are just too many these days.
I find myself cringing a little bit more, each time.
To the poster, good points, but please take a bit more time and make it an even better post.
You don't need Geeksintraining if you're on Slashdot.
What's the 5-digit UID signify?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I'd just like to say Thank you! for taking the time to do informative posts.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
That was an unfair debating tactic. If you disagree with someone, speak to it on the merits, don't ask him his nationality.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If you owned a gun and somebody stole it, killed someone with it, and then returned it to your house all before you realized it was missing, you'd still be innocent of the murder. And if the prosecution connected your gun to the crime the burden of proof would still be on themn to prove that you had committed or aided in the committing of the crime.
But if I were you I'd sure as hell hope I had an airtight alibi for where I was and what I was doing when the crime was committed.
Insert witty sig here.
I was just about to give my nephew some old clothes that didnt fit me anymore when all the sudden, k-mart lawers knocked on the door and arrested me
what a crock o shit..next the RIAA will be going after the old grammas at yard sales
Title should read "Good guy lobs grenade over fence into RIAA territory"