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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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