Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Subpoenas Neighbor's Son, Calls His Employer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "To those who might think that I might be exaggerating when I describe the RIAA's litigation campaign as a 'reign of terror', how's this one: in UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA not only subpoenaed the computer of Ms. Lindor's son, who lives 4 miles away, but had their lawyer telephone the son's employer. See page 2, footnote 1." From Ray's comments: "You have a multi-billion dollar cartel suing unemployed people, disabled people, housewives, single mothers, home healthcare aids, all kinds of people who have no resources whatsoever to withstand these litigations. And due to the adversary system of justice the RIAA will be successful in rewriting copyright law, if the world at large, and the technological community in particular, don't fight back and help these people fighting these fights."
What's worse is that it's not even the accused, it's the accused's son.
...before it becomes actionable defamation? Surely they've already crossed the boundary and this guy has grounds to sue for slander, right?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Stop committing copyright infringement maybe?
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Not only will they sue you, they do everything in thier power to make your life and that of your families a misery.
-b.
And stop funding these people by boycotting their products, of course...
BOYCOTT!!!! Listen to what you already have and don't purchase or download anything else for a year.
Go to concerts and enjoy live performances but DO NOT BY RECORDINGS IN STORES OR ONLINE!
If most people took this approach, it would bring the recording industry to its knees or at least drive prices into the ground where they should be.
Not for nothing, but it appears that the son was deliberately avoiding receiving the subpoena (good for him, every attempt at re-delivery is costing the plaintiffs cold, hard cash) -- and if he does this at home, he should expect and deal with the consequences (the subpoena being served to him at work).
The plaintiff's lawyers decided to play tit-for-tat and ask his employer about the possibility of the son's work computer having material potentially relevant to the case.
The lesson is, if you want to play hardball with the MPAA, then you'd better bring your bat, glove, and catcher's mask.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The main objective is to heighten the fear of using one's own files into the hearts of "normal" users.
Much like a dog that has been beaten for no reason, consumers then get into a frame of mind where they will go to entertainment corps first and follow crazy usage rules in order to avoid getting criminalized.
In exchange, then entertainment mega-corps content consumption will appear cheaper.
I'm liking vhs/dvd's much more now than ever. (until I can build a silent mythtv box anyway)
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
It really is a great theory... but it wouldn't work. There are too many people that do NOT see this sort of information that will continue to buy music and purchase normally. Of course everyone wants some boycott... but how often do they REALLY work? You just can't reach the necessary audience and have the necessary impact on them for it to be successful.
They'd just blame piracy.
I really have to wonder how the RIAA think they're going to get anywhere with all of this. They are suing people, but they're suing like .001% of filesharers, and it looks like 5-10 percent of their cases are missing horribly (dead people, people without computers, etc.). Then they make all sorts of ridiculous demands and steamroller people with their financial backings. I mean, they're totally destroying the US legal system and wrecking lives at random, but they can't be making that much money off this, and they aren't cutting down on piracy.
Litvinenko blamed the Russians as he lay dying in hospital. Doesn't make him any more alive now, does it?
-b.
Stop committing copyright infringement maybe?
Ain't gonna happen. Copyright law has become so ridiculously restrictive that it has become nearly impossible not to infringe. The majority of people just don't care about it anymore.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
He didn't ask if it was outrageous, he asked if it was unusual.
And given the circumstances, it's not even outrageous -- assuming that the plaintiff's assertions that repeated attempts to deliver the subpoena at the son's stated address failed. If you read the footnotes you linked to, there's some pretty dodgy stuff there about avoiding the subpoena. If true, the plaintiff was fully justified.
Making the summary sound like they contacted the employer out of the blue is sensationalist, misleading, dishonest, and, in fact, outrageous.
Note that I completely disagree with the RIAA's tactics in re: intimidation of targeted suspects. However, your yellow journalism just increases the amount of people who also believe that plenty of people who are against the RIAA are no better then them. FUD, etc.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Boycott corporate music. Support your local (or another location's for that matter) indie music scene. Go to open mic nights at clubs, if you like something you hear buy their burned-on-a-pc cd's with fuzzy photocopied covers with third rate photoshop work(lense flares are teh awesome!!). There's more great music out there than what the idiots at BMG float.
The simple solution would be to ban trade association enforcement. In one swoop that would take out the BSA, RIAA and MPAA. Make the parent companies be the litigants. If Sony starts suing people for file sharing consumers might well start avoiding all their products at the store.
Make the companies behind these tactics be front and center in any adverse actions and you'll see lawsuits against all but the worst offenders, the ones very few of us feel sorry for, dry up almost overnight.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
problem solved.
While their tactics can be extreme it's not like they're going through a phone book and randomly suing people. They find an IP that's illegally sharing files of content that is copyright by the RIAA and then contact the ISP to get the information of the person that is responsible for the account the IP was assigned to at the time the offense was committed.
It doesn't matter what your socioeconomic status is. If you break the law, you broke the law and are subject to punishment. I don't think anyone doesn't understand that if you have something you were supposed to pay for but took it without permission and without paying, you broke the law.
Game companies do the same thing. It doesn't matter what electonic media you're peddling illegally. It's all warez; music, movies, games etc. And the companies that are victims of the crime are fighting back.
It's rediculous to try to paint the people committing the crime as the victim just because they're everyday people. There's nothing nobel about taking things you have no right to have.
Work Safe Porn
1. Don't steal* music.
Right, which works perfectly assuming also that everyone the RIAA brings a suit against actually committed copyright infringement (*fixed that for ya). However the GP's question was how to support the people who aren't necessarily guilty, and/or being absolutely wiped out financially by the RIAA. One of the points that is usually contested is that the fine per infringement is rediculously high ($750 per song) and that level of damage doesn't even have to be demonstrated by the RIAA, they just need to prove there was infringement, whether one copy or 100. Adiitionally their tactics are very underhanded, to the point of almost being outright extortion. They have demonstrated in many cases thus far - sorry don't have time to go compile all the links - that they will use legal stalls to drag out the suits and make it more expensive for the defendent, as well as in a couple cases dropping the charges when it looks like they will lose, usually in such a way that the defendent cannot make a motion to recoup lawyers fees. THAT is what we're looking for solutions for. The fact is that the cost to defend oneself even when you are 100% innocent is so high that for a lot of people it's cheaper and easier to fold and pay the settlement money to the RIAA. That's not justice, that's scamming the system and taking advantage of people to prevent them from even having a chance to defend themselves. And even if they ARE guilty of the infringement, going to court might give them the chance to have the fines imposed be more reasonable than the proposed settlement value. Justice is not being served by people being extorted with the choice of admit full guilt and pay $X now, or suffer the financially crushing wrath of our multi-million dollaar legal team who can and will bleed you dry to make a point if nothing else.
I welcome your response to this but please at least identify yourself as the parent AC for clarity and continuity if you respond.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
First of all let me say that I am a Musician. The FUD about downloading costing them money is a smokescreen. What they are really afraid of is Musicians bypassing the record companies entirely and selling their music directly to consumers online. Remember MP3.COM it was shut down by the RIAA even though the music that was available on the site was posted by the musicians that held the copyrights to it. They are afraid that musicians will figure out that they are no longer needed as a middleman. There is an excellent article by Steve Albini who was involved with many of the Seattle Grunge Bands during their heyday. The Article shows just how screwed a Band will Get for Signing a contract and having a hit record. And how much money everyone else makes off them. http://www.negativland.com/albini.html This has nothing to do with "saving the starving Artists" this is just greed.
Or are they unimportant in your eyes?
You know, people who espouse the kind of tactics you're condoning make me furious. Why do people like you just seem to assume that the artist deserves all the money? Has it ever occurred to you that your very starting premise is flawed? Why should the spoiled, whiny, drug-addicted, self-centered, egotistical singer get all the money for showing up (late) at the studio, singing a few songs that someone else wrote for them, then going off, getting drunk, and partying while the real work begins, making the album? I'd love to hear an answer from one of you "all-the-money-to-the-artist" types.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
They'd drop the case. They are nothing but bullies without the balls to fight. They are hoping you give in.
There have been plenty of responses thus far to your question, but IMHO none of them go far enough.
Here's what needs to be done: stop listening to music. Completely. Don't listen to corporate music. Or indie music. Or local bands. Don't go to concerts. Don't listen to the radio. Don't own a radio. Don't buy music. Don't download music, legally or illegally. Don't trade it. Don't have any CDs or tapes or LPs or 8-tracks. Get rid of it all.
The reason the recording industry seems to have so many people in their clutches is that so many people have made music a part of their lifestyle. Remove music -- ALL music -- from your life, totally. Change your lifestyle.
That will hurt them the most, and they will have no power over you.
But so few are willing to do that. You've been trained to think your every action, your every waking moment, needs a soundtrack. It doesn't.
Let the RIAA control music all they want. Every lyric, every note, every recordable sound. So what? You don't need any of it. They can control all the music, but it only has value if someone else wants it. Stop wanting it.
Just because you never planned on buying it doesn't entitle you to a free copy of it. Why should you get a freebie just because you're less interested? *I* pirate music. I make absolutely no excuses for it, nor do I try to sugar coat it. What I do is illegal. Do I feel that the RIAA charges an absurd amount for music? Yes, and they've been punished for it, but they've just paid the fine because it was more profitable. Do I think the RIAA uses racketeering tactics? Yes, they pick on people who have no means to defend themselves. As brutish as they are, and they are brutish, what I'm doing is *illegal*. Your short-sighted view of piracy doesn't see the larger picture. It is becoming oversubscribed, and like any slashdotter, let me blow this way out of proportion. Presumably if music piracy continues to grow at this exponential rate, how long is it going to be before it becomes to not be profitable to make music? We sir, you and I may be contributing to the eventual total demise of the commercial music industry, and while that prospect does sadden me, I won't stop downloading music that I want. I make no excuses for my actions. I suggest you get off of your high horse and, at the very least, take responsibility for your actions.
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
In a leftover from the days of Shellac, record company's deduct 'breakages' from their artists fees for their product reaching the reseller. Unfortunately the advent of robust media such as vinyl and now the CD has not done anything for some of these ridiculous costs. Somewhere on the web there is quite a good explanation of where the money goes, and similar to films, it is amazing what can disappear as production costs.
See my journal, I write things there
Fight fire with fire.
They don't listen to reason, they listen to money. Denying them money is like denying fuel to fire.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Do you ever shop in a store or eat in a restaurant? If so, you're supporting the RIAA. They also get a cut of blank media and hard drives in many countries. Let's see...radio, movies, TV all cut checks as well. I'd say in today's world it is impossible to not give them money.
You can only minimize it.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Actually, the first three of those really do freak the money-grubbing power elite right out. The most threatening thing you can do to the current social order is nothing. That's right, nothing. Sit on your ass. Don't produce. Don't consume. Do nothing.
Of course it's actually very hard to survive that way - if you do, you will certainly be supported by someone supporting the current system. So here is an alternative method for dodging the system. Warning: It may involve dramatic changes in lifestyle.
First of all, you need to get your hands on some land somewhere and some suitable housing. For something like $20,000 you can get a shipping container and a kit that makes it into a home, some assembly required. This will be a home requiring very little maintenance as it will be wrapped in steel which is highly durable. It can stand up to high winds and in an earthquake it will remain intact and whole. For about $15,000 you can build a straw bale structure with a traditional roof. For about $10,000 you can build a cob home, but it will require endless maintenance so I wouldn't go that route. You can get a geodesic dome for anywhere from $1,000 to $50,000 (and up) depending on material and features.
Your land should ideally have some water supply, some means of generating alternative power (you don't need much) and a southern exposure. Everything else is a nicety. Anything you don't have you will have to pay for, so you will have to continue working, so you will have to continue contributing to the system.
You'll be growing crops :)
But seriously, it is possible for us all to dramatically decrease our consumption. I realize consumption is fun and I do plenty of it, but we're simply fueling the same power structure that we claim to dislike so much.
In the lower end, you can make a difference based simply on where you spend your money. Always do your best to give it to the least evil company, even if it costs you more. In a capitalist society, where you spend your money has more of an impact on society than anything else.
But if you want to bring the system crashing down, we're all going to have to consume a lot less.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Um, the **AA's are evil (TM) money grubbing businesses, and pretty much everyone I know acknowledges that. There's no need to be a liberal to understand that.
I get the impression you think that the political left in this country is responsible for the DMCA and the abuses of the common man that have arisen since then. The DMCA was passed in a Republican-dominated congress by unanimous vote, and signed into law by President Clinton, arguably the best Republican (ahem) president this country has had in decades. You did read the bit about unanimous?
Most of your senators and representatives, Democrat and Republican, are bought and paid for by corporate special interests. Those corporate special interests want to keep their income steady and have made sure that laws intended to prevent the internet from threatening those income streams has been quickly passed.
This is not a left/right issue. This is a corporation/rest of us issue. The fact that you think it's a left/right issue just means that you're believing the corporatist propaganda. Good luck getting any straight information from talk radio. They're far too distracted unraveling nonexistent conspiracies to actually inform anyone. But good luck anyway.
Regards,
Ross
You do realise that Apple has done the same thing with the iPod, yes?